if a motorist knocks you off can you claim?

Takeaway_Addict

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

They aren't.

Hopefully the larger vehicle in any collision will be soon though. The introduction of Presumed Liability would bring us into line with the rest of Europe, and allow the most vulnerable party in the collision (and therefore the most likely party to be injured) the ability to claim damages faster. It may also have the knock-on effect of making the operators of larger vehicles more careful. This would also apply to cyclist vs pedestrians, where the cyclist would be presumed to be at fault unless proved otherwise.

let's hope not!

System

understand that pedestrians have priority

And therein lies the problem with a lot of pavement cyclists

Marco_Panettone

!!!!!! wrote: »

And therein lies the problem with a lot of pavement cyclists

Indeed. And plenty of drivers too. Far too many individuals are too selfish when they travel and see their journey as more important than the safety and wellbeing of other people. These people are dangerous, not their mode of transport.

smashingyour...

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Why is the motorist always considered to be the one in the wrong ???

Because it's relative to the ops question.

yangptangkipperbang

smashingyour... wrote: »

Because it's relative to the ops question.

...............because the OP has assumed the motorist was in the wrong (as cyclists usually do !)

Marco_Panettone

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

...............because the OP has assumed the motorist was in the wrong (as cyclists usually do !)

And you have assumed otherwise, as obvious trolls do...

If you look at the statistics you'll find that in collisions between cyclists and vehicles the driver can be shown to be at fault in the majority of cases.

http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases

andygb

!!!!!! wrote: »

And therein lies the problem with a lot of pavement cyclists

I am a cyclist, and I never ride on pavements, because generally speaking it is illegal (not to mention very dangerous for pedestrians), this is something which Marco Pannetone ought to be aware of.

Marco_Panettone

andygb wrote: »

I am a cyclist, and I never ride on pavements, because generally speaking it is illegal (not to mention very dangerous for pedestrians), this is something which Marco Pannetone ought to be aware of.

I am aware of it, and tend not to ride on pavements. I can, and do ride on 'shared paths' some of which are more unsuitable for cycling than 'normal' pavements due to their width, condition and 'street furniture'. Having a small blue sign attached to a pole does not suddenly create a safe environment. The absence of a small blue sign does not create a dangerous one either.

"But there's a sign" is not an excuse for using the road/pavement in a dangerous manner - understanding the environment and reacting accordingly with other people's safety as a priority makes the world a happier, safer and easier place to live and travel in.

thenudeone

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

Yes, but you need to have reported to police etc for that to happen.

No You don't. There is no obligation on a pedal cyclist to stop and report an accident.

But there is an obligation on the driver to stop and report if there was damage to any vehicle (presumably including a pedal cycle) or injury to anyone other than him/herself.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

In practice, if there was no physial contact, they would probably be able to argue they were unaware of the damage / injury caused.

vikingaero

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

They aren't.

Hopefully the larger vehicle in any collision will be soon though. The introduction of Presumed Liability would bring us into line with the rest of Europe, and allow the most vulnerable party in the collision (and therefore the most likely party to be injured) the ability to claim damages faster. It may also have the knock-on effect of making the operators of larger vehicles more careful. This would also apply to cyclist vs pedestrians, where the cyclist would be presumed to be at fault unless proved otherwise.

I forsee a new direction for the PPI/ambulance chasing industry if this happens with a marked increase in cycle accidents in areas where whiplash claims are high.;)