advice on bicycle and car accident

Cycrow

Guest101 wrote: »

As far as i can see it's anothe reason for cyclists to be licenced, registered (ie registration plates) and insured, like other road users.

and how would that have helped in this situation exactly ?

pedestrians are road users too, should they also be licenced, registered and insured ?

maybe everyone who leaves thier house must carry around a registration plate with them

fivetide

Cycrow wrote: »

maybe everyone who leaves thier house must carry around a registration plate with them

Bit far, I mean we're only talking cyclists here. Maybe they could be forced to wear some sort of marker to identify them as such at all times, even when they aren't on a bike, like you know, a yellow star or something.

Smithy7876

This seems to have gone a bit off topic.

Back to the point in hand, the insurance company has not got a leg to stand on. As far as I can make out the driver admitted liability to the police? As long as you have or can get hold of this statement then the insurance will have to back off.

They will only be claiming third party damages if the driver has now changed his story and trying to go for a non-fault claim.

Strider590

Guest101 wrote: »

As far as i can see it's anothe reason for cyclists to be licenced, registered (ie registration plates) and insured, like other road users.

Exactly the sort of attitude I was referring to in my last post.

You attack a group by attaching an irrelevant and negative point/trait to that group, in order to show them in a negative light without addressing the point of the debate. Which is the entire basis of the "cyclists don't pay road tax" rant we often hear. "You have no rights because you don't pay road tax".

ad-hominem

In more extreme parts of the world, women are to blamed when they are raped because "they wear provocative clothing". The 2nd point being entirely irrelevant to the fact that the rapist has committed a crime.

Attacking the victim is just cowardly.

Aretnap

Strider590 wrote: »

Ordinarily, if it were car v car then yes.......

But UK cyclists have no rights, even with evidence, the Police rarely prosecute the driver in these instances. The problem is that cyclists are a minority group and everyone else is in the majority.

Decades ago, if you were the wrong colour or had the wrong sexual preference, you had no rights. These are now protected by law, but discrimination still exists.
Cyclists on the other hand have no such protection and suffer the full wrath of discrimination from all quarters.
Even if you find a sympathetic Police officer, he/she can't move forward with a prosecution because they'd be fighting cyclist haters at every step.

It's only when someone posts a Youtube video and that video goes viral, that the Police bother to do anything.

First of all this is a civil claim - nothing to do with whether the police prosecute or not.

Secondly it's simply wrong. A recent study in Westminster found that police reports blame drivers for 68% of cycle/car accidents, with cyclists being blamed for 20% and the remainder having unclear or shared blame. That doesn't really tie in with cyclists always being assumed to be at fault because they're an easy target.

It's true that the police don't usually prosecute drivers over minor accidents with bikes or the sort of handbags-at-dawn incidents that people with headcams like to post up on YouTube. For the same reasons they tend not to prosecute drivers over minor accidents with other cars - they don't have the resources to prosecute every incident of bad driving, especially when the case is based on witnesses who may not turn up or be unconvincing on the stand rather than pictures from a speed camera, so if nobody is injured and details are exchanged at the scene things will as often as not be left to the insurers to sort out. Possibly things will change now that careless driving is a fixed penalty offence - we'll see.

Strider590

Aretnap wrote: »

It's true that the police don't usually prosecute drivers over minor accidents with bikes or the sort of handbags-at-dawn incidents that people with headcams like to post up on YouTube.

Incidents should be punished, leaving them unpunished allows dangerous drivers to abuse others with impunity.

If you attack someone with a knife, you'll go to jail.

Attack a cyclist with a car and you'll get a slap on the wrist.

Look at the death my knife crime versus deaths on the roads and you'll see that something isn't quite right with the way we're doing things.

Whether a cyclist or driver are legally to blame or not, the majority will always sympathise with the majority and drivers are the majority.

It even works within driving sub-groups, if you've modified your car, you'll be classed as a "boy racer" and whether at fault or not, you'll have a hard time convincing people you did nothing wrong.

For as much as we claim to be a civilised society, mob rule still rules.
Be like, think like, talk like, walk like and look like everyone else.... OR be prepared to fight.

Johno100

Cycrow wrote: »

and how would that have helped in this situation exactly ?

Err..they would pass the letter from the drivers solicitor to their insurers and let them sort it out, rather than worry about a £1,400 bill and possible civil recovery action to obtain it. £30 or £40 per year is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Cycrow

Johno100 wrote: »

Err..they would pass the letter from the drivers solicitor to their insurers and let them sort it out, rather than worry about a £1,400 bill and possible civil recovery action to obtain it. £30 or £40 per year is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

and being licenced and registered would have done that would it ?

Johno100

Strider590 wrote: »

Attack a cyclist with a car and you'll get a slap on the wrist.

No, if you deliberately attack a cyclist with a car you will face assault, GBH, attempted murder or murder charges, depending on how successful you are. An accidental collision, which we are talking about here, is a different matter.

You sound like one of the minority of cycling lycra louts, who play the put upon victim at every opportunity. I bet you refuse to wear a helmet as well on a point of principle?

Johno100

Cycrow wrote: »

and being licenced and registered would have done that would it ?

You know I was on about insurance, anyway licencing and registration would help with theft and identifying errant cyclists. Perhaps their number plates and misdemeanors could be uploaded to Youtube.