Cyclist v Car = Crash & Injuries

custardy

dacouch wrote: »

Could you have not claimed via the MIB?

the car in question didnt impact me
They forced me off the road,well to the edge where I was met with a pothole
So the MIBs view is unless it physically hits you,then its all good

irri_tant

liz545 wrote: »

If you can, go back and take photos of the junction that you can show them. From your description, it sounds like the driver failed to yield at a give way line, which would make them responsible for causing a collision.

This is how google see's it at present. I'll take some pics myself.

I was on the main road heading towards the crossing. Car came from the right give way.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-1.361559!3d54.575004!2m2!1f74.72!2f69.97!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sOUz9zCzmjqyv0wkNBRCLHQ!2e0&fid=5

This would be the drivers view
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-1.361197!3d54.575013!2m2!1f324.96!2f77.6!4f90!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sbAMLQVuGTm_WsYWbz-wQMQ!2e0&fid=5

arcon5

Many others in the same boat do just the same as I'm doing.

Doesn't necessarily make it right. It's this kind of mentality that has caused the boom in whiplash claims.

liam8282

irri_tant wrote: »

Police and Ambulance attended the scene from where I went to hospital for a check over. All OK no broken bones but gravel rash, bruising, damaged clothing & bike.

So you have no real injuries, only bruising and a graze at worst.

Damaged clothing and bike, fair enough.

irri_tant wrote: »

And why not?

I'm looking for best advice on how to get compensated to the 'max' for damage and injuries sustained for something that was not my fault.

I'm NOT falsify any injuries or damage I will be claiming for.

Many others in the same boat do just the same as I'm doing.

Compensation culture at it's worst.

Fair enough, you are well within your rights to claim for any losses and injuries. But to be honest, they seem to be minimal, yet you are out to maximise them.

Did you also damage your Rolex, loose your gold chain, chip a tooth and break a nail, all of which you didn't notice at the time, until you put your claim in?

I don't know why people encourage this sort of thing.

irri_tant

liam8282 wrote: »

Did you also damage your Rolex, loose your gold chain, chip a tooth and break a nail, all of which you didn't notice at the time, until you put your claim in?

As it happens I have a chipped nail

As for the others items, like I said above, I'm NOT falsify any injuries or damage I will be claiming for.

Just pursuing what I feel I should be entitled to claim for for someone else causing the injuries & damage. If that happens to be 'maxed' out then so be it

irri_tant

arcon5 wrote: »

Doesn't necessarily make it right.

right or wrong, I'm entitled to claim and why shouldn't I?

Don't forget; where there is blame, there is a claim.

Why should I have to pay to repair the bike, replace the colthing when someone else has caused the damage?

Oh and a week of work to boot whilst injuries settle down

Prothet_of_Doom

More Importantly. Do you have witnesses? I saw a bloke knocked off, and after checking he was okay, and telling him to stay on the ground groaning, I took photo's of cars, road and the people, and then collected names and addresses on my phone - I sent them in text messages to my wife, who thought i was mad, until I explained later.
He went off to hospital, in an ambulance, and later I phoned him, got his email address and sent him all the evidence.
Got a short "thanks", but assuming he was able to make a claim, I never got any further responce.

irri_tant

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

More Importantly. Do you have witnesses?

I have a case number with the local Police. Just waiting on phone call from him today and hopefully some of those on the scene will be on his notes

Weird_Nev

liam8282 wrote: »

Where there's blame, there's a claim.

Sounds like the OP is just out for what they can get, rather than being compensated for the damage.

What's the point of you, exactly?

Because the point of insurance is it covers the operator of a vehicle against claims arising from the use of that vehicle.

A vehicle caused an accident which has caused the OP loss. He is fully entitled to be put back in the position he was before the incident. Not profit, not make a fast buck, simply to have a working bike and undamaged clothes.

Or can I just drive into your car some time and expect you to suck up the damage?

liam8282

Weird_Nev wrote: »

What's the point of you, exactly?

Because the point of insurance is it covers the operator of a vehicle against claims arising from the use of that vehicle.

A vehicle caused an accident which has caused the OP loss. He is fully entitled to be put back in the position he was before the incident. Not profit, not make a fast buck, simply to have a working bike and undamaged clothes.

Or can I just drive into your car some time and expect you to suck up the damage?

Which I agree with, what I don't agree with is pursuing injury claims when it appears there really weren't any.

Bruising + grazing = week off work + injury claim?

The whole tone is the OP is out for as much as they can get, rather than being compensated for their losses. Two totally different things.