Cyclist v Car = Crash & Injuries

irri_tant

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?

Thank you

Weird_Nev wrote: »

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

:beer:

reason2

irri_tant wrote: »

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

ive not read all the comments yet, but what evidence is there?

it sounds like you just want an easy way to make a quick buck...

"why shouldnt i" well because these claims are the reason everyones insurance goes sky high.. except cyclists who dont have to be insured but cause accidents and have no accountability.

reason2

also seems like the cause of the damage and the "injuries" are the pot hole in a poorly maintained road.

Too many times ive seen cyclists swerve at imaginary petruding - they assume the car wont stop so they swerve fall over and look silly.

at a guess until i see video footage disproving id say this is what happened.. noticed a pot hole got a bruise and took a week off work

which by the way is ridiculous.. children gets bruises all the time and get straight up.. not sit at home with a hot water bottle for a week waiting for an injury lawyers for you ad to pop up!

custardy

reason2 wrote: »

also seems like the cause of the damage and the "injuries" are the pot hole in a poorly maintained road.

Too many times ive seen cyclists swerve at imaginary petruding - they assume the car wont stop so they swerve fall over and look silly.

at a guess until i see video footage disproving id say this is what happened.. noticed a pot hole got a bruise and took a week off work

which by the way is ridiculous.. children gets bruises all the time and get straight up.. not sit at home with a hot water bottle for a week waiting for an injury lawyers for you ad to pop up!

imaginary potholes?

irri_tant

reason2 wrote: »

also seems like the cause of the damage and the "injuries" are the pot hole in a poorly maintained road.

Too many times ive seen cyclists swerve at imaginary petruding - they assume the car wont stop so they swerve fall over and look silly.

Excuse me. But the bike is well maintained by me. Just fitted new chain & tyres the other week. I ride it all year round to and from work and not just on sunny days. I wear hi vis clothing and have lights front and rear and a horn/bell which a lot don't.

Oh and I pay my road tax for the car I have.

reason2

irri_tant wrote: »

Excuse me. But the bike is well maintained by me. Just fitted new chain & tyres the other week. I ride it all year round to and from work and not just on sunny days. I wear hi vis clothing and have lights front and rear and a horn/bell which a lot don't.

Oh and I pay my road tax for the car I have.

i thought road tax didnt exist.. infact im sure it doesnt..

and a well maintained bike does not make a well educated cyclist.

Nor does it mean trying to get as much cash as possible from a bruise OK..

i scraped my arm on a door at work the other day.. i havent taken a day off or sued for damage to clothing.

Im sure if cyclists were insured they would claim and blame half as much as they do..
if you look at rospa figures for incidents involving cars vs cyclists over 30% of the time the fault lies with cyclist not paying attention - over 15% of time cyclist lost control over 10% of the time cyclist not obeying high way code and road laws.

It is only my opinion that this is stupidly exagerated and an attempt to get some extra cash because as a cyclist - nothing to lose..

i dont think announcing you had no injuries except a minor scratch or two then announcing you took a week off work for them to settle down did any favours.

the fact there was no impact and you hastily swerved hitting a pothole doesnt suggest to me a driver issue more a cyclist one

but, just my opinion

Marco_Panettone

reason2 wrote: »

also seems like the cause of the damage and the "injuries" are the pot hole in a poorly maintained road.

Too many times ive seen cyclists swerve at imaginary petruding - they assume the car wont stop so they swerve fall over and look silly.

at a guess until i see video footage disproving id say this is what happened.. noticed a pot hole got a bruise and took a week off work

which by the way is ridiculous.. children gets bruises all the time and get straight up.. not sit at home with a hot water bottle for a week waiting for an injury lawyers for you ad to pop up!

It's better to 'look silly' and get to your destination than to get hit by a vehicle. It's sensible to give yourself the space you need.

Would you also suggest it 'looks silly' when drivers hold back from moving vehicles because of their 'imaginary braking'?

reason2

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

It's better to 'look silly' and get to your destination than to get hit by a vehicle. It's sensible to give yourself the space you need.

Would you also suggest it 'looks silly' when drivers hold back from moving vehicles because of their 'imaginary braking'?

I think you may have misunderstood - or more likely i havent said clearly what i mean.

If you have stopped at a junction, and you are waiting and allowing a cyclist to pass - i have seen many - that when approaching the already stationary car which has not moved at all and has clearly noticed the cyclist - they still swerve..

its like in football - when someone makes a challenge in the box - the player anticipates or imagines a possible contact and goes down in the hope of getting a penalty.. when in reality there was never any risk of any offence taking place

Marco_Panettone

You need to understand the potential risk though. The action (swerving/not swerving) accommodate the possible risk (being hit by the car IF it pulls out unexpectedly). There's every chance the car won't pull out and no action is required, but 'worst case scenario' is no action taken but car does pull out (which happens more often than you'd like). After all, the car is going to pull out AT SOME POINT. By being further away from it you reduce the risk of it hitting you, whilst at the same time increase the chance of the driver seeing you from further away (if you move early enough toward primary position).

It's far better to anticipate this and it not happen than to assume it won't happen and you get hit.

custardy

As said,its easy to 2nd guess from a metal box

*insert multiple You Tube videos to back up point*