Some accident advice Bike v stationary car!

brat

nzpod wrote: »

Just popped over and spoke to her. She has cycle 3rd party liability through CTC. She apologised again and accepted liability...again.

Did she explain what she was doing on the wrong side of the road, and why she rode into the side of your car?

Are you sure you don't know her?

My concerns for your claim would be that the ctc insurance may just have the same air of suspicion about your claim as I have.

neilmcl

brat wrote: »

Did she explain what she was doing on the wrong side of the road, and why she rode into the side of your car?

Are you sure you don't know her?

My concerns for your claim would be that the ctc insurance may just have the same air of suspicion about your claim as I have.

Why the suspicion? The OP has already stated the women accepted liability, Does it really matter why she hit the car, the fact is she did and she accepted she was at fault. Can't you just take the OPs post on face value instead if trying to start some conspiracy!

nobbysn*ts

brat wrote: »

Did she explain what she was doing on the wrong side of the road, and why she rode into the side of your car?

Are you sure you don't know her?

My concerns for your claim would be that the ctc insurance may just have the same air of suspicion about your claim as I have.

She's a cyclist. Wrong side of the road, pavement, pedestrian zone, it's all the same. The insurer would probably be more suspicious if she's been on the right side of the road!

brat

I'd always have some suspicion about such a claim. I believe that insurers should always establish validity of a claim and question anything that doesn't seem right.

My suspicions could be laid to rest if all the damage was absolutely consistent with marks on her bike, that her explanation of how the accident happened made sense, that she had not just taken out CTC cover, and she didn't know the car owner. Scraping all four panels and taking a chunk of alloy out of a wheel is quite a bump, especially for the bike to be completely undamaged.

I pay about £32 for 3rd party liability within my British Cycling membership. If a person with only 3rd party insurance or a large excess on their car had scraped it along a wall causing damage to four panels, they might consider asking a friend to take out some cycling insurance...

Possibly not, but as a person who doesn't want his annual insurance costs to include false claims, I'd want to be sure that such matters are considered.

Johno100

neilmcl wrote: »

Why the suspicion? The OP has already stated the women accepted liability, Does it really matter why she hit the car, the fact is she did and she accepted she was at fault. Can't you just take the OPs post on face value instead if trying to start some conspiracy!

Posting anything that may portray a cyclist in other than a saintly light is looked upon with suspicion by some, its like criticising their religious faith.

Stoke

brat wrote: »

I'd always have some suspicion about such a claim. I believe that insurers should always establish validity of a claim and question anything that doesn't seem right.

My suspicions could be laid to rest if all the damage was absolutely consistent with marks on her bike, that her explanation of how the accident happened made sense, that she had not just taken out CTC cover, and she didn't know the car owner. Scraping all four panels and taking a chunk of alloy out of a wheel is quite a bump, especially for the bike to be completely undamaged.

I pay about £32 for 3rd party liability within my British Cycling membership. If a person with only 3rd party insurance or a large excess on their car had scraped it along a wall causing damage to four panels, they might consider asking a friend to take out some cycling insurance...

Possibly not, but as a person who doesn't want his annual insurance costs to include false claims, I'd want to be sure that such matters are considered.

Not really? If you were riding hard and hit a wing, you would probably damage the bonnet in the process and potentially hit the wheel chipping it. The speed in which you were moving could easily result in further motion down the side of the car damaging the door and potentially the rear panel, especially if the bike is still moving.

Sounds to me as though you're not very keen on having anything bad said against your cycling club.

AdrianC

nzpod wrote: »

Just popped over and spoke to her. She has cycle 3rd party liability through CTC. She apologised again and accepted liability...again.

There y'go, then. It really is THAT simple. Call CTC, give them the details, and get on with life.

brat

Stoke wrote: »

Not really? If you were riding hard and hit a wing, you would probably damage the bonnet in the process and potentially hit the wheel chipping it. The speed in which you were moving could easily result in further motion down the side of the car damaging the door and potentially the rear panel, especially if the bike is still moving.

I know that, and I'm sure that CTC will ensure that their insured cyclist could have caused the damage and that her bike shows corresponding marks or damage. I'm really just flagging the point for the OP so that, if they had been considering pursuing a false claim, they might reconsider, because it is an easily detectable criminal offence against both of them.

nzpod

CTC have come back and liability is not disputed.

Good because a quote puts damage at nearly 2k!

Also it is interesting how a simple honest question for help and advice can cause certain people to question my integrity and honestly.

I guess I am more trusting or less cynical than most...

Stoke

nzpod wrote: »

CTC have come back and liability is not disputed.

Good because a quote puts damage at nearly 2k!

Also it is interesting how a simple honest question for help and advice can cause certain people to question my integrity and honestly.

I guess I am more trusting or less cynical than most...

As with any forum, or debate, or phone-in or anything where people can voice their opinion, agendas exist. Whether it's an anti-car agenda, pro-cycling agenda or an anti-cycling agenda or anti-big car, small car, anti/pro-posh car, anti/pro old car, new car blah blah blah blah. Either way, people are allowed to express their opinions and you will always find someone who acts with a cynicism, no matter how clear the evidence is.