Knocked off my bike

OnanTheBarbarian

What a pishing contest this one has turned out to be.

To the original poster, advise the police you will make a formal complaint if they do not look to prosecute. They can still report her for the offence and then have the 6 months to lay the information before the court.

However, even if this does not take place, it is not the end of the world for you, much depending on the circumstances you reported at the time and whether an actual formal report was compiled by the police, or whether they just did a quick Section 170 (no report and told the parties to go on their way).

If a report is done, then a lot will revolve around what information each party gave to the police at the scene and what they wrote down. The police report is perfectly admissible and often a useful tool in beating down your opponent in the event that the story they rely on now differs from what they told plod at the scene.

What is your account of the accident, were you sitting at the red lights and went when they changed, or did they change to amber/green as you approached them?

If you were sitting waiting for the lights to change before moving off, then it would be much more suggestive that you had not done any jumping of lights as somebody would hardly sit at a red light and then decide they are bored and just set off when the lights were still on red. The 4 second gap on the light sequence also would be suggestive that the other motorist was lying. As your lights go green after hers go red, it is much more likely she would be the "amber gambler"/ going against a red.

InsideInsurance

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Why would a traffic cop on a bike outside of London?

I do strategy for insurers not police. I am sure someone else will come along and explain to you why West Yorkshire have police bikers along with probably all other constabularies :rotfl:

fivetide

Couples of things from this thread - Lee people play the pregnancy card "all the time" really? Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me, unless of course you have some stats to back that up....


Dave - You were caught out not reading the OP's post properly, would have been much better if you'd just said "oops" and not got the Cap'n going


Speaking of the Cap'n - he makes a good point on insurance companies being a rip off. We all know they do it. No one is in business to give stuff away. If they can make money they will. Hence the whole selling details on issue. InsideInsurance is trying to defend his industry but lets be honest, they are a necessary evil, nothing more. The charges are high and unlikely to be needed but they are a business and they are focused on profit, not the punter.


And finally for the OP - The other driver is still, as has been pointed out in the wrong as amber also means stop. You'll probably see something claiming the lights "suddenly changed" which is rubbish because a green light is only ever going to make a change to stop. I can't see the claim being an issue.


Don't forget to claim for your kit too if damaged, especially if you banged your lid as that is an important bit of safety kit. Same thing happened to a friend a couple of years ago and the police did successfully prosecute the woman who hit him for dangerous driving.


Good luck.

Captaincodpiece

fivetide wrote: »

Couples of things from this thread - Lee people play the pregnancy card "all the time" really? Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me, unless of course you have some stats to back that up....


Dave - You were caught out not reading the OP's post properly, would have been much better if you'd just said "oops" and not got the Cap'n going


Speaking of the Cap'n - he makes a good point on insurance companies being a rip off. We all know they do it. No one is in business to give stuff away. If they can make money they will. Hence the whole selling details on issue. InsideInsurance is trying to defend his industry but lets be honest, they are a necessary evil, nothing more. The charges are high and unlikely to be needed but they are a business and they are focused on profit, not the punter.


And finally for the OP - The other driver is still, as has been pointed out in the wrong as amber also means stop. You'll probably see something claiming the lights "suddenly changed" which is rubbish because a green light is only ever going to make a change to stop. I can't see the claim being an issue.


Don't forget to claim for your kit too if damaged, especially if you banged your lid as that is an important bit of safety kit. Same thing happened to a friend a couple of years ago and the police did successfully prosecute the woman who hit him for dangerous driving.


Good luck.

Very sensible post.

I think a raw nerve may have been touched about how your money is wasted on unnecessary procedures by the insurance companies.

Some would say the Coroners Court is one of the most powerful in the UK but let's not discount the Crown or High Court. If all three allow a police officer to write a statement why won't an insurance company for civil court where the burdon of proof is the balance of probability?

Is it because they don't profit from that?

After all as you said it's an industry who's interested in making money.

InsideInsurance

fivetide wrote: »

InsideInsurance is trying to defend his industry but lets be honest, they are a necessary evil, nothing more. The charges are high and unlikely to be needed but they are a business and they are focused on profit, not the punter.

Not trying to defend the industry, just explain how it works.

Though this thread does demonstrate the damned if they do and damned if they dont aspect of the industry. After all the threads about insurers not doing enough to investigate claims and rolling over too easily this one accuses insurers of wasting money by doing too much investigation and suggesting that less should be done. :beer:

Car_54

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Very sensible post.

I think a raw nerve may have been touched about how your money is wasted on unnecessary procedures by the insurance companies.

In what way is it "your" money, except perhaps in the few cases where the insurer is a mutual?

"You" pay your premium, "they" provide cover. Once the money is handed over, it's theirs to use as they see fit.

fivetide

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Not trying to defend the industry, just explain how it works.

Though this thread does demonstrate the damned if they do and damned if they dont aspect of the industry. After all the threads about insurers not doing enough to investigate claims and rolling over too easily this one accuses insurers of wasting money by doing too much investigation and suggesting that less should be done. :beer:

I don't think that's the case (saying they should do more/less investigation), but simply getting a copy of a police report, if available, does seem to be a sensible a lower cost approach than re-doing the whole thing.


As said though, insurance companies are just that, companies, and are there to make a profit, nothing more. Not going to get started on the rip off nature of the repair companies though!


Anyway, the OP should still have a good case so just stick with it. Any advice on getting them to pay up is probably where we need to focus now as the thread is a little off topic in places.

Captaincodpiece

fivetide wrote: »

I don't think that's the case (saying they should do more/less investigation), but simply getting a copy of a police report, if available, does seem to be a sensible a lower cost approach than re-doing the whole thing.


As said though, insurance companies are just that, companies, and are there to make a profit, nothing more. Not going to get started on the rip off nature of the repair companies though!


Anyway, the OP should still have a good case so just stick with it. Any advice on getting them to pay up is probably where we need to focus now as the thread is a little off topic in places.

They get that as well.

Costs for that start at about £80 for a basic report then an additional cost per page. (That is often done via a solicitor addiing more expense.) They bring the report and often a statement a police officer has already made. Only to duplicate what they already have whist someone is paying for it.

Next time you hear there profits are down, don't feel too sorry.

InsideInsurance

fivetide wrote: »

I don't think that's the case (saying they should do more/less investigation), but simply getting a copy of a police report, if available, does seem to be a sensible a lower cost approach than re-doing the whole thing.

Have you actually seen police reports?

These things obviously vary depending on the seriousness of the incident and the apparent injuries at the time of the collision. Many "minor" accidents the police report is absolutely nothing more than the details of the parties involved, location of the accident, possibly a one paragraph description of the scene if that.

Police reports also arent free, most cost around £90 and as others point out can take many months to get a copy of whilst its decided if a prosecution will occur and if one will happen then you normally have to wait for that to finish too.

So, you have a relatively minor accident but the TP happens to be an executive driving a £150k car who took a couple of weeks off to get over the "shock" and worst of the whiplash. Despite it being minor from a police perspective there is a big repair bill, a substantial loss of earnings claim and most likely massive hire claim if your client is liable.

You could pay £100 and wait some time to see what happens to turn up in the police accident report or alternatively you can instruct your local claims chap to go and interview the guy at a cost below that of the police report which you (a) get faster and (b) you know will actually have whatever details are available rather than just the one liner saying RTA with OSF damage to vehicle A

In the meantime you have the TP's solicitors continuously pointing out the CPR timescales and itching to issue court proceedings to increase the fees they can charge.

Insurers absolutely are commercial entities and are ultimately there to make a profit for their shareholders. If they thought that sitting back and waiting for the police report is the best thing to do then that is what they will do as no one wants to waste money. Insurance by its very nature is ultimately a gamble though and as a claims handler you weight up the odds against the costs and decide which is the best option.

I know in my claims handling days it was fairly rare to ask for a police report as they rarely added value. It was even rarer to try and get an interview from any of the officers involved and probably over half the time we did we had already received the police report and seen that it didnt answer any of the questions we needed answering.

In some cases it was even factually wrong, I had one where our chap said the TP jumped the lights but the TP advised the lights were down. You would have thought the police report would easily resolve this because they'd have checked all the lights were working or not. The police report had no mention of if lights were working or not and actually said it was our customer that was alleged to have jumped the lights. Despite what was in the report it was the TP that was facing prosecution.

fivetide

Very lengthy but off topic defence of the industry again there.


You will note I specifically said "if available" as I recognise police do not turn up to every incident and reports will vary on seriousness so there was no need to explain that to me. We have also established that reports cost more than the Police ones earlier in the thread although surprisingly, the cost now seems to be equal, the quality better and the speed improved. Interesting.


All I am saying, is that if court can accept this apparently inaccurate reporting, it is a shame the insurance industry can't too even if there is less profit in there for them.


I was on your side in terms of the need for proper investigation. You do seem to have missed that important element.


Will leave it there though. Need to get back on topic as I have said a couple of times now. Not sure how any of this is likely to help the OP