cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I have already pointed out that the cycle lane was not at all visiable.

Why has this been ignored.
It seams very damaging to most of the "i am at fault" comments on here.

I don't think it has been ignored, it's just that posters can't do much with your assertion that it wasn't at all visible. More than one of us has suggested that you post a streetview link so we can see if you are correct. You have decided not to, which is your prerogative, but that stops us from seeing how visible or invisible the lane is. So we haven't ignored the point, but rather that you have declined to help us deal with it.

Secondly, even if the streetview link suggests you are correct, so what? I don't see that it makes any difference to the way your insurer will deal with your case.

what if he claims the cam was off, battery died, ran out of memory, he lost the memory card since the accident ect?

Then you have no footage. If you want the reassurance that video footage can bring to your case after an incident, you should get your own camera.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

Finally to say that I am at fault (rather then partially at fault) is to ignore the fact that the cyclist turned without signalling or making sure it was safe. No rational person could ignore this negligence.

Again, I think that people are using "fault" in the insurance sense, which presumably is what matters to you. Only you know if you are morally in the right or wrong and if the accident could have been avoided. I don't care one way or another, but have judged how I believe your insurers will view the accident and on the basis of the (developing) story, I still believe you will be held at fault. Nothing you have provided in your initial description or in any of the later additions to your account has changed that view. Two cyclists, invisible cycle lanes, whatever. You had a collision with a cyclist when you were substantially behind them, there is no footage or independent witness to confirm that the cyclist conducted a dangerous manoeuvre, so you are highly likely to be deemed at fault.

sysadmin

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Again, I think that people are using "fault" in the insurance sense, which presumably is what matters to you. Only you know if you are morally in the right or wrong and if the accident could have been avoided. I don't care one way or another, but have judged how I believe your insurers will view the accident and on the basis of the (developing) story, I still believe you will be held at fault. Nothing you have provided in your initial description or in any of the later additions to your account has changed that view. Two cyclists, invisible cycle lanes, whatever. You had a collision with a cyclist when you were substantially behind them, there is no footage or independent witness to confirm that the cyclist conducted a dangerous manoeuvre, so you are highly likely to be deemed at fault.

In my opinion - this is spot on, but it is unlikely the response you want to hear

Silver-Surfer_2

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Again, I think that people are using "fault" in the insurance sense, which presumably is what matters to you. Only you know if you are morally in the right or wrong and if the accident could have been avoided. I don't care one way or another, but have judged how I believe your insurers will view the accident and on the basis of the (developing) story, I still believe you will be held at fault. Nothing you have provided in your initial description or in any of the later additions to your account has changed that view. Two cyclists, invisible cycle lanes, whatever. You had a collision with a cyclist when you were substantially behind them, there is no footage or independent witness to confirm that the cyclist conducted a dangerous manoeuvre, so you are highly likely to be deemed at fault.

Not what he wants to hear.

kraken776

If the cyclist is not insured then surely if he makes any legal claim he will have to incur his up-front costs and if it stays in the country court wont be able to get his costs back from my insurer. Also he will be at risk of being held liable for my costs if it goes to the high court.

I dont have this problem because I have fully comp insurance.

I know that you cant claim other party expenses for county court claims and that at that level costs are low (unless you choose you use a solicitor).

But if it goes to the high court costs quickly go up and a person can be held liable for the other sides costs. and at this level you cant represent yourself so a barrister is required (or solicitor with an advocacy certificate) If I manage to get it tracked onto the high court or appeal after a county court hearing I could put him at risk of being held liable for my costs and his.

I am willing to take steps to make sure it does go to the high court if possible in order to put him in this position.

I am willing to use a solicitor (which i can because i have legal cover) and take any other measures needed to push the costs up and put him at risk of being held liable for these costs.

and have 2 questions.

How viable is it for me to do this?
1)
can county court cases be moved to the high court,
2)
to what extent can I rank up costs which he could be held liable to pay.
3)
Since the whole point of this would be to stop him from claiming i might want to warn him that this will happen. If i was to "warn" him that i am going to do this could i be liable for any intimidation related offence

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

I am willing to use a solicitor (which i can because i have legal cover) and take any other measures needed to push the costs up and put him at risk of being held liable for these costs.

and have 2 questions.

How viable is it for me to do this?
1)
can county court cases be moved to the high court,
2)
to what extent can I rank up costs which he could be held liable to pay.
3)
Since the whole point of this would be to stop him from claiming i might want to warn him that this will happen. If i was to "warn" him that i am going to do this could i be liable for any intimidation related offence

You may have legal cover, but you'll almost certainly find something in the Ts and Cs which says they'll only provide representation if they believe you have a reasonable chance of success.

As for your two questions, they look like three to me.

kraken776

Car_54 wrote: »

You may have legal cover, but you'll almost certainly find something in the Ts and Cs which says they'll only provide representation if they believe you have a reasonable chance of success.

As for your two questions, they look like three to me.

Well there are plenty of people on this forum who have agreed with me,
From a quick count I would say more agree with me 100% or say partial blame than that i am at fault

Unfortunately the i am to blame croud seam to be more vocal so have more posts in total.

sysadmin

He can get insurance in retrospect so it doesnt really matter. There is also no legal requirement for a bicycle rider to have insurance...

You sound like a horrible person to be honest, your 'warnings' are actually 'threats' (changing the term to 'warnings' doesnt change anything) so i'd be careful if i were you.

If it was me and you 'warned' me i'd go after you and your insurance company for as much as i could get in order to effect your premiums as much as possible. all after your 'warning' of course.

Without it, i'd just want compensation for the damage YOU caused due to hitting the bike, with a manouver you shouldn't have undertaken.

Im out of this thread now..
good luck

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

If the cyclist is not insured then surely if he makes any legal claim he will have to incur his up-front costs and if it stays in the country court wont be able to get his costs back from my insurer. Also he will be at risk of being held liable for my costs if it goes to the high court.

I dont have this problem because I have fully comp insurance.

I know that you cant claim other party expenses for county court claims and that at that level costs are low (unless you choose you use a solicitor).

But if it goes to the high court costs quickly go up and a person can be held liable for the other sides costs. and at this level you cant represent yourself so a barrister is required (or solicitor with an advocacy certificate) If I manage to get it tracked onto the high court or appeal after a county court hearing I could put him at risk of being held liable for my costs and his.

I am willing to take steps to make sure it does go to the high court if possible in order to put him in this position.

I am willing to use a solicitor (which i can because i have legal cover) and take any other measures needed to push the costs up and put him at risk of being held liable for these costs.

and have 2 questions.

How viable is it for me to do this?
1)
can county court cases be moved to the high court,
2)
to what extent can I rank up costs which he could be held liable to pay.
3)
Since the whole point of this would be to stop him from claiming i might want to warn him that this will happen. If i was to "warn" him that i am going to do this could i be liable for any intimidation related offence

Good grief, where to start....?:eek:

Before you concern yourself with different courts and adding intimidation and bullying to your case, I'd properly engage with your insurers and then perhaps with the legal cover company. You've spent a lot of time and words arguing your case on here which has been futile. You've come across as belligerent and evasive and now as aggressive and unreasonable! Engage properly with your insurers, find out what their course of action is and what your options might be and then consider your next step.

If everything is as you've described it, your insurers will settle any claim the other party makes. If you want to fight that, the legal system will probably come to the same conclusion as your insurers.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

If the cyclist is not insured then surely if he makes any legal claim he will have to incur his up-front costs and if it stays in the country court wont be able to get his costs back from my insurer. Also he will be at risk of being held liable for my costs if it goes to the high court.

I dont have this problem because I have fully comp insurance.

I know that you cant claim other party expenses for county court claims and that at that level costs are low (unless you choose you use a solicitor).

But if it goes to the high court costs quickly go up and a person can be held liable for the other sides costs. and at this level you cant represent yourself so a barrister is required (or solicitor with an advocacy certificate) If I manage to get it tracked onto the high court or appeal after a county court hearing I could put him at risk of being held liable for my costs and his.

I am willing to take steps to make sure it does go to the high court if possible in order to put him in this position.

I am willing to use a solicitor (which i can because i have legal cover) and take any other measures needed to push the costs up and put him at risk of being held liable for these costs.

and have 2 questions.

How viable is it for me to do this?
1)
can county court cases be moved to the high court,
2)
to what extent can I rank up costs which he could be held liable to pay.
3)
Since the whole point of this would be to stop him from claiming i might want to warn him that this will happen. If i was to "warn" him that i am going to do this could i be liable for any intimidation related offence

How many times do you need to be told?

This won't go to court as your insurance will pay out.