cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

:rotfl: Comedy gold!

Even if that were true (it isn't), you still don't get it, do you? Your case won't be determined by a poll of forum posters. You've given us half-baked information and avoided supplying information that might have been useful. Even if we had full and accurate information, our opinions and views would be ultimately useless to your situation. What are you planning to do, compile a list of forum supporters to send to your insurers as the verdict of some sort of pseudo-jury?

This thread has become, in your own favourite words, irrational and absurd. Enjoyable though! As one of the more vocal "croud", I'll keep making the point: In the eyes of your insurers and on the basis of the accident as you've described it, you will be held at fault. If you choose to pursue this all the way to the highest court on Earth, please keep us enlightened, it's fascinating.

kraken776

sysadmin wrote: »

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 mean retrospective legal insurance?
Most people dont know that exists
surely a person cant retrospectively get insurance for accidents

sysadmin wrote: »

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.

There is a difference
"threats" can be empty and usually are, they are always malicious.
"warnings" are not empty, the are a statement of fact, they are not always malicious.

sysadmin wrote: »

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.

It does not seam to work that way
If you get a claim held against you, even partially you loose your NCB (or partial NCB if it is protected) and your premium goes up (even without the NCB loss)
This is a very magical line
It is all or nothing
once it is crossed the actual total costs to the insurer make no difference to me at all.

sysadmin wrote: »

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.

That is an opinion, I however am of the opinion that my action was perfectly safe and legitimate and the cyclist was wrong for turning without looking or signalling.

Many others have expressed this view on their thread.

As far as i am concerned HE caused the accident
and if he CHOOSES to threaten my NCB and insurance premium then I will attempt to make him incur as much cost as possible.

Aylesbury_Duck

Car_54 wrote: »

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

Four, actually, but then again, who's counting? One bike became two halfway through this story.

rich13348

If the cyclist is not insured, but you provided him with your details (which is the law by the way) then he can open a claim directly with your insurers,thus circumventing you and your gaggle of lawyers.
Chances are your insurance company will pay out at the very least 50/50 as there is no independent witness.
As for going to court you will have to lose in the county court then appeal to the high court.
As a lot of people on hear have already stated you will most likely lose so that works you your favour.
If you threaten the other party they could go to the police and you could be cautioned for threatening behaviour which would come up in court and the judge would take a dim view of that.
Have you even told your insurers of the accident you had. If not your insurers will not be happy with that either.
Also you have to limit your costs to what is reasonable so the judge may well not award you all your costs if he feels you are trying to bump up your costs to make it worse for the other party.
Also you assume you will win in court, this is not a foregone conclusion and you could lose in court court then the high court and the court of appeals and if your legal cover choose not to take your case then you will have to foot the bill for the other parties costs yourself.
Or take your insurers to court to where once again you might lose and have even more costs to pay.
Then you could take your lawyer to court for misrepresenting you and you might lose that also and have more costs to pay. Contine ad infinitum.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

As far as i am concerned HE caused the accident
and if he CHOOSES to threaten my NCB and insurance premium then I will attempt to make him incur as much cost as possible.

I'd say it's already cost you more. You've spent far more time on this pointless arguement than he will take to fill in his claims form and cash your cheque.

Silver-Surfer_2

rich13348 wrote: »

If the cyclist is not insured, but you provided him with your details (which is the law by the way) then he can open a claim directly with your insurers,thus circumventing you and your gaggle of lawyers.
Chances are your insurance company will pay out at the very least 50/50 as there is no independent witness.
As for going to court you will have to lose in the county court then appeal to the high court.
As a lot of people on hear have already stated you will most likely lose so that works you your favour.
If you threaten the other party they could go to the police and you could be cautioned for threatening behaviour which would come up in court and the judge would take a dim view of that.
Have you even told your insurers of the accident you had. If not your insurers will not be happy with that either.

You're wrong there.

Hutchch0920

How is the cyclist doing in all this? I've read back through 5 pages but see no mention of their injuries? Sorry if it's already been mentioned!

Aylesbury_Duck

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I'd say it's already cost you more. You've spent far more time on this pointless arguement than he will take to fill in his claims form and cash your cheque.

Ouch. Stinging.

Aylesbury_Duck

Hutchch0920 wrote: »

How is the cyclist doing in all this? I've read back through 5 pages but see no mention of their injuries? Sorry if it's already been mentioned!

Probably reading through all of this to help their claim.

Mercdriver

If the cyclist has any injury whatsoever, he can always go no win no fee. When I was knocked from my bike that is what I did. Got a payout for the injuries, loss of earnings and the damage to my bike. In my case it was clear cut - the driver pulled out of a fuel station without looking. I was wearing visible dayglo yellow on a clear day and the sun wasn't in his eyes.

I would suggest that hyperbole is not the way to take this. You'll be out on hold and laughed at.

It would be interesting to actually see how many people hold you not at fault vs at fault/partly at fault, which is the real way to divide this since you believe you are not at all at fault. Reason? Your position vs everyone else. Of course that wouldn't I suspect go the way you would like it to.