Car and cycle collision

bezuher

A cyclist was in an accident with a motorist. A cyclist might be partly at fault. A driver was moving possibly faster than they should and they did not indicate when was turning, which eventually caused the collision. But no witnesses.
The cyclist sustained injuries and is currently receiving treatment. A bike is damaged. Police involved, ambulance involved. The motorists' car is damaged with a bill below 1 000. Initially, the motorist did not want to claim anything from an insurance company and to repair the car themselves, but later they changed their mind.
Should the cyclist make a claim against an insurance company ?

stator

I've never heard of an insurance company trying to recoup costs against a cyclist.

comeandgo

Are the police charging anyone? The cyclist should make a claim against motorist. Does the cyclist have home insurance? There may be third party insurance there.

bezuher

comeandgo wrote: »

Are the police charging anyone? The cyclist should make a claim against motorist. Does the cyclist have home insurance? There may be third party insurance there.

Police is not charging anyone at the moment. The bike is not covered by home insurance

debtdebt

The cyclist could still be pursued personally if he is partly negligent.

Car_54

bezuher wrote: »

A cyclist was in an accident with a motorist. A cyclist might be partly at fault since it was dark and he had no lights but had light reflective trousers. A driver was moving possibly faster than they should and they did not indicate when was turning, which eventually caused the collision.

Wearing light-reflective trousers does not remove the legal requirement for lights.


If the driver could not see the cyclist, then he would probably have concluded that there was no-one to benefit from a signal.

Car_54

comeandgo wrote: »

Are the police charging anyone? The cyclist should make a claim against motorist.

From what we've read, the cyclist was at fault (no lights) and the driver did nothing wrong ....

bezuher

debtdebt wrote: »

The cyclist could still be pursued personally if he is partly negligent.

personally=by the driver?

Gloomendoom

[quote=[Deleted User];74539887]If the driver could not see the cyclist, then he would probably have concluded that there was no-one to benefit from a signal.[/QUOTE]

A very good example of why it is better to err on the side of caution and signal anyway.

bezuher

But does anyone have actual advice as to what do insurance companies normally do in such cases?

comeandgo

I meant your home insurance would cover you being sued, not insurance for your cycle.