Car and cycle collision

debtdebt

It would be easier if you told us whether you were the cyclist or the car driver.

angrycrow

There is no simple answer to this one because of the number of factors at play.

Making an assumption from what we have been told two possible versions come to mind.

Version 1, car driver wanted to turn left and did so last minute at speed without signalling or checking his mirrors and as he turned he struck a cyclist on his nearside who he had just overtaken.

Version 2, car driver turned left or right into side road at speed with out signalling and hit a cyclist crossing the road.

Driver will have the primary liability here as they are driving a potential deadly object and have a duty of care to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

There could be argument for contributory negligence if the accident occurred during the lighting up period and the cyclist had no lights on. Lots of factors to consider though, street lighting level, had the car just overtaken the cyclist, clothing worn by cyclist. At best 10% to 20% contrib on a really good day for the driver.

With regard to recovery from the cyclist for less than £1000 no point as cost to pursue will exceed this with little prospect of success. You can't even offset it against the cyclists own damages claim for injury.

If you were the driver accept you will have a fault claim against your policy and you may as well claim for your damage on your own policy if the cyclist has made a claim. Lesson to learn better observations, better speed management, look out for pedestrians and cyclists at junctions.

Lesson for the cyclist get some lights and asset every driver is going to try and kill you.

bezuher

angrycrow wrote: »

Version 2, car driver turned left or right into side road at speed with out signalling and hit a cyclist crossing the road.

angrycrow, thank you for replying.
It was a well-lighted junction with the driver cutting a corner when turning right at a speed.

custardy

[quote=[Deleted User];74539893]From what we've read, the cyclist was at fault (no lights) and the driver did nothing wrong ....[/QUOTE]

What speeding,not indicating and I presume not checking mirrors/blind spots before manoeuvre?

custardy

OP its far easier if you give your version from whatever side you are/were on.

Car_54

custardy wrote: »

What speeding,not indicating and I presume not checking mirrors/blind spots before manoeuvre?

Read what I actually wrote - "From what we've read ...". From what we'd read at that point:

"Possibly" speeding.

No apparent need to indicate - cyclist was invisible.

No suggestion of any failure to check - again, check may not have revealed unlit cyclist.

bezuher

custardy wrote: »

OP its far easier if you give your version from whatever side you are/were on.

The driver says they did not see the cyclist.
The cyclist saw the driver clearly driving at speed and unexpectedly turning right.

AndyMc.....

bezuher wrote: »

I am on a cyclist side.
The driver says they did not see the cyclist.
The cyclist saw the driver clearly driving at speed and unexpectedly turning right.

How are you going to prove speed?

bezuher

AndyMc..... wrote: »

How are you going to prove speed?

A car stopped more than 20m after a point of collision

Car_54

bezuher wrote: »

I am on a cyclist side.
The driver says they did not see the cyclist.
The cyclist saw the driver clearly driving at speed and unexpectedly turning right.

Unless I've missed it, the driver hasn't said anything!


A car with lights is much easier to see (and indeed hear) than a cyclist without lights.


The OP said the driver was "possibly faster than they should", which is not quite the same as "clearly driving at speed".