Car and cycle collision

AndyMc.....

bezuher wrote: »

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

Doesn't prove excess speed.

Mercdriver

The way this was worded in the third person I thought it was going to be some kind of joke. I'm not sure that being without lights makes the cyclist at fault, but I can see how it might reduce the car driver's liability since the cyclist increased their level of risk by not having lights. They therefore contributed to the incident, so I can see how any claim made by the cyclist might be reduced, perhaps to nothing.

Third party insurance does exist for cyclists, though is not obligatory, obviously.

custardy

I have to ask OP. If you are the cyclist,why not have lights?
They are so cheap,it seems a no brainer. yet we see cyclists (well people on bikes at least) all the time without them

bezuher

Many reasons people might not have lights.
- they don't cycle at night (it's more dangerous indeed with or without lights)
- their lights might be stolen easy. to prevent them to be stolen, one should always remove and place them back anytime bike is left

custardy

bezuher wrote: »

Many reasons people might not have lights.
- they don't cycle at night (it's more dangerous indeed with or without lights)
- their lights might be stolen easy. to prevent them to be stolen, one should always remove and place them back anytime bike is left

Thats not what I asked. Your response puts you down as a time waster Im afraid

Jackmydad

bezuher wrote: »

Many reasons people might not have lights.
- they don't cycle at night (it's more dangerous indeed with or without lights)
- their lights might be stolen easy. to prevent them to be stolen, one should always remove and place them back anytime bike is left

If the cyclist ran into a car at night, they obviously do cycle at night.
Plenty of small, bright lights available with quick release mounts.
Cheap too.
I see cyclists on the road all the time around here (rural area) with no lights.
They can be very hard to see from a car in certain circumstances.
Personally, when I cycled at night. I used to make sure I was lit up like a Christmas tree. As well as reflective gear.
Whoever is at fault, cyclists and motorcyclists always come off worse in collisions.
Better to minimise the chance of that happening.

JohnM5206

Someone will receive an invoice for ambulance and emergency medical care at scene. Insurance is normally the one who does the paying

AdrianC

[quote=[Deleted User];74539893]From what we've read, the cyclist was at fault (no lights) and the driver did nothing wrong ....[/QUOTE]
And the insurer are suspecting that it was premeditated to get the claim money?

I assume that's where the suspicion of collusion is coming from.

OP - it's quite simple. If they suspect fraud, with or without the two parties colluding with each other, then there isn't going to be any payout in a hurry, while they investigate.

Sorry, what? Oh, right...

<Edit> And the thread title's been edited...

silverwhistle

It used to be the case that cycle lights were large, gave uncertain light, were unreliable and liable to jump out of their bracket at the slightest excuse.

These days you can amazingly effective LED lights for a few quid which attach to handlebars by rubber straps and can be taken off in seconds and kept in your pocket. (Have a look at Decathlon's range for examples).I've one small LED that I can strap to my leg and that cost me 99p in a Tesco sale.

Ther's really no excuse these days for not having at least one source of light, and like others I tend to be more like a Christmas tree!

I'm still ready to brake for idiot motorists who drive too fast and cut corners, whether by day or night..

boliston

Amazing the number of people who 'constantly see' cyclists with no lights