False accusation

DullGreyGuy

Okell said:
Actually a worse menace to pedestrians are e-scooter riders who ride illegally and at speed on the footpath.  The city I live in started an official trial scheme in October 2020 and unfortunately it's been extended to autumn 2024.  If people can't ride them properly (ie on the road or any other places where bicycles can be legally ridden and not on pedestrian footpaths) then they ought to be banned as the scheme clearly can't be policed properly.  Because of their weight and speed they are much more dangerous to pedestrians when ridden on footpaths than a conventional cycle.

In principle I'd agree however in practice where I walk the main risk with e-scooters is as a trip hazard where they are just left abandoned on the pavement. There feels to be relatively few users in the City or the riverside walkways where we do most our walking compared the army of commuter cyclists in the City and the cyclists who refuse to obey the no cycling sections of the riverside. 

ontheroad1970

DullGreyGuy said:

[Deleted User] said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Didier2000 said:

I am considering pursuing legal action against the cyclist for falsely accusing me and causing unnecessary stress and financial strain, especially in light of the police's conclusion.

I would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice on how to initiate a legal process against this individual for their actions. Your input is highly valued.

What financial strain?

Having not seen the video footage makes things a little difficult but having dealt with disputed liability cases in Motor (mainly before dash cam was a thing) the reality is two people can genuinely come away from the same incident with different views of what happened. The classic is the narrow lane collision when both are positive they stopped in time and it was the other party that went into them... clearly two stationary cars cannot hit each other so one or both are mistaken. 

You apparent agree the cyclist did fall and damage was done, if it wasnt you then why did this happen? What are their allocations against you? You dont have to make contact to be liable for an accident. 

As to your court case... dont bother. Libel claims cannot be heard in the Small Track and so you are exposing yourself to the risk of having to pay their lawyers fees to defend the case. Its going to be hard to prove their intent and you've not provided any evidence of actual financial loss as a consequence of it ("stress", unless involving medication, psychiatrists, therapy etc, is seen as part of life and not a valid head of claim). 

You'll end up spending vast sums of money and never getting anything back.

It sounds like the cyclist tried to undertake when there wasn't space. It's an extremely stupid thing to do, but also very common.

Entering a space where there isn't adequate room, and where the driver has a blind spot, and where a slight moment can result in an accident. Entirely the cyclist's fault.

Cyclists are vulnerable road users and whilst as a pedestrian I truly believe I am much more likely to be hit by a cyclist running a red light etc than a car the reality of courts is that the driver of the 2 tonne metal box has the greater duty of care. 

Cyclists tend to be fairly squishy and so didn't get that many cases back in my claims days as many end up in Multi-Track as a consequence but often cases end up being the driver 100% liable but the cyclist having contributory negligence applied. In one case where the insured was turning onto a driveway and cyclist going along the pavement went into the side of them it was deemed 50% contributory negligence.

The difference between liability and contributory negligence is the first determines how much of each others claim the parties get (so with the driver 100% liable they cannot claim for damage to their vehicle) whereas contributory negligence reduces part or all of the parties claim (so the cyclist only gets 50% of the normal payout). Contributory negligence is often used in accidents where the claimant wasnt wearing a seatbelt so still the fault of the person that rear ended them, their car damage is covered in full but their injury settlement is reduced as a seatbelt would have reduced the likely injuries (on the balance of probability which the civil courts use).


Ultimately though you would need to see the video and what it actually shows. I have been sent many videos that our insured said proved it wasnt their fault and the video captured nothing. Others were self incriminating as the insured said they'd left an appropriate gap but the video shows they cut a corner etc

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

There is a reason why they have protection.  Not because they are being given preferential treatment but because of what happens to them when something goes wrong.  

ontheroad1970

I love how in anti cycle posts people assume that all road users would always do the right thing.  

[Deleted User]

He deliberately makes sure there is an accident, because he feels that if it's a near miss the driver won't face any consequences.

For example, a driver pulls out in one video in front of him. There is plenty of time, but a mistake by someone coming the other way forces them to stop partially in his lane.

He starts ranting several seconds before slowing down and gently hitting the side of their car.

That is reckless and should be a crime. Yes, mistakes were made, but that's no reason to demonstrate cause an accident just to make some point.

tifo

You could leave it and let the cyclist take you to court then counter claim for any losses you want to for.

Car_54

facade said:

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991) it is an offence to ride recklessly on a road or in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner.

In fact since the 1988 act there is no offence of 'reckless' driving or cycling. Replaced by dangerous and careless/inconsiderate.

ElefantEd

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

Just because there is one cycling idiot doesn't mean that other cyclists don't need, and deserve, protection.

ididgetwhereiamtoday

I need to get a dash cam!

MacPingu1986

Rigolith - every government that has looked into mandatory bicycle ID requirements and mandatory insurance requirements have concluded the drawbacks massively outweigh any benefits. There were some bicycle number plate/registration schemes in Europe and certain US states but they've all been abandoned for the same reasons.

Plenty of cyclists (and almost all keen cyclists) already have insurance, Jeremy almost certainly does. It's incredibly cheap (with basic third party cover being usually a bundled freebie with home/contents cover) compared to motor vehicle insurance because the potential to cause serious harm/damage is so much less.

If a cyclist causes you loss nothing stops you making a claim against them, in exactly the same way as any non-motoring related loss - that's why violent crime isn't tackled by mandatory pedestrian insurance for example.

Unfortunately, bicycle insurance or bicycle number plates doesn't stop dangerous/careless/bad driving which is the *overwhelming* risk to cycling safety - decades and decades of evidence, data and policy across the UK & Europe support this.

DullGreyGuy

tifo said:

You could leave it and let the cyclist take you to court then counter claim for any losses you want to for.

Would love to know how you can claim there was no contact and was not the cause of the fall but then say the cyclist caused damage to the car? Think the judge may see through that one @tifo