Accident my fault?!

[gaz]

You were cycling on the pavement ?

More like out of the drive if it was a head one collision and she was 90% in her drive.


When i got hit last year, i went down the route of just claiming by my self, i didn't have any injuries as my bike and bag took the brunt of it. so my claim was reasonably small compared to some. Still the company ran around the blocks trying to avoid payment, that didn't happen when i said i would take them to court.

 

[fossyant]

You'll need a solicitor with this, if you haven't got one. Doesn't take long for a car to 'cross' your path, but that was far to close to be a safe turn, and of course wasn't. Drivers turning across other traffic need to make sure it's safe to do so first, simples.

 

[peteoc]

in respose to some of the questions:

Yes I've gone via a solicitor, my cousin's friend works at one so is doing it all for me.
No I wasn't on the pavement, I was cycling on the road.
The driver was turning left into the drive of a cricket club.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Aaah, so he left hooks you and then says it's your fault when you hit the back of his car which he hadn't quite gotten out of your way following his dangerous driving.... yeah, I can see how easily you might be confused into thinking that he was at fault. You fool.

Apologise immediately and offer to wash his car for a year

 

[downfader]

in respose to some of the questions:

Yes I've gone via a solicitor, my cousin's friend works at one so is doing it all for me.
No I wasn't on the pavement, I was cycling on the road.
The driver was turning left into the drive of a cricket club.

I think Crankers is inferring that the insurance company are saying that. Not that you yourself were.

 

[peteoc]

Well I've requested the photos as they'll be a good giggle, i'll post on here when I get them.

 

[DrSquirrel]

I'd be surprised if they actually gave you photos.

After all all it does is show photos of the area - and I assume their opinion on positions of car/bike etc (in court - this isn't accepted as proof unless you both agree it is accurate).

Damage hopefully should show the collision point which is good for you. Nearer the front the better, but still doesn't make you wrong if its right at the back.

Any skid marks (from you) on the road?

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Any skid marks (from you) on the road?

That would certainly help ilustrate the fear just before the collision but skid marks from the bike might be more helpful!

 

[fossyant]

Left hook - hung drawn and quartered........................ the third party insurer is being an ass (like in my case ) so sting them.................

 

[peteoc]

no skid marks, the speed I was going and the fact I didn't expect it what so ever meant I only just got my hands onto the brakes before impact.

 

[CopperBrompton]

It is worth taking your own photos and drawing your own diagrams. I did this when I was knocked off a motorcycle years ago by a van driver who got bored waiting in stationary traffic and decided to do a U-turn without looking in his mirrors. It helped a lot in court. The defending barrister tried to argue that I had overtaken past a junction, but my photos and diagrams showed that the nearest junction was a good 200 metres away.

 

[fossyant]

I took lots of photo's of the Roundabout (RAB) that I got knocked off on, in daylight....a few weeks later....... the accident happened at night, I also took photo's of my lights etc...............etc............

It's going to get messy, so do all you can. Expect a long drawn out fight...............I didn't expect it................... even with admission of liability within weeks..... it's not good... the third party insurers are a 'barstewards'.......................

It will drag out, stick to what happened, the other party will lie and lie, and stumble.................