Advice - RTA resulting in significant injury

[HLaB]

Just a thought would the Ctc (or whatever they're called these days) cover dhd retrospectively ?

 

[vickster]

Their chosen legal firm of Slater & Gordon might if they think they have a chance of winning

 

[classic33]

The world is full of lying toe rags though.

I've been bending over backwards (OK I can't actually do it very well) to provide evidence. We've got side damage on my bike, side damage on me, Garmin GPS data, google maps and google earth photos of the location etc, and detailed statements. The driver just said, turned right and hit cyclist coming down the outside (filtering in opposite lane). He actually never saw me and I was in primary when he hit me. That's all the account the driver has given. Police report confirms damage to his front bumper on the nearside, which so happens to match my scratched side of the carbon forks. But, the driver has done nothing else.

This isn't you then?

 

[spen666]

I wish you'd read the original posting before making such negative statements.

"The car driver pulled out of the junction pretty much on top of me then came to a halt in a bus stop/cycle lane in front of me causing me to ride into the back of the car."

Which would make it not the cyclist's fault, and a traffic offence for the driver. Unfortunately, with head injuries and some memory loss, it's going to hard to prove that happened if the driver chooses to deny it.

I wish you would read my post before posting such negative comments.

If you did you would see I had read the post and what I posted was taking into account exactly what the OP said.

I am sorry if you don't like the law or the legal reality of the situation, but tough.

The fact is that the OP will lose if this is pursued. He rode into the back of another vehicle, not a vehicle turning, but one that had made the turn and was on the road.

The fact the vehicle may have stopped illegally does not absolve the op from liability.




Some of us are able to look at the legal situation objectively and do not fall into the mantra of it always being the motorists fault. But hey, each to their own.

 

[spen666]

....., but the other party should be proving their innocence. Why we have to go into so much detail and they don't is beyond me.

No one has to prove their innocence...in English Law at any rate.

This is a civil matter and it is on the balance of probability....the claimant has to prove it is more likely than not the other party is to blame.



I am not sure exactly what you mean, but if it is when a cyclist brings a claim you are talking about, then the reason is because a claimant has to prove it is more likely than not the incident occurred in the way they allege. There realistically is no difference no matter who the claimant is or who the respondent is. The burden of proof is the same

 

[dhd.evans]

I wish you would read my post before posting such negative comments.

If you did you would see I had read the post and what I posted was taking into account exactly what the OP said.

I am sorry if you don't like the law or the legal reality of the situation, but tough.

The fact is that the OP will lose if this is pursued. He rode into the back of another vehicle, not a vehicle turning, but one that had made the turn and was on the road.

The fact the vehicle may have stopped illegally does not absolve the op from liability.




Some of us are able to look at the legal situation objectively and do not fall into the mantra of it always being the motorists fault. But hey, each to their own.

Yes, it is a harsh legal reality - but a morally flawed one and hence why I'm pursuing. My solicitor acknowledges it will be an uphill battle, but one that could gain traction due to lack of witnesses and the havoc wreaked.

I'm not actively seeking monetary damages because I feel hard done by (that is an unintended byproduct) but more to have the driver admit to responsibility for their poor driving.

If it becomes split liability and we end up going out separate ways I'll be gratified.

I would prefer the driver be fully liable for the accident (as well we both know it to be) and I be compensated but, like you say and I agree with, the legal angle is near enough infallible.

 

[dhd.evans]

The case has been taken on - thankful for this as my dental bill to repair the damage is starting to breach £150...

 

[confusedcyclist]

Wishing you a swift recovery @dhd.evans!

 

[Hacienda71]

I had a similar case albeit without the serious injuries. In my case though there was a cyclist coming the other way who stopped and was happy to be a witness. The driver had pulled out in front of me missing my front wheel by inches and then performed an emergency stop. I was unable to stop despite have a fully functional bike and being totally aware of my surroundings and ran into the back of his car with my head bouncing off his rear window. Without the witness I know I would have been considered the liable party, however the witness was clear of who was at fault. I didn't pursue any form of compensation, I am not into claiming unless it is necessary , which in that instance it wasn't. The one thing it shows is that some bits of law are an ass. It is very possible to be put in a position where someone else's negligence can cause you injury, but you are automatically assumed to be the party at fault.
To the op get well soon.

 

[steveindenmark]

At the start of this post I suggested it would be a tit for tat claim, and still think that.
If something is in front of you, it is up to the guy behind to stop. Even if the guy in front slams on. You have to travel at a speed and within a gap you can stop. Its how all these roundabout scams have been operating.

I am sure the OP has thought of something that he could have done to avoid this in hindsight.

If a cyclist ploughed into the back of my car and damaged it, I would be claiming off him. Also, if some pratt slammed on in his car right in front of me and I hit him and was injured. I would be claiming off him.

It sounds like you were both to blame and both have shoulder your part of it.

 

[.stu]

I remember when buying my car insurance reading the t&c's which stated that my insurance world be void if I admitted liability. Sad but true. It's clearly nod about fairness and restoring justice, but being away with it. Imho it should be illegal for contracts like this to require you to lie (such as if you knew you were at fault).

For this reason I have front and rear cameras on my bike and a dashcam in my car. I have no intention to ever post videos online or send them to the police but just to cover my backside in situations like this.

I hope the op makes a swift recovery and gets some justice.

 

[classic33]

At the start of this post I suggested it would be a tit for tat claim, and still think that.
If something is in front of you, it is up to the guy behind to stop. Even if the guy in front slams on. You have to travel at a speed and within a gap you can stop. Its how all these roundabout scams have been operating.

I am sure the OP has thought of something that he could have done to avoid this in hindsight.

If a cyclist ploughed into the back of my car and damaged it, I would be claiming off him. Also, if some pratt slammed on in his car right in front of me and I hit him and was injured. I would be claiming off him.

It sounds like you were both to blame and both have shoulder your part of it.

Two Second Rule
Remaining at least 2 seconds from the vehicle in front will provide a distance of one car length per 5 mph, at which ever speed you drive. This distance is of course extended for the 2 seconds the faster you travel.
Which at 20 mph should be just over 54 feet between vehicles.

20 Mph Braking Distance
Thinking Distance: 20 ft
Braking Distance: 20 ft
Stopping Distance: 40 ft

 

[steveindenmark]

Dont be a fool. Dont break the 2 second rule.

 

[fimm]

54 feet is 18 metres, for those of us who have no idea what 54 feet looks like...

 

[classic33]

Dont be a fool. Dont break the 2 second rule.

How often do you see it actually being used though?

A gap that large, based on the length of an Ford Escort, is too inviting to following traffic. So you could see it vanish in an instant, with no control over the situation.