HLaB
Marie Attoinette Fan
Just a thought would the Ctc (or whatever they're called these days) cover dhd retrospectively ?
Last edited:
This isn't you then?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.
I wish you would read my post before posting such negative comments.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.
....., 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.
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.
Two Second RuleAt 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.
How often do you see it actually being used though?Dont be a fool. Dont break the 2 second rule.