Collision with car reversing off of driveway

[glasgowcyclist]

Why not? I've had a gut full of idiot people who hurt cyclists and damage property and refuse to accept responsibility, ...

You can post Youtube pictures and criticism of transgressors when it's your payout that's still in the pipeline. It isn't good advice to be giving to others in this situation.

GC

 

[benb]

Strictly speaking, he didn't and he wouldn't give them to me either. It was only after the police officer intervened that I got anywhere but the solicitors still had to find out his insurance details.

To be honest, I'm not even 100% sure if he had to give me his insurance details. I felt sure he did at the time, he claimed it was none of my business and I could just have his phone number (and I obviously had his registration plate). What is the law?

The law is that if there is a RTC all parties involved must give name address and insurance details to anyone reasonably requiring them.
In practice that means exchanging details with the other parties.

I guess not everyone has their insurance details handy, so name address and phone number is the minimum.
Reg number is not enough, because the driver might not be the owner.

 

[Luke Redpath]

I guess not everyone has their insurance details handy, so name address and phone number is the minimum.
Reg number is not enough, because the driver might not be the owner.

Good point!

 

[glenn forger]

You can post Youtube pictures and criticism of transgressors when it's your payout that's still in the pipeline. It isn't good advice to be giving to others in this situation.

GC

Only an idiot would think i meant post the footage before settlement took place. Nice of you to drop by.

 

[vickster]

You think he wanted to pay out of his own pocket and not involve the insurers? That sort of stone-walling would put a lot of people off. The driver tried to duck out responsibility, and also came close to breaking the law, if the cops hadn't turned up who knows what he would have done.

Splash his image, the next person he hurts might not be so tenacious.

Well that's how it read, he's admitted liability finally, now name and shame

personally, I don't get the point of sticking pictures of people on YouTube! It's not like it's someone in the public eye

Then again I'm not vindictive...

 

[glenn forger]

His insurer has admitted responsibility, not the same thing at all, he may well be driving around still thinking he did nothing wrong. Plastering his image over the internet would show other drivers with the same casual attitude toward causing injuries and damage that they will not get away with it.

 

[400bhp]

His insurer has admitted responsibility, not the same thing at all, he may well be driving around still thinking he did nothing wrong. Plastering his image over the internet would show other drivers with the same casual attitude toward causing injuries and damage that they will not get away with it.

No it won't.

It's just shows a rather odd character trait.

 

[vickster]

No, he has to admit liability via his insurer which they then communicate. That will be on his insurance records

Because drivers really pay attention to such stuff on YouTube...do your really believe that?

I don't know what paperwork Luke has received from the police. Personally, I was asked to complete a statement and say what action I would like taken against the driver if any. If Luke wants him to be punished, he can ask the police to take steps to prosecute. I expect if they did, that would make him think rather more than YouTube which he probably doesn't even look at like a large proportion of the population

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Only an idiot would think i meant post the footage before settlement took place. Nice of you to drop by.

Since I wasn't alone in reading it that way, you should have made your intent clearer.
Thankfully the OP has the sense not to heed your suggestion.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

No, he has to admit liability via his insurer which they then communicate. That will be on his insurance records. Because drivers really pay attention to such stuff on YouTube...do your really believe that?

If you cast your eyes upthread you'll see an example of exactly that. A man hurts a cyclist, abuses her and refuses to supply details, is traced and makes a grovelling apology.

He doesn't have to admit anything, his insurer will make their own judgement on looking at the evidence, the driver could well be swearing on his life he did nothing wrong, insurance company's decisions quite often go against what the insured party thinks because the insured party, as in this case, will do any and everything to get out of admitting guilt. Trust me, drivers swear on their childrens' lives they've done nothing wrong and the calmer, more pragmatic insurance companies decide they're talking rot.

 

[uclown2002]

The law is that if there is a RTC all parties involved must give name address and insurance details to anyone reasonably requiring them.
In practice that means exchanging details with the other parties.

I guess not everyone has their insurance details handy, so name address and phone number is the minimum.
Reg number is not enough, because the driver might not be the owner.

Not true in all RTCs.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...ng_e/consumer_driving_e/traffic_accidents.htm

 

[glenn forger]

But true in the one we're discussing.

 

[uclown2002]

But true in the one we're discussing.

Indeed, but that doesn't make his statement correct.

 

[vickster]

If you cast your eyes upthread you'll see an example of exactly that. A man hurts a cyclist, abuses her and refuses to supply details, is traced and makes a grovelling apology.

He doesn't have to admit anything, his insurer will make their own judgement on looking at the evidence, the driver could well be swearing on his life he did nothing wrong, insurance company's decisions quite often go against what the insured party thinks because the insured party, as in this case, will do any and everything to get out of admitting guilt. Trust me, drivers swear on their childrens' lives they've done nothing wrong and the calmer, more pragmatic insurance companies decide they're talking rot.

What thread?

 

[glenn forger]

This thread, sorry.

Bloke opens car door and knocks a cyclist over, abuses her and refuses to give details, walks off, is traced and humbly apologises with plenty of self-recrimination:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclistdooring-man-not-proud-of-reaction-20140319-352r5.html

That bloke was too arrogant to think he had to supply details, like the one that reversed into Luke. Now lots of people know he's wrong.