First bad incident need advise

[G2EWS]

I have given this some thought and think that the advice to ignore her is probably the best.

I see no problem with asking the Police if a car is allowed in the cycle lane and what they think of someone who swerved into it as you got nearer. To me this is driving without due care and attention. She cannot say she did not see you as that is not a defence unless it was night time and you had not lights etc.

This is a classic case of having your mobile phone and taking a photo of the location of her vehicle at the time of collision. If you had done this, I believe from my long ago legal studies that she would not have a leg to stand on.

The other cardinal rule when involved in an accident is never admit anything. I would not apologise but do ask if the other driver and passengers are OK. It WILL go against you if you end up in a court and you have not shown due care to the other party/s involved.

Best regards

Chris

 

[G2EWS]

Too late now as inception would be after the incident. But still worth getting for the future. Join British Cycling, London Cycling Campaign who both have free 3rd party cover for incidents just like the one you describe. Also your local cycling club might have 3rd party cover which covers you in addition to club riding.

So if you are a member of 'British Cycling' you are covered?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/

Seems daft not to be a member at £24 per annum for 'Ride' membership.

Best regards

Chris

 

[Drago]

You're liable. That fact that the cars was somewhere it shouldn't have been does not alter the fact that you saw it in advance and seeing this still made the manoeuver in the erroneous belief you could slip past. The insurers will take the view that you must take some responsibility for your own actions, and by commuting to a manoeuver where you could already see a problem exposed them, the insurer, to an unnecessary risk.

That said, if your insurer is any cop they may argue an 80/20 fault or similar, based on the cars unauthorised presence in a cycle lane, though as a practical matter it doesn't help you very much.

BTW, did you ever figure why the silly old bint called an emergency service because her mirror had been damaged?

The cars actions are neither careless or dangerous driving. Aside from the definitions one must consider CPS guidance and charging standards (ie, what the CPS think the law means) and case law (ie, what courts think the law means). You'd be more likely to get a hand job from Lord Lucan that get a charge on that. In any case, liability as defined by criminal courts does not automatically correlate with liability as determined/pre agreed by insurers.

 

[Crankarm]

I have given this some thought and think that the advice to ignore her is probably the best.

I see no problem with asking the Police if a car is allowed in the cycle lane and what they think of someone who swerved into it as you got nearer. To me this is driving without due care and attention. She cannot say she did not see you as that is not a defence unless it was night time and you had not lights etc.

This is a classic case of having your mobile phone and taking a photo of the location of her vehicle at the time of collision. If you had done this, I believe from my long ago legal studies that she would not have a leg to stand on.

The other cardinal rule when involved in an accident is never admit anything. I would not apologise but do ask if the other driver and passengers are OK. It WILL go against you if you end up in a court and you have not shown due care to the other party/s involved.

Best regards

Chris

Errr no. Due care in a legal sense is NEGLIGENCE wrt to driving ie falling below the standard of a hypothetical prudent and cautious driver. It has NOTHING to do what so ever with enquiring whether occupants of a vehicle are ok.

From the info given so far the driver would have difficulty in bringing a claim against the cyclist that the cyclist was negligent which caused damage to their vehicle and for which the cyclist should be liable. Given that the driver had driven her vehicle into a designated cycle lane without first suitable checking to make sure it was clear may well weaken the driver's claim(s).

 

[Red Light]

As what will likely happen now is that you will get a nasty letter from her insurers demanding £1600 to replace her car's electrically operated, heated wing mirror and to respray the side of her car which she will no doubt claim was scratched by your bike.

If that does happen (unlikely) just respond saying she drove into you in a cycle lane and denying liability. If in the extremely unlikely event they then try to take you to Court over it, just apply to the Court to have it moved to the Small Claims Track. That way you are expected to represent yourself and they cannot claim any of their legal costs - which generally results in them giving up because it will cost them more to send a solicitor to Court to argue the case than they are claiming off you.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Buy her a roll of gaffer tape.

 

[Crankarm]

If that does happen (unlikely) just respond saying she drove into you in a cycle lane and denying liability. If in the extremely unlikely event they then try to take you to Court over it, just apply to the Court to have it moved to the Small Claims Track. That way you are expected to represent yourself and they cannot claim any of their legal costs - which generally results in them giving up because it will cost them more to send a solicitor to Court to argue the case than they are claiming off you.

Yep and the judge won't like seeing a solicitor representing an insurer in the Small Claims Court.

As RL says deny all liability. If they hound you then make a counter claim for personal injury. I am assuming your bike isn't damaged?

 

[Crankarm]

Buy her a roll of gaffer tape.

With "this is no admission of liability" attached just a note to say you are taking the p155.

 

[Shaz]

Thanks a lot guys.
I haven't admitted anything verbally and won't do so if she calls me.
On my way home, I'll go to the local police station, would record my statement and I'll take it from there on. Now I'm feeling so much better. THANK YOU everyone!
Yes its just the wing mirror cover that came off. The glass and the rest of the components were intact and no I didn't hit the wing or the passenger side door.

 

[Shaz]

Yep and the judge won't like seeing a solicitor representing an insurer in the Small Claims Court.

As RL says deny all liability. If they hound you then make a counter claim for personal injury. I am assuming your bike isn't damaged?

Yeah my bike isn't damaged because I somehow managed to get on the footpath and managed to stop the bike. I won't like going down the route of personal injury claim because at that time I only felt a bit of discomfort in my leg but I'm fine now. But if she takes it further then I'll do so.

 

[Drago]

The problem is, the incident wasn't spontaneous. The cyclist wasn't bimbling along, the car encroached the cycle lane and BOOM!

Our hero saw the problem ahead and made an erroneous judgement about being able to squeeze past. The cars actions were prior and seperate to the collision, and the contact occurred due to the riders wrongful belief they could squeeze through the available space.

 

[fossyant]

Please learn from this - don't assume the cycle lane is of any use - it's just paint ! Please don't try and filter down gaps which are 'compromised'.

Oh and do get CTC or BC insurance if you are cycling regularly.

 

[ianrauk]

Bad incident? Minor more like.

 

[lozcs]

So if you are a member of 'British Cycling' you are covered?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/

Seems daft not to be a member at £24 per annum for 'Ride' membership.

Best regards

Chris

This thread/post spurred me to join......

Used Promotion code TForL12 which discounted it half price to £12 total for RIDE membership...

 

[davefb]

The problem is, the incident wasn't spontaneous. The cyclist wasn't bimbling along, the car encroached the cycle lane and BOOM!

Our hero saw the problem ahead and made an erroneous judgement about being able to squeeze past. The cars actions were prior and seperate to the collision, and the contact occurred due to the riders wrongful belief they could squeeze through the available space.

OP said the vehicle moved further over...

so what was 'okay , theres still enough room' became 'ulp, no there isnt'...