I chinned him

[addictfreak]

Not sure this is a good or bad but just got home and want to get it out....

Driver pulls out on me into a box junction and I hit him square in the drivers door and up I go in the air. First thing I get as I come crashing down is a mouthful of abuse. I ignore him and check my bike quickly over ie is it rideable and it was. Damage to his car a good scuff mark and the door has dented inwards. At this point he is still hurling abuse and wanting details so I reply Dial 118 F*£$K O$F! and ride off down the road to a place to pull in, this is where it gets worse!

As I am looking at my bike he gets out the car with real attitude (fat git in an England Shirt mid to late twenties walks straight upto me and with his blubbery weight gives me a good shove. As he comes at me again I give him a good left jab giving him broken sun glasses and a bloody nose. At this point he didn't come back for more and a good deal of abuse exchanged. In the end he buggered off with the mouthy female who got out with him.

I was left a bit shocked and a gentleman got out of his car from the line of traffic that wasn't moving in the opposite direction and says I have it all on my phone mate, here's my number etc I'll send you the video if you need it..

My front wheel is a little buckled but I think he came off worse. Should I bother reporting it or just take it as one of those things that happen? Wife reckons I should leave it but being 43 I feel a bit guilty in giving him a slap.

Very disappointed in you! What on earth were you thinking, you should punched the mouthy bitch as well. Shame on you.

 

[BentMikey]

Collision, or RTC. Since the police are using RTC, then we probably should too. Using the words collision or incident doesn't prejudge guilt, but using the word accident implies that no-one can be held to blame, and that's why it's wrong.

 

[lukesdad]

Collision, or RTC. Since the police are using RTC, then we probably should too. Using the words collision or incident doesn't prejudge guilt, but using the word accident implies that no-one can be held to blame, and that's why it's wrong.

....and a fist to the gob is ?

 

[gaz]

....and a fist to the gob is ?

 

[potsy]

 

[Boris Bajic]

I quite understand why the emergency services and others have gone over to 'RTC', but in terms of language and its meaning, 'accident' was fine and for most people it will continue to be so.

The word 'accident' implies a sense of lack of intention, but there is no implication of absence of fault.

Language evolves and changes, but the only RTC which isn't also an accident is one that one or the other party intends to cause. In forty years on the road involving many accidents on bicycles and motorcycles and in cars and lorries, I've yet to be involved in an RTC which was the result (as far as I could tell) of any deliberate action by me or the other party to cause a collision.

They were all accidents. I still say accident. I should know, I've had a few.

I worked for many years as an interpreter and translator. 'Accident' in its direct translation is used by the authorities in many other languages.

Some people get quite excited by those police shows on the telly and like to refer to RTCs and similar, but for most of us an accident is an accident.

Accident Accident Accident Accident! Nya nya nya!

 

[Crankarm]

One thing the OP should consider is the two types of legal action in any confrontation/dispute. Criminal charges for any persons that may have committed criminal offences. You whacking the other party may well be self defence, but seen from another perspective ........... assault. Witnesses or presence of CCTV footage could determine if any charges are brought by the police/CPS against Mr Fat Git England Football Shirt.

However the other type of legal action is a civil claim for damages. If the driver is insured he might well be able to have his car repaired by his insurer who may well pursue you for the cost of repairs which you will have to defend or make a counter claim yourself for the damage to your bike. Are you insured with 3rd party insurance eg BC, LCC or CTC as you might need it othewise you COULD be personally liable for repairs to his car plus legal costs, replacement glasses and any other items of his property the driver considers you caused damage to. It could be expensive and messy. Witnesses again could be key for any claim, defence or counter claim.

 

[Paul J]

TBH I have seen the recorded footage and the quality is that poor I could be Elvis or even Saddam. There is no evidence of the incident so being able to aportion blame would be impossible as he left the scene and so did I so obviously knowone would have waited for someone to return. My defence here is that he was half a car length into a box junction for me to be able to even hit his door at 90 degrees. Going by the class of person he was I do not expect any further problems and if I do meet him on the road again a jab will be the least of his problems as I will not be so restrained.

I would not expect even the Police to be able to get the CPS to actually take on this incident as being criminal and as it is not clear cut, he would have trouble convincing a No Win No Fee company to even take on the claim. Damage to the door would be less than his insurance excess as I reckon it would pop out and the scuff polish.

We shall see

 

[Silver Fox]

If his wife then started having a go, then a good punch to the throat should shut her up.

Say what?

Mmmm, yes. My thoughts exactly.

 

[benb]

report it. He assaulted you, you defended yourself.

the requirement to stop at an accident ONLY refers to the driver of motorvehicles

Are you sure? If that's true, it shouldn't be.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Are you sure? If that's true, it shouldn't be.

That's how it reads in Sect 170 of the RTA 1988, where the obligation only applies to drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles.

GC

 

[Cubist]

Are you sure? If that's true, it shouldn't be.

Morally I'd agree, but as the requirement to stop and furnish details refers specifically to the name of the driver and the index mark of the mechanically propelled vehicle, and in the case of an injury accident (only) the name of the driver's insurers, cyclists wouldn't actually have anything to furnish.....

 

[Matthew_T]

Morally I'd agree, but as the requirement to stop and furnish details refers specifically to the name of the driver and the index mark of the mechanically propelled vehicle, and in the case of an injury accident (only) the name of the driver's insurers, cyclists wouldn't actually have anything to furnish.....

If I were involved in an incident where I caused damage, I would give my insurance details anyway, even if the driver is only required to give them. Just for my peace of mind that every aspect has been covered and I cannot get accused of refusing to give my details.
However, in the OP's situation, he felt that his own safety was the most important factor in the incident and acted accordingly.

 

[Cubist]

If I were involved in an incident where I caused damage, I would give my insurance details anyway, even if the driver is only required to give them. Just for my peace of mind that every aspect has been covered and I cannot get accused of refusing to give my details.
However, in the OP's situation, he felt that his own safety was the most important factor in the incident and acted accordingly.

Do you have third party insurance covering you on a push bike? Wow!

 

[BentMikey]

Quite a lot of us do. It's why I'm a member of LCC, for example.