Off topic, but strange the language we use? We see a car and we refer to a car, when the problem isn't the car but the driver. Our language takes the human out of the situation.
Knocked Off
- Thread starter Scruffmonster
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Off topic, but strange the language we use? We see a car and we refer to a car, when the problem isn't the car but the driver. Our language takes the human out of the situation.
OP
OP
Scruffmonster
Über Member
- Location
- London/Kent
I do see your point but the language is sound. We, as humans, categorise. If I'm in a warzone and a tank approaches me, I think 'sh1t, that tank is going to shoot me'. If I see a soldier with his rifle, I think 'That soldier is going to shoot me'
It's a question of mass. You cant watch the drivers hands or eyes from a distance, but you can see tyres, indicators, the cars general movement, thus the car, is the problem. If the driver falls asleep, you can watch his arms all you like, the car is still the 1 tonne problem you worry about.
Yeah, I know the language is sound, just on reflection it's strange? We consider the dehumanising attitude of drivers when they get behind the wheel. Disconnecting with reality or empathy. Not recognising that that cyclist is actually a soft, flesh and blood person.
Then we talk about "You can often tell what a car is going to do", when we usually can see the driver?
I guess its all semantics.
Though it's the driver that controls the car, it's the cars wing that'll do the damage and gets our attention.
Then we talk about "You can often tell what a car is going to do", when we usually can see the driver?
I guess its all semantics.
Though it's the driver that controls the car, it's the cars wing that'll do the damage and gets our attention.
call RJW on
020 7657 1555
http://www.rjw.co.uk/firm-information/contact-us/london/#axzz1vgm0eZUmBentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Claim for your wheel off his insurance. He needs the consequence of raised premiums to get him to change his ways around cyclists. Oh, and do do a police collision report. That way other insurance companies he gets quotes from will know about the collision he caused.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
You can sometimes see the driver, you can always see the car. In an incident like this, where a car is seen in a mirror or shoulder-check (I always do one approaching a left-hand junction), you are more likely to see the car than the driver.
Occasionally there will be no clue, but much more often a car that is going to do a left-hook will give some clue by the fact that it's slowing or angling in. For me, the OP has it spot-on: legally 100% the driver's fault, but worth learning what we can do to reduce the likelihood of a repeat.
Occasionally there will be no clue, but much more often a car that is going to do a left-hook will give some clue by the fact that it's slowing or angling in. For me, the OP has it spot-on: legally 100% the driver's fault, but worth learning what we can do to reduce the likelihood of a repeat.
and the good thing about going through his insurance is - he doesn't have any real choice. When he signed up he effectively gave them the power to examine and settle claims on his behalf. If they decide he's been a dick and is liable, they'd rather pay and upset their customer than get dragged through the courts.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Indeed, the OP very generously offered him the opportunity to settle things painlessly on his own, and now he has lost that chance.
When you think about it, you are legally obliged to pay insurers to insure you and potentially find you guilty because it's easier than going to court
If he paid to true a wheel (or even a brand new front wheel if it was completely pringled) it'd be no more than 20 quid to true a wheel or 100 quid for a new one.
This is going to cost him hundreds over the next few years - and I have nothing to say but
Ian Cooper
Expat Yorkshireman
- Location
- Silver Spring, MD, USA
It's illegal to turn left without first safely merging into the left lane and checking for traffic before doing so. Like many drivers, he simply assumed that once you were in his rear, he could safely turn. He failed to consider the fact that, in turning, his speed reduced to such a point that slower-moving vehicles would suddenly become relatively faster-moving vehicles. This is why a merge is required.
Peowpeowpeowlasers
Well-Known Member
I hope you've checked your fork alignment, and felt for any kinks around the frame caused by undue stress.
oldfatfool
Guru
So long as you have a witness and logged it with the rozzers I would imagine his insurance will just pay out without question, if only on the basis that it will make them money. IE they will send him the bill for your payout (his excess) and then load his premiums.
Even if he does pay out of his own pocket now, the fact you have logged it with the rozzers means that he will have to declare the accident to his insurance for the next 5 years. If he fails to do so and he is involved in a more serious claimand they do any digging he will find himself un-insured.
Even if he does pay out of his own pocket now, the fact you have logged it with the rozzers means that he will have to declare the accident to his insurance for the next 5 years. If he fails to do so and he is involved in a more serious claimand they do any digging he will find himself un-insured.