Meet the forum's s**t hot cyclist

[deptfordmarmoset]

Lighting up times has seen some recent changes & if I remember right, lighting up time now, is "any time the sun is below the horizon". Not set times.

According to the HC there are two different sets of times: night (defined as 30 mins after local sunset till 30 minutes before local sunrise) but there is also a requirement for motorised vehicles to retain sidelights and reg plate lights between sunset and sunrise. The code advice as it applies to bicycles only refers to ''night'' so as a legal requirement, alicat would still have been within his rights even if he'd been riding without lights. It's academic though - because he was using lights anyway, and was therefore well within the legal lighting requirements.

 

[classic33]

Classic33

What happened to you is terrible. The initial police reaction in my case was good - they looked after my bike at the station and interviewed the driver at the scene. It just fell apart when it reached the Traffic Process Office in Stafford.

Guys

Advice taken! It did give me a certain amount of pleasure at the time but wiser counsel has prevailed.

Initial police reaction was fine for me, it was afterwards that it went pearshaped. If I'm able to help one person from going the way I had to, I will. Often that only involves making them aware of the pitfalls that they may face.

I'll be honest, I even went out bought a wheel clamp with an Irish mobile number on it, to phone for removal & then they go & change the law.

 

[asterix]

Hi alicat,

sorry to hear of your experience. My own incident took place back in 2005 when I was doored by car passenger in a queue at a red light. I was in the green cycle lane. Fortunately I had witnesses as I recall nothing about what happened and awoke 24 hours later in ICU 40 miles away. The driver couldn't leave the scene but gave a false address to witnesses who fortunately noted his registration.

I did receive a serious head injury, including skull fracture and haematoma and was in hospital 2 weeks. They would have kept me longer but I wanted to leave and they let me go after a 2nd scan. With hindsight I don't think they should have let me go so soon.

The police were involved and on finding the address was false said they would try to find the vehicle. They called to see me a couple of times before saying they couldn't spare any further time on the case (at least 2 people died on the ring-road that week was their explanation).

Being a CTC member, I used the services of RJ&W to pursue compensation. They arranged medicals and also contacted the police to obtain any witness statements and were able to discover the drivers insurers (although he has nevver been found). The case took 3.5 years as the insurer contested the claim and then the amount demanded. I had 4 medicals, the last of which, revealed that I had suffered frontal lobe damage although it was the back of my head that had the haematoma. RJ&W were able to obtain a very substantial settlement at the end of the day (my cognitive injuries by that time were considered permanent). I wasn't wearing high-viz, the accident was at mid-day.

Having looked at the incident site and further comments I'd agree it appears impossible for the drivers account to be correct.

I wish you every success in pursuing this.

 

[alicat]

Thanks, Asterix

I have been very lucky in comparison and your and Classic33's tales have helped me put it in perspective. I have been comforted by the comments on this forum. I know I did nothing wrong and am hoping my remaining injuries will resolve themselves soon.

On Friday I was very upset and angry that the driver is blaming me for the claim. Now I realise has only won round 1 and it's his loss in the end if he cannot admit to his lack of attention.

 

[asterix]

To put things in even more perspective, I had been cycle commuting prior to the accident for over 25 years with barely a scratch.

I've also continued to cycle a lot but I am rather cautious in traffic and tend to use the back roads if possible.

 

[classic33]

If you have the registration number, consider making a request(chargable) to the DVLA for the owners registered details. You will need to state clearly why the information is required & you will be expected to provide a police log/crime number to back up what you say on the form.

If you have someone working on your behalf, then I'd let them do it.

It may sound daft but keep a photographic log of your injuries. On a film camera not a digital. Digital pictures can be easily altered, whereas you have a negative that can be used to produce consistant pictures every time, without being open to alteration(the actual negative). The other thing is get pictures of all the damage caused & keep a written log of what you do know & keep it safe.

 

[alicat]

Hi Classic33

I do have the driver's details and I think it was a company car.

I have kept a photographic log of my injuries but on a digital camera not a film one. There isn't much to look at any more in terms of visible bruising.

I have just emailed my solicitor asking her to start proceedings without any further delay and apply for summary judgment. In his denial of liability he has admitted our vehicles collided (is a bike a vehicle?) and I can prove I was on the roundabout before him. Simples!

 

[mickle]

Go for it alicat - best of luck.

 

[classic33]

My reason for saying use a film camera rather than a digital one was on the grounds that its harder, not impossible, to manipulate the image on the negative. The negative also gives you the opportunity of getting the same print again.

Two pictures showing how my left ankle looked a week after, light bruising & swelling. No bruising or swelling on the night. It later went further up the lower half of the leg. Other parts were similar but harder to get a direct comparison with the other side of the body.

As mickle said "go for it"

 

[Dan B]

(is a bike a vehicle?)

Yes

 

[alicat]

Well, I could post pictures of my bruised bottom but it's lunchtime. I think being 'broad across the beam' as my Yorkshire mother put it once saved me from a fractured pelvis.

Instead, I'll settle for the letter I wrote to the police last week inviting them to reconsider their decision not to prosecute.

'Dear Ms X




Road traffic collision: 07:06 on 27/09/2010 on the A5127 Trent Valley Road at junction with A5192 Eastern Avenue, Lichfield, Staffordshire


Thank you for your letter of 10 December informing me that you have completed your investigations regarding this collision and have decided not to prosecute the driver who knocked me off my bike when I had right of way on a roundabout and gave me injuries from which I am still recovering.



I telephoned your office and was informed that the decision not to prosecute the driver for driving without due care and attention was made because of insufficient evidence. Please would you explain why there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge? Both I and Mrs Y, the witness who was driving the car following me, knew that the driver was going to collide with me. The only person to whom it seems to have been a surprise was the person who caused the collision. Everything points to the fact that he was not concentrating on his driving and was not in control of his vehicle. He was driving too fast given that he was approaching a junction at which he had to give way (driving without due care). He failed to look out for hazards at the roundabout (driving without due attention) and could not stop in the space he could see to be clear (driving without due care). I suspect that the driver was lulled into a state of complacency by a journey he did every day where he met very few junctions up to that point. Cyclists do not use that roundabout often at that time of day so the driver was probably not expecting to see a cyclist. As the collision took place on a Monday, he may have been planning his working week rather than concentrating on the task in hand and/or thinking about his altered route later in his commuting journey (his firm had moved offices the previous week). I also suspect he merely focussed on the motorist behind me and thought he could get past her in time.



Ms Y had a passenger namely her husband Mr Z. He did not wait at the scene since he was going to catch the same train that I should have caught. Please would you now obtain a statement from him.



The Traffic Process Office has informed me that this is considered to be a minor collision involving slight injuries and the fact I was not wearing hi-viz clothing has been taken into account. I am not sure why any of this is relevant. I know I was visible to other road users: Mrs Y, the driver following me, knew I was on the road and I had not had any near misses earlier in my journey. I was crossing the driver’s field of vision and so would have been clearly visible as an object moving relative to the background such as the chevron signs on the roundabout. Furthermore, hi–viz clothing is not a legal requirement and I did have good lights, spoke and pedal reflectors since I needed them at the start of my journey so I am sure I would have clearly visible to the driver who collided with me if he had observing the road ahead properly.



Regarding the view that I had slight injuries, I would mention that I spent 36 hours in hospital and was not fit to work for over a month. My injuries include:



· severe concussion/loss of consciousness for 30 minutes after the accident

· a three inch scar and 8 stitches on my head

· post-concussion syndrome (poor memory, sensitivity to noise, lethargy)

· bruising on my bottom which has still not subsided

· and a fear of traffic.



Before the accident cycling was my main hobby and means of transport. Now it is not. Cycling is a safe means of transport in its own right. However, cyclists are vulnerable road users compared to motor vehicles and the Highway Code encourages motorists to take this into account. There is a well-known phrase in cycling circles for this type of collision – SMIDSY ‘Sorry mate, I didn’t see you’. I now cycle much less, which is impacting on my fitness and general well-being. Please would you ask a police officer who is also a cyclist to review this decision so that cyclists can feel safe on the streets of Staffordshire and give me some confidence that this decision has not been taken with the car culture in mind.



In summary, the collision has had a large impact on my life over the past four months and it would help my recovery, including my confidence on the road, for the driver to be prosecuted: it would present him with the opportunity to consider his driving ability and attitude. If you know of another way to prevent him being a danger to cyclists in the future I would be pleased to hear it.



Please would you therefore:



1. Inform me why the evidence is considered to be insufficient
2. Obtain a statement from Mr Z
3. Reconsider the decision not to prosecute the driver.

I look forward to hearing from you.



Yours sincerely

 

[boydj]

Good letter. Hope the response meets your expectations.

 

[classic33]

Beats mine anyway:
To whom it may concern



Made a formal request in April this year(copy enclosed) for the insurance details of both the driver involved & the motor vehicle in a collision at the junction of Shroggs Road & Hebble Lane, Halifax. Time of incident 1908 hours, 25[sup]th[/sup] March 2005. Log number given: 1626 of the 25[sup]th[/sup] March 2005.

Unable to locate the driver of the vehicle, using the information that has been given. Not known at the address given & when this is queried I have been told all I have that is correct, is the vehicle, type & registration. Name & address isn’t even close. Name & address given, Richard Payne(Paine, Pain,) Helen Terrace, Brighouse. Which was the reason for the formal request being made. Car is currently parked outside of a house in ****************************************************** female, lives there, driver involved was male. Have been in touch with those who live there, and been told that the car belongs to their daughter. So far there has been no response to this call. Contact number has been left with them. Two separate surnames & addresses. Addresses are about five miles apart.

Visited Halifax Police Station today, with the relevant paperwork for the Motor Insurance Bureau, which showed what I should be asking for. Forms to be filled & returned, Untraceable Driver & Uninsured Driver forms. Piece required, not heard off, Section 154, Road Traffic Act 1988 Came away from Halifax Police Station today with a slip of paper, on which was written the name & address as given by me. I was asked for the information, then handed it straight back in written form.

Is there any way in which I, as the rider of the other vehicle involved, can get the drivers details from the Police? Nothing was given to me at the scene, very little since. Everything started being given the following week. I was having to make requests for this information. Nothing filed with the Accident Clerks, see the station. At the station phone the Accident Clerks. The bike was replaced by me because the bike was required for getting to & from work. No bike, no job, job now gone as an indirect result of this incident.

I now repeat the request made in April of this year, which is a formal request for the insurance details of the motor vehicle & driver involved in the collision at the junction of Shroggs Road & Hebble Lane, Halifax. Time of incident 1908 hours, 25[sup]th[/sup] March 2005. Log number given: 1626 of the 25[sup]th[/sup] March 2005.

Having tried every other avenue, open to me, to get the information I am now having to take this one. I await the outcome of this letter.

​

Yours Sincerely

 

[magnatom]

alicat,

Might I strongly suggest that you copy that letter to your local press and your local MP and inform the police that you have done so. I can assure this would focus their minds.

 

[PBancroft]

alicat,

Might I strongly suggest that you copy that letter to your local press and your local MP and inform the police that you have done so. I can assure this would focus their minds.

Excellent letter, and +1 to Magnatom's recommendation.