Nice end to the story of my recent collision..

[Twenty Inch]

Glad you're ok TRC

(Note - TRC is a lady, if I remember correctly).

Bollo - that's absolutely appalling. Get CTC involved, and your MP and the local press. That's terrible.

 

[Twenty Inch]

What wafflycat said.

 

[User482]

Unfortunately not. The fact that the driver broke the law goes against him in a civil claim - but TCR will be judged to have contributed to the incident by illegally cycling on a pedestrian crossing. Insurers will use every excuse to avoid paying our or to limit any payout.

I see what you are saying but what I don't get is why he could possibly be judged to have contributed to the incident?

 

[User482]

As an aside, a friend of mine who was car doored a couple of years back stuck to his guns despite the driver's insurer arguing that he contributed to the incident by filtering up the inside (it was the passenger who opened the door). The insurer caved in just before it was due in court and made a settlement that covered all of his costs - bike repairs and private knee op, plus consequential expenses, plus an additional payment in compensation.

 

[Arch]

I had a discussion with my bro-in-law (not a cyclist, but let's not hold it against him) over Christmas, and he was basically saying that he thought some drivers felt they could get away with hitting cyclists because having no insurance, they wouldn't have the might of an insurer fighting their case.

Setting aside the morality of not caring if you kill someone, as long as they aren't going to ruin your No Claims Bonus, I pointed out that as a member of the CTC, I and many of my friends, do have insurance, and lawyers to fight for us, something which he off course, had no idea about, and was pleasantly surprised to hear.

Then, of course, we got onto the "And then you see cyclists jumping red lights..." I think he was playing devil's advocate with me, but yet again, perceptions of us as a whole, coloured by a few...

Anyway, I digress. Basically, I think, like Waffley says, CTC membership is a thing worth having, if only for the moral highground it lends you...

 

[Tynan]

for anyone not there yet, Insurance companies are cold blooded buggers working the percentage at all times, they'll do whatever saves them money by whatever means, never ever ever believe them to be doing anything else

 

[User482]

Because s/he was cycling in area s/he shouldn't have been. Believe you me, I've known similar cases where the cyclist has ended up with very little, if anything. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but it is the way that the law stands at present.

The law's an ass! If he wasn't cycling, he would have been walking - presumably with the same outcome.

 

[User482]

This is an argument often used by insurers in such cases. However, they normally cave in when you stick it out as there is case law which puts the onus firmly on the driver/passenger in the vehicle, not on the cyclist. What they're trying to do is wear you down and make you give up - in such cases stick to your guns.

Yes - I found some of the case law that supported his claim!

 

[the reluctant cyclist]

Firstly, I am a LAYDEE thank you very much - I have tried to add a picture - I am the one in the middle!!

Secondly, I am not going to be claiming for injuries - I did get a few scratches and stuff at the side of the road and the next day my left shoulder hurt loads. It was all gone by a couple of days though and I don't feel justified in putting in a claim.

I was pleased with the result because the man had to go into the police station and be interviewed and it will make him think again - he was absolutely mortified at the side of the road and couldn't apologise enough - I know that isn't compensation enough if somebody had died but better than "I don't care" attitude isn't it?

Thirdly, although I was in the wrong for being on the crossing in the first place - so many crossings now are toucan crossings and drivers would not know that or not. I must stress that the lights were on green for me and red for the cars - as an earlier poster said - I would have been hit if I had walked the bike accross!

Thanks for all your replies and stuff though - but remember LAYDEE - none of this mate stuff - I shall get a complex - especially as somebody shouted mate at me once when I was on the bike - something like "you should be on the pavement mate" and I shouted back "I'm a bloody woman" and forgot to go into the ins and outs and legalities of pavement cycling!!!!

 

[User482]

No - as he would have been in the right as he was walking across the crossing (when the lights were in his favour) not cycling, then the full liability would be with the driver. The insurance company wouldn't have a leg to stand on... although that wouldn't stop them trying to reduce any award by other means.

As Tynan says, all they're interested in is protecting the bottom line.

No- want I meant was that the outcome for TRC would have been the same if walking - knocked over by a driver running a red light. That being the case, the fact that TRC was cycling should be immaterial. Sadly this doesn't seem to matter...

 

[User482]

Firstly, I am a LAYDEE thank you very much - I have tried to add a picture - I am the one in the middle!!

And a very pretty laydee too, if I may be so bold.

My apologies - just cos most people on here are blokes doesn't mean I should assume everyone is.

 

[the reluctant cyclist]

I think she looks evil myself....

Thanks!

 

[Bollo]

Bollo, join CTC for £38 and let their legal bods deal with it, they;ll hopefully drive the best deal, know what's claimable and do the leg work, no charge to you

that's what I did, do it now and let them pursue it

I'm claiming a new bike, no apparent problem there, racked up a shoot load of travelling expenses, right down to packets of paracetamol, it al adds up

I am a member of the CTC and their solictors are dealing with it, and so far I've been very impressed. I deliberately let go of my original thread because I didn't want to take the risk, however slight, that anything posted here could bu66er up the claim.

In the end, if the courts are only dishing out fines for killing cyclists when there are no obvious other offences involved such as drink-driving, there's not a huge incentive for them to prosecute drivers where the cyclist isn't badly injured.

As far as the claim procedure goes, if the total loss/damage comes to less than £1000, the the matter must be dealt with through the small claims court. The SCC doesn't pay costs and professional representation is frowned upon. This is the reason a no-win-no-fee lawyer won't usually touch these claims, because they can't recover costs. Like I said before, the SCC can't punish the driver, they can only recover the losses incured by the cyclist.

For claims under £1000, the CTC's lawyers provide you with a "Small claims pack" and some access to advice on the phone, but essentially you're on your own. The pack is fine as far as it goes, but you could manage just as well with the CAB or the interbob. This isn't intended as a dig at the CTC. Liek I've said, they've been more helpful than I could have expected. I'm just putting the procedure out there for others.

Just took delivery of my new commuter, a shiny racing-green Thorn Sports Tour. At last a bike as ugly as I am!

 

[Arch]

Thanks for all your replies and stuff though - but remember LAYDEE - none of this mate stuff - I shall get a complex - especially as somebody shouted mate at me once when I was on the bike - something like "you should be on the pavement mate" and I shouted back "I'm a bloody woman" and forgot to go into the ins and outs and legalities of pavement cycling!!!!

As someone often assumed to be a chap in the past on C+, I don't mind it at all. I like to think it shows that I don't have a stereotypically female 'style' of writing or attitudes.

I'm generally happy to be 'one of the lads', although I did once have friend send me sone of those email joke things he thought was funny and involved a lot of pictures of bare breasts, I never quite worked out why he thought I'd like it....

 

[spindrift]

I never quite worked out why he thought I'd like it....

i'M PREPARED TO OFFER A SECOND OPINION?

AND RELUCTANT, GRRRRRRRR!

We need more foxy contributors of this quality.

I'm just saying.