No helmet cam, then almost no chance of winning case.

[Sore Thumb]

I was involved in a collision with a car over a year ago.

To keep the story short, I was turning right on an mini island and was past the white circle in the middle just about to take the exit.

Car cut across my path on wrong side of road. I then hit side of car. He was to my right.
I was already 3/4 over island when he entered island on wrong side of road.
We have all seen how motorists cut these mini islands short.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

The driver admits to looking both ways twice and states the road is clear, pulls out and then hears me hit his car. I was already on the island.
From his position on the road, he would have been able to see over 100 meters down the road. Because he did not see anything he pulled out.

He is blaming me for the accident.

So in his written statement he says he looked but did not see anything. Is this not admitting to not seeing me? If he had about 100 meters view of road, and did not see anything. Where did I come from then? Did I get beamed down from a space craft like they do in Star Trek.

So remember he said he did not see anything. It would only take a few seconds to cross a mini island. In reality he could see a fair distance down the road. So if he did not see anything on the road I must have been further that the 100 meters. For me to travel 100 meters on a bike faster than it takes him to cross the island would get me in the Guinness book of records.

So is admitting to not seeing anything on the road (even though I was there, as I collided with the car) an admission that he did not look properly?

No. Why?

Because even though I was turning right (I was already 3/4 over island), and he was turning right also, he has no legal accountability to look left. He is only legally obliged to look right as he has to give way to the right. You don't expect anyone to pull out on you from the left (I did not do this as I was already on island).
Because he has no legal obligation to actually look left, if he admits to looking but does not see anything but still goes over island, he is not accountable.
so in effect you don't really need to look left when turning right.
This the legal advise I have been given.


So my advise is get a helmet camera, because in the end it's your word against another if there are no witnesses. Even if in a written statement a motorist admits to looking, saying its clear and the pulls out and then hits you.

So saying SMIDSY is a defence, or at best cannot be used as evidence against a motorist.

 

[glenn forger]

Has the incident been resolved? I mean, is it going any further?

 

[Sore Thumb]

Has the incident been resolved? I mean, is it going any further?

I have been advised to take 50 50.

Because its my word against his.

Without video evidence then you can't prove anything.

There are also other items in statement that I do not agree with.

 

[Cycling Dan]

I have been advised to take 50 50. There are also other items in statement that I do not agree with.

Who are you getting advise from?

 

[BentMikey]

If he hit you with his bonnet, then surely he drove into you, and didn't give way on the RAB?

 

[Sore Thumb]

If he hit you with his bonnet, then surely he drove into you, and didn't give way on the RAB?

I was already 3/4 way over island before he entered the island on wrong side of road. He crossed my path so had no where to go, or time to stop. I hit the side of the car past half way.

I also had exposure joystick on helmet on flash and a Diablo on constant on my bars. He states that I did not have any lights on. This was during the day and I have my lights on during the day.

 

[mr_cellophane]

I've read this twice and still can't follow it.

 

[gaz]

No photos taken at the scene of the accident?

If they took the roundabout on the wrong side and you were already on it, then thee are 100% to blame

 

[Sore Thumb]

No photos taken at the scene of the accident?

If they took the roundabout on the wrong side and you were already on it, then thee are 100% to blame

Yes but he is saying that I was not on island and did not give way. Even though he said that he looked left and right and did not see anyone and moved on.

So even though he looked, did not see anyone and still said I did not give way.



I did take photos

 

[classic33]

I agree with gaz.
I'd seek alternate advice, from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Do not accept the first offer made. Nor expect a quick result. Unless you're willing to go for a quick result.
I had simililar problems in 2005, when a driver claimed he thought I was a bus, amongst other claims, including not seeing me.
Get what you have on paper, get back to the scene of the accident & take pictures of your entry onto the roundabout, his entry onto the roundabout & where the actual meeting took place on the roundabout.
Try and get pictures from both directions for each one, Direction of travel & the direction you'd taken to get there.
Hard copies & keep a printed copy of what you have written down. Work from that & counter anything that is thrown in your direction, using that.

Do not rely on Google Street View for pictures that will/may be accepted as evidence. Yours can be taken in similar condtions to those at the time of the collision.

 

[MontyVeda]

I think we need a map with circles and arrows in order to properly comprehend this

 

[ianrauk]

I was in a similar situation. Someone knocked me off. I would never use a camera. BUT I had an independent witness who confirmed my account of the incident. They offered 50/50, we threatened court action. In the end they admitted 100% liability due to my witness happy to go to court also.

 

[campbellab]

You don't have to legally look left or right, you have to ensure the manoeuvre is safe. Which involves both traffic already on the roundabout and traffic entering the roundabout. Seek better legal advice!

 

[Sore Thumb]

I agree with gaz.
I'd seek alternate advice, from someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Do not accept the first offer made. Nor expect a quick result. Unless you're willing to go for a quick result.
I had simililar problems in 2005, when a driver claimed he thought I was a bus, amongst other claims, including not seeing me.
Get what you have on paper, get back to the scene of the accident & take pictures of your entry onto the roundabout, his entry onto the roundabout & where the actual meeting took place on the roundabout.
Try and get pictures from both directions for each one, Direction of travel & the direction you'd taken to get there.
Hard copies & keep a printed copy of what you have written down. Work from that & counter anything that is thrown in your direction, using that.

Do not rely on Google Street View for pictures that will/may be accepted as evidence. Yours can be taken in similar condtions to those at the time of the collision.

I have done all of this, it has been going on over a year. He has only just provided his statement.

I have insurance with a large legal company with my membership of a certain cycling organisation.

My main issue is that in his statement he states that he looked and did not see anything so proceeded.
My solicitors have said because he was turning right he is not required by law to look to the left as he has right of way to those on the left.
However I was in island prior to him entering the island.

I felt that him stating that he looked and did not see anything was an admission that he did not see me, even though I was obviously there.
If he did not see me and felt it was safe to go over island, how did I manage to suddenly hit his car.
He would have had a least a 100 metre view down the road that I came from.
He must have looked down this road as he had a clear view, he then said it was clear. So if this 100 metres of road was clear where did I suddenly come from? Out of thin air.

If this road was clear, then I must have come from beyond this 100 metres of road. I would not have covered the 100 metres faster than it would take a car to go over the island. If he says the road was clear then he is in effect saying that I have super powers and can cover this distance at speed on a bike.

In reality he says the roads clear but did not look properly and did not see me.

The lawyers are basically saying that I can not use the 'the road was clear so I went over the island' statement against him, as an admission that he did not see me.

 

[campbellab]

SHOULD give priority.

There is no legal you have to look right (ie no MUST) and the statement about looking right is a BUT for when there are no markings.

185

When reaching the roundabout you should

• give priority to traffic approaching from your right, unless directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights
• check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way. If so, proceed, but still look to the right before joining
• watch out for all other road users already on the roundabout; be aware they may not be signalling correctly or at all

A driver 'not seeing' anything is an admission of guilt imo.