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

[classic33]

If you were already on the roundabout then you had right of way. Anyone willing to correct me on this part.
The driver of the vehichle that hit me stated he never saw me, to begin with. I would later become a bus, which he followed out of the junction.
Are you certain that he made no attempt to go round the roundabout, choosing instead to go over the island. Personal opinion is if he didn't see you, then he wasn't looking. Whether or not he has/had a legal obligation to look/check to his left, he has a legal obligation to ensure that it is safe for him to join the roundabout or any road at a junction. Its a defense he can use, if you were to collide with him.

 

[Sore Thumb]

SHOULD give priority.

There is no legal you have to look right (ie no MUST)

They are saying that he has no legal obligation to look left.

I was also asked how would the whole situation seem if I was not on a bike but in a car instead.........

 

[campbellab]

Theres no legal obligation to look anywhere you drive legally without looking anywhere if you have sixth senses

 

[ianrauk]

So S&G (I guess it's CTC) have advised you to go for 50/50 part 36. Which mean's you get a result. What are you claiming for? Injuries? Bike damage? No witnesses, no camera, so imo you are doing well to get a 50/50

 

[gaz]

Snips from the highway code. I would suggest sending these to your contact at your legal firm. The driver did not have right of way (an incorrect term anyway).

Rule 188 is going to be important to you, it's a MUST, and as such is potentially legally binding. I haven't currently got the time to check the relative legislations but it might be worth looking into those.

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
• look forward before moving off to make sure traffic in front has moved off.

187
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to

• pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads
• traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
• traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
• motorcyclists
• cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so
• long vehicles (including those towing trailers). These might have to take a different course or straddle lanes either approaching or on the roundabout because of their length. Watch out for their signals.

188
Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1) & 16(1)

 

[Sore Thumb]

That's what's annoying me.

I have been advised to take 50 50.

Even though he said he looked, did not see anything and it was safe to cross island.
As he had no legal obligation to look to left they can not use this statement that he looked and did not see anything against him. Even though I was on the island.

So it's back to his word against mine.

So stating SMIDSY in a written statement cannot be used against him.

So next time I go over an island in a car I won't bother to look, as if I hit anything that's does not come from the right, it won't be my fault.

 

[classic33]

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.

You are reading too much into what he's saying & getting yourself worked up into the bargin. Don't make assumptions based on what you feel was possible to be done by you, on the day.
Try bringing the range you could have covered in the time taken, down. If need be, by travelling down the same stretch of road.
I think others on here can confirm that you are still in early days, claimwise. My own claim took over three years to settle. During that time the driver changed his version more than once. I'd used what I'd written down & worked from that & only that.

 

[classic33]

That's what's annoying me.

I have been advised to take 50 50.

Even though he said he looked, did not see anything and it was safe to cross island.
As he had no legal obligation to look to left they can not use this statement that he looked and did not see anything against him. Even though I was on the island.

So it's back to his word against mine.

So stating SMIDSY in a written statement cannot be used against him.

So next time I go over an island in a car I won't bother to look, as if I hit anything that's does not come from the right, it won't be my fault.

Not your choice to make & it makes you as bad as the driver of the vehichle that hit you. You go round the island, not over the island.
IF he is insisting that in in his opinion it was safe to go over the island, disregarding the law, and those advising you are saying he's correct I'd be asking to see someone who actually knows their job. On that point I did & ended up changing solicitors because they admitted they didn't know what they were doing. I was their first cycling client in a road traffic accident.

 

[Sore Thumb]

Not your choice to make & it makes you as bad as the driver of the vehichle that hit you. You go round the island, not over the island.
IF he is insisting that in in his opinion it was safe to go over the island, disregarding the law, and those advising you are saying he's correct I'd be asking to see someone who actually knows their job. On that point I did & ended up changing solicitors because they admitted they didn't know what they were doing. I was their first cycling client in a road traffic accident.

Yes I went around the island.

 

[classic33]

However:
"So next time I go over an island in a car I won't bother to look, as if I hit anything that's does not come from the right, it won't be my fault."
This bit would make you as bad as the driver you are saying is responsible for your accident.

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/split-from-incident-outcome.68203/

 

[campbellab]

I'd ignore advice/find someone else and pursue it but I'm a belligerent sod and wouldn't be particularly concerned about the actual monetary recompense.

 

[Sore Thumb]

However:
"So next time I go over an island in a car I won't bother to look, as if I hit anything that's does not come from the right, it won't be my fault."
This bit would make you as bad as the driver you are saying is responsible for your accident.

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/split-from-incident-outcome.68203/

I am being sarcastic, I would never do this.

 

[classic33]

Bear in mind that his side will be looking for anyway out and comments such as that can be used to reinforce his posistion. If they're aware of it.

 

[Jdratcliffe]

Bear in mind that his side will be looking for anyway out and comments such as that can be used to reinforce his posistion. If they're aware of it.

agreed stick to your story tell facts only!

You are reading too much into what he's saying & getting yourself worked up into the bargin. Don't make assumptions based on what you feel was possible to be done by you, on the day.
Try bringing the range you could have covered in the time taken, down. If need be, by travelling down the same stretch of road.
I think others on here can confirm that you are still in early days, claimwise. My own claim took over three years to settle. During that time the driver changed his version more than once. I'd used what I'd written down & worked from that & only that.

agree too stick to your guns tell the truth and dont embellish stick to your story you may feel your preaching to a brick wall ( you are in some cases!!) but don't be tempted to add anything to make it more interesting to tell ( for them or you) from the sounds of it if you do this dont take ther'e offer and follow gas' advice you likely to get this changed to 100%

- side note my claim took 15mnths after a guy turn right infront of my wiping me out, he changed his story to the police three four times and at first i was 100% to blame according to the insurance.

 

[dodd82]

I'm a little confused - if you were already on the RAB, then why would he need to look left to see you?

Surely he'd only need to look straight on?!