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

[Sore Thumb]

[QUOTE 2523526, member: 30090"]Agreed. For all we know the car entered onto the RAB stopped short of hitting the cyclist, but the cyclist carried on regardless and hit the car in an attempt to win some compo.

If anyone else gets annoyed at why their premiums rise exponentially year on year then this is the reason why...[/quote]



Even suggesting this is not really very pleasant. Saying that I would risk injury for a few pounds is a little offensive.

I can understand you posting this in a thread specifically about insurance and compensation issues. But to post a comment like this and in a way accuse me of something is not really the polite thing to do.

 

[Buddfox]

One piece of advice has been repeated in this thread several times, and more than anything else. It would be interesting to know if you are following it:

- get a new firm of solicitors
- get a new firm of solicitors
- get a new firm of solicitors

The ones you are currently using don't appear to know what they're talking about. Were they really the ones you contacted through CTC or BC or whichever route you used?

 

[BentMikey]

Mostly, I hope this topic doesn't get you down too much, and I wish you the best of luck in pursuing the case and getting the result that makes you happy. I guess most of it is frustration with the lying toerag of a driver being able to get away with this, and a little bit with the difficulty in describing what happened. That's something that's often the case when people describe incidents though.

 

[Sore Thumb]

One piece of advice has been repeated in this thread several times, and more than anything else. It would be interesting to know if you are following it:

- get a new firm of solicitors
- get a new firm of solicitors
- get a new firm of solicitors

The ones you are currently using don't appear to know what they're talking about. Were they really the ones you contacted through CTC or BC or whichever route you used?

I am a member of a large cycling organisation and I have 3rd party insurance with a large legal firm through them. Just cannot remember the name of the cycling organisation............

 

[classic33]

I am a member of a large cycling organisation and I have 3rd party insurance with a large legal firm through them. Just cannot remember the name of the cycling organisation............

Contact your solicitors & ask to have them transfer the case to someone who actually understands what your situation is. Most may only ever deal with car on car collisions.
Think of it this way. If you bought something from a shop & despite returning the item as faulty on more than one occasion, you continued to take it back with the same recurring problem. They say they cannot understand what your problem is, nor can they work out what your problem is. How long would you allow this to carry on?
You'd have paid for an item, that has a problem, which upon returning it to the shop where it was bought you leave with it again & again. Thats what you're doing now. Only now your paying for a service that isn't upto the job.

I had no helmet camera, or camera on the phone when hit. But working from what was written down by me, I managed to knock down all arguments placed before me over my actions immediatly prior to the collision. That included changing solicitors & filing a complaint against them, when they admitted that they had no prior experience in this type of case. Turn some of the frustration you are feeling now into action against the driver. Knock his arguments down one by one. Apply to the DVLA to see if his vehicle was "taxed" at the time of the collision. This will be made available to his solicitors, however doubts will be raised & questions will be asked, by them of him. Why would you want this information, has he withheld something from them? Doubts may well creep in with regards his version of events.

And as for rising insurance premiums for drivers, year after year. What about placing some of the blame on the 20%+ of vehicles being driven on the roads in the UK today, without VED or insurance. There is a pot of money that all who do pay VED & have valid insurance are paying into to cover for those who don't feel like paying it.

 

[classic33]

So you've resigned yourself to accepting that because you had no camera you are going to loose.
There will be many on here who had no camera, as I didn't, when anything serious did happen. Did it stop them pursuing their case?

 

[ianrauk]

So you've resigned yourself to accepting that because you had no camera you are going to loose.
There will be many on here who had no camera, as I didn't, when anything serious did happen. Did it stop them pursuing their case?

But he hasn't lost. He's been offered a 50/50 part 36 payment. And speaking from experience, that's as good as he's going to get.

 

[classic33]

I may have picked what the OP has been saying from the start. But I read it as because he had no helmet camera at the time, recording what happenned, he has been made accept something that hefeels is less than he would have done had he a helmet camera.
Thats why I chose the term loose. He's convinced himself that had he been wearing one his case would have been stronger & possibly settled by now.

 

[Archie_tect]

It's a compelling argument which I hope I never wish I'd acted on.