Taken out by WVM, and not to dinner

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Thanks again guys for all the comments.

Just to clarify a few things:

The van is a 55 plate Transit so I'm pretty sure it *should* have a nearside mirror - the housing was there, the actual mirror wasn't. He had the mini 'blind spot' mirror there, but I'm guessing that when a passenger is next to him this wouln't be much good... and from his move I'd say he never even checked that. No rear view mirror though, opaque back doors, so no point.

I don't make a habit of using cycle lanes unless they seem to be a reasonable width and don't cause me to be in a bad road position in terms of drainage, parked cars etc. As the traffic was stationary at the time it seemed reasonable to think I'd be okay in this one... the benefits of hindsight would have been useful!!

I keep swinging from one train of thought to another. Initially I was happy just to get back on the road with my bike/clothing repaired/replaced... but the more I think about it the more I feel I should be pursuing it legally. It's not just about the cash (although I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be a very nice addition to the bank account/pocket) - the van shouldn't really have been on the road, and the driver should have been paying more attention to those around him. However, I suspect that any insurance claim won't affect him directly anyway as he was driving on company insurance, in a hire vehicle... not sure who'd get spanked (i.e. would the Hire Company insurance have to payout as it's a Hire Van, or would it be the company insurance of the place the driver works for?).

There's been no amount mentioned as yet. I tested the waters with the Boss of the driver by saying my bike computer was broken in the impact (as it was - completely snapped the mounting bracket and threw it into the road!) and the cost of that was about 140 quid a few years back - he didn't baulk at all and just said 'Fine, no probs, let me know the full cost of everything'... and this just makes me a bit suspicious with all this niceness...

<sigh>

I'm just too honest for my own good I guess.

 

[Bollo]

...and just said 'Fine, no probs, let me know the full cost of everything'... and this just makes me a bit suspicious with all this niceness...

Just to clarify something I said earlier, you should report it to the police, just don't expect Gene Hunt to "break out the Quattro".

This reminds me of an incident my dad had a few years back where his car was raked by a van taking a short-cut accross a pavement to turn left. He took off after the van (a very risky thing to do in Wythenshaw) and caught up with the drive at a local 'business'. The boss was very keen to pay my dad off, and he ended up with a few hundred cash in hand, far more than the cost of repair. The only condition attached was that he didn't contact anyone involved in law enforcement.

As for my local plod's decision not to follow up, is it surprising when you have cases like the Rhyl CC deaths.

If you think even that's bad, have a look at this! (Soz if posted elsewhere, and also that its the Mail)

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=510396&in_page_id=1811

 

[Tynan]

been said but all you'll be claiming for is damage and injury, the rest is a matter for the police and they're notoriously uninterested in following up the victims suggestions regarding prosection

they do seem willing, add it all up and give him a breakdown of your costs, in full settlement

they might have a very good reason to want to settle in cash, again, not your business really but all to the good, get the money and take it is my advice, assuming you're not hurt long/meium term

 

[Tynan]

re that link

'The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing or a helmet, according to a police report cited by El Pais.

His family won 33,000 Euros (£24,479)compensation from Delgado's insurance company after the firm acknowledged he had been driving at excessive speed and this could have contributed to the incident, El Pais reported.'

his right, it's law not sentiment, the cyclist should be liable for their mistakes/negligence too

 

[Arch]

Just to clarify something I said earlier, you should report it to the police, just don't expect Gene Hunt to "break out the Quattro".

I just knew that was going to become a classic phrase and the series hasn't even started yet!

Sharkybloke, like you I keep wavering from one view to the other. Although a decent cash payout might be useful and less hassle for you, it's also less hassle for the company I suspect, and a one off - them having to go through insurance, with bumped up premiums might cause them a little more long term inconvenience (but will cause you that too). I appreciate the thing about how much will it affect the actual driver - I suspect if it causes his boss headaches for months to come, it will affect him more than if the boss just pays up...

I certainly wouldn't, in your situation, be looking for 'compensation' over and above any repair costs etc, but I would want to know that someone somewhere had had more stress or work because of it. Paying up a couple of hundred quid might just be the work of a second to that firm. Principles are more vaulable...

now, fire up that Quattro!

 

[Bollo]

Tynan,

I'm all for a bit of Darwin for eejits that don't light-up, but my point was more about the police decision not to prosecute, despite the gentleman doing nearly twice the speed-limit.

Also, <no chance> without re-igniting the helmet debate </no chance>, I doubt a cycle helmet offers ANY protection against being hit at 100mph by a car.

 

[Tynan]

can't hurt though can it and it displays a general lack of trying to be good doesn't it

and we don't know the nature of the collision, square on or clipped

suspect his payment to the family would have been instead of prosecution, not sure how the law stands in Spain, speed may not have been the primary factor

 

[4F]

Surely driving at twice the speed limit would be the primary factor. I doubt very much even if the cyclist he was wearing a suit of armour and a F1 standard helmet they would have made any difference.

 

[Tynan]

excessive speed is all I got from reading that twice, where is twice the limit coming from?

and again, it doesn't have to be head on does it, he might have been lucky and taken only a glancing blow, you can crack your skull walking to the shops

and again, no helmet indicates his negligence, ditto no lights

 

[4F]

This article claims the driver was doing 100 mph in a 55 mph limit and that the cyclist was killed as he went through a give way crossing.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/killer-driver-sues-cyclist-victims-family-14240

Irrespective of where you stand on the helmet debate I think it is easy to summise in this instance if these facts are correct it would have made no difference whatsoever.

 

[BentMikey]

and again, no helmet indicates his negligence, ditto no lights

The bolded bit is this: VERY WRONG

What's more attempts at contributory negligence are no longer tried on by insurance companies, because they know this too. Lights, I'd agree with.

 

[Tynan]

fair dos on the speed then, but 50 would likely have done the job too, so speed might not have been the primary cause of the accident

and as regards 'indicates', you miss my point, 'indicates' meant just that, the sort of rider that wears a helmet tends to use lights and tends not to jump lights

see?

and the reverse is true

indicate meaning tends to suggest, not proves or means

 

[4F]

just that, the sort of rider that wears a helmet tends to use lights and tends not to jump lights
see?
and the reverse is true
indicate meaning tends to suggest, not proves or means

This is a slippery slope you are going down and one I would suggest is far from the truth.

Irrespective of my stance on the helmet debate I regually see the same commuter wearing a helmet, head to toe in high viz, 3 rear lights riding on the pavement and crossing against the phase at traffic lights.

It is very easy and very wrong to pigeon hole someone just based on their appearance or what they are wearing.

 

[wafflycat]

There's been no amount mentioned as yet. I tested the waters with the Boss of the driver by saying my bike computer was broken in the impact (as it was - completely snapped the mounting bracket and threw it into the road!) and the cost of that was about 140 quid a few years back - he didn't baulk at all and just said 'Fine, no probs, let me know the full cost of everything'... and this just makes me a bit suspicious with all this niceness...

Quite understandable.

In driving mode, many years ago, I had a guy pull into the back of me. He was all nice-nice, no need to contact insurance etc., here's my contact details, just send me the bill etc. Turned out the guy was uninsured, untaxed, various bits of naughtiness as well and became less than co-operative. Remember, that by going through the proper channels you are doing nothing wrong. You are, indeed, protecting your own interests and that's perfectly reasonable to do. And that, after all, if the guy is insured it will be less hassle for him to go through the proer channels anyhow. Remember too, this is why we have insurance, in the first place, as a benefit of being a member of a cycling organisation such as the CTC or British Cycling.

 

[GrahamG]

I'd be suspicious and ask for insurance details anyway. There are plenty of people who would rather settle minor claims themselves, and understandably so, however when businesses/vans etc. are involved then the potential for 'dodgyness' is too high IMO and they should be pursued through the proper channels.