Mr FIAT - Your #1 source for vintage car parts

Advice - collision with cyclist

Currently reading:
Advice - collision with cyclist

AgnessGP

AgnessGP

Crazy Fool
Parked in the garage Written a guide
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
3,555
Points
716
Location
Rotherham
Hi All,

Last week, someone I know had an accident with a cyclist.

Simply, he was riding behind her car on the left, she indicated and turned left infront of him. As a result, he hit continued cycling without looking and rode into the back of her car. He got up straight away, and after refusing checking over by paramedics and speaking to police, he rode home.

It was his right of way despite the fact he didn't look, and she was liable (although has not admitted to this).

However, the cyclist is now claiming for damages despite having seen the guy riding his bike on the road, on a couple of occasions, following the accident.

Just wondering how he can do this, you wouldn't be able to claim you car was damaged if it wasn't.

Anyone experienced the same sort of thing?

Thanks in advance!
 
sammclean23 said:
Hi All,

Last week, someone I know had an accident with a cyclist.

Simply, he was riding behind her car on the left, she indicated and turned left infront of him. As a result, he hit continued cycling without looking and rode into the back of her car. He got up straight away, and after refusing checking over by paramedics and speaking to police, he rode home.

It was his right of way despite the fact he didn't look, and she was liable (although has not admitted to this).

However, the cyclist is now claiming for damages despite having seen the guy riding his bike on the road, on a couple of occasions, following the accident.

Just wondering how he can do this, you wouldn't be able to claim you car was damaged if it wasn't.

Anyone experienced the same sort of thing?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

You haven't defined the "damages"?
 
Hang on???

He was riding his bike behind her and she (presumably) indicated, turned left and while not paying attention to this fact, she was supposed to have given way to a road user behind her and is now liable for this?

how does that work exactly ??

(ps i knocked a cyclist down once T-boned him on a junction doing 40mph he got arrested for drunk riding and cautioned for the damage to my car)
 
AndyRKett said:
Hang on???

He was riding his bike behind her and she (presumably) indicated, turned left and while not paying attention to this fact, she was supposed to have given way to a road user behind her and is now liable for this?

how does that work exactly ??

(ps i knocked a cyclist down once T-boned him on a junction doing 40mph he got arrested for drunk riding and cautioned for the damage to my car)
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

The only way it can be her fault is if she had just overtaken him. Is this the case?

If not, then assuming she did signal correctly - you'll be needing witnesses, then its his fault and she should seek damages for any damage to her car.
 
Ah the above has thrown a spanner in the works.

Yeah he was cycling behind her on the left hand side. She indicated, turned left, he didnt look or slow down, and rode into the back of her car.

She actually had an off duty policeman behind her who supported her massively, but also told her she should have waited for him to cross the junction. Like this:

car.png

apparently its not his first accident, and he wasnt wearing a helmet.

@custard Im not sure what they are yet mate, still waiting to hear. I think thats all she's been told.
 
Last edited:
well I believe in this case the off duty police man is wrong, unless as mentioned above she had just over taken him or he was in a designated cycle lane that she had to cross (which your pic doesn't suggest)

if it's not his first accident then I would be highlighting this with her insurance co as a possible fraudulent claim, as he may have done exactly this before to seek damages.

also not allowing the paramedics to check him over means there is no record of any old or new injuries at the accident scene
 
AndyRKett said:
well I believe in this case the off duty police man is wrong, unless as mentioned above she had just over taken him or he was in a designated cycle lane that she had to cross (which your pic doesn't suggest)

if it's not his first accident then I would be highlighting this with her insurance co as a possible fraudulent claim, as he may have done exactly this before to seek damages.

also not allowing the paramedics to check him over means there is no record of any old or new injuries at the accident scene
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Off duty copper will be a great help, because will tell true accounts of what happened, regardless of how they think the law applies or not.

Providing she's with a decent insurer and not a crap one who just pays out here and there she should be ok.

has she got legal services, and was their damage to the car? Like I say, she ought to get them involved and look at pursuing him for damage.
 
Most Easterly Pandas said:
:yeahthat:

Off duty copper will be a great help, because will tell true accounts of what happened, regardless of how they think the law applies or not.
Click to expand...
yup this is what i was thinking very handy indeed (y)

Most Easterly Pandas said:
has she got legal services, and was their damage to the car? Like I say, she ought to get them involved and look at pursuing him for damage.
Click to expand...

the only problem is she might have to have the damage repaired in order to establish a claim, unless she is covered against uninsured drivers (n)
 
AndyRKett said:
the only problem is she might have to have the damage repaired in order to establish a claim, unless she is covered against uninsured drivers (n)
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, can get quotes for the work, pursue with these though court, and then get repair done when financially settled in court.

I doubt uninsured driver cover will apply, as it wasn't another motor vehicle which needs to legally have 3rd party cover (as much as I think cyclists should).
 
right, iv spoke to her.

She actually overtook him, which does mean she was liable? is that correct.

there was damage to her car, just got a quote tonight for £200.

she has only been told he is claiming for 'damages', no specifics.

he was also very abusive at the time making it harder if she wanted to apologise personally, which she has been recommeneded against doing because of this.

Does this change things a bit or?
 
Last edited:
sammclean23 said:
right, iv spoke to her.

She actually overtook him, which does mean she was liable? is that correct.

there was damage to her car, just got a quote tonight for £200.

she has only been told he is claiming for 'damages', no specifics.

he was also very abusive at the time making it harder if she wanted to apologise personally, which she has been recommeneded against doing because of this.

Does this change things a bit or?
Click to expand...

TBH if she over took him then its he fault imo, she should have judged the situation and held back - this isn't to say he's not trying to milk her insurance company mind.

Even if she didn't hit him, she'd have failed a driving test due to making him have to change his course (IE slow down, if he had) due to her actions.

I think she's not going to have much of a leg to stand on, other than support her insurance co with as much info as possible to try and mitigate his payout.

Regarding his 'injuries', these could have been masked at the scene by adrenalin possible.

His abuse probably isn't call for, although to say I'd be pissed if a drive had done that to me is an understatement, and I've had it nearly happen several times. (n)
 
Yeah I know what you're saying.

She is fully aware of what happened and what she did etc.

The only query really was the 'damages' and seeing him riding around days after etc.

But yeah, I agree with the adrenaline etc, just have to see if he does get any money for whatever he has claimed for. Im guessing its probably easier just to pay out for the bike than it is to go out and check it over for damage.
 
Something similar happened to my friend, he was pulling out of a t junction when a cyclist came flying out of a concealed park entrance in front of his van. Too late to stop he went into him.

After a year of the insurance company fighting they gave up and paid out to the cyclist.

Supposedly a 'witness' came forward. I'm guessing from the rea it took place in it was more than likely someone who the cyclist knew...
 
sammclean23 said:
right, iv spoke to her.

She actually overtook him, which does mean she was liable? is that correct.

there was damage to her car, just got a quote tonight for £200.

she has only been told he is claiming for 'damages', no specifics.

he was also very abusive at the time making it harder if she wanted to apologise personally, which she has been recommeneded against doing because of this.

Does this change things a bit or?
Click to expand...

wouldnt you be?
A vehicle overtaking and then side swiping left is how many cyclists have been killed
I am suffering 8 months on, from being taken out by a taxi on the bike
 
Not sure what advice she is looking for?

Perhaps this?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/NewlyQualifiedDrivers/DG_4022426

If she has seen him riding a bike, it is no guarantee that it is the same bike, or that he hasn't had to pay up front to get the bike repaired so he can get to work etc. The bike may have scuffs and scratches that he wants to be repaired, or he might have scuffed or torn clothing.

She should be very lucky she hasn't seriously hurt him.
 
So she overtook the cyclist and turned left?

This happens a lot when drivers underestimate how quick we pedal pushers are and it's called a "left hook"...



...as for blame there are several factors that need to be considered.

It boils down to a lack of road awareness. Sorry to say this but if the driver overtook the cyclist knowing she was about to turn left it could be considered Driving without Due Care and Attention (CD10) if a formal complaint is made. Now depending on how much time the cyclist had to react and from the sound of it "hitting the back" meant he chose to swerve instead of brake or did both swerve and brake the collision itself could be 50-50 at best but if it were me I'd (be honest and) make sure the drivers liability is unquestionable. If the cyclist had defective tyres and/or brakes then that needs to be taken into consideration as do other road and weather conditions. If there's damage to the car then that strongly suggests the cycle is damaged also or the cyclist could well have been hurt.

I think an (honest) insurance claim would be a lot cheaper than up to six points and up to £1,000 fine and a claim.
 
Liquid Knight said:
So she overtook the cyclist and turned left?

This happens a lot when drivers underestimate how quick we pedal pushers are and it's called a "left hook"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr1ZJ2LUaA8

...as for blame there are several factors that need to be considered.

It boils down to a lack of road awareness. Sorry to say this but if the driver overtook the cyclist knowing she was about to turn left it could be considered Driving without Due Care and Attention (CD10) if a formal complaint is made. Now depending on how much time the cyclist had to react and from the sound of it "hitting the back" meant he chose to swerve instead of brake or did both swerve and brake the collision itself could be 50-50 at best but if it were me I'd (be honest and) make sure the drivers liability is unquestionable. If the cyclist had defective tyres and/or brakes then that needs to be taken into consideration as do other road and weather conditions. If there's damage to the car then that strongly suggests the cycle is damaged also or the cyclist could well have been hurt.

I think an (honest) insurance claim would be a lot cheaper than up to six points and up to £1,000 fine and a claim.
Click to expand...

The words of the policeman, she knows what she did, she said she underestimated how fast he was going. A lesson learnt the hard way.
The only doubt was whether he could actually claim for damages that don't exist, but as @Hellcat said, it could be another bike from the insurers point of view (although we know it's the same bike, unless he bought an identical one).

I suppose the possibilities are endless and could never be proven really; no details of his bike were taken at the scene, therefore no proof.

@custard did someone say something about 'he shouldnt have been pissed off', I know I didnt? People react in different ways when shook up/adrenaline, he obviously reacted like that.

Thanks all for the suggestions, explanations & links to useful info....appreciate it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pugglt Auld Jock
Advice on "eliminating" blue and me unit.
Replies
6
Views
160
lunchbeers
lunchbeers
AndyRKett
Power Tool advice
2 3
Replies
48
Views
1K
The Panda Nut
The Panda Nut
S
I potentially scuffed someone's car - after advice...
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Sausage
S
Pugglt Auld Jock
Advice on vehicle purchase.
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
2K
AndyRKett
AndyRKett
AnthonyH
Driving with one winter and one summer tyre on the same axle
Replies
17
Views
561
AnthonyH
AnthonyH
Back
Top