CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 19 min 41 sec ago

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 4:03pm
RogerThat wrote:YAs there were no witnesses to the accident I assume he'll get 50% of the payout..

You don't need witnesses to prove he ran into the back of her car indicating on the balance of probabilities he was too close behind. But who knows? Let us know the outcome.

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

10 April 2015 - 3:55pm
I have a colleague whose daughter works in A+E in the hospital that services that area, I'll enquire tonight. It may be the case (hopefully) that the cyclist was able to get up and get away relatively uninjured.

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

10 April 2015 - 3:52pm
60-70 isn't a reasonable speed on a roundabout...

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

10 April 2015 - 2:59pm
I work at the nearby Strathclyde Business park, and the roundabout of which you speak really is a danger spot.

As it's quite a wide roundabout, it allows motorvehicles to get up to a reasonable speed as you say approaching 60-70mph.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

10 April 2015 - 2:57pm
reohn2 wrote:The opening lines from the linked report:-

A cyclist has been killed in a collision with a tipper lorry in central London.
The 55-year-old woman was struck by the HGV near the junction of Horseferry Road and Millbank, close to Lambeth Bridge, at 09:30 BST.

That doesn't seem to put the blame on the cyclist

The BBC have been editing their news article. It started off saying the cyclist collided with the lorry and now that she was in a collision with the lorry. But the initial article did imply the cyclist was to blame

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 2:31pm
Yes, that's the legal advice he has been given as of this morning: counter sue for personal injuries and write off of an expensive carbon bike. As there were no witnesses to the accident I assume he'll get 50% of the payout. As the driver is sueing for £750 damage to her car, I would expect the case to be settled in my nephews favour out of court.

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 2:23pm
personal injury claims are generally based on the percentage of fault. So for example if you are pootling along and someone callously runs you over they take 100% of the blame for the claim, you get 100% of the compensation. Where blame is less easily defined the fault is split between the parties. For example take the following: you are sitting at a side road waiting to pull out and the car coming along the main road has a left indicator on. You pull out and get rammed in the side as the car did not turn, who is to blame? PA lawyers would probably argue 25% car driver / 75% you, as even though some of the blame would be on the car driver as they should not have been indicating you should not have pulled out unless you were sure the road was clear. You'd end up getting 25% of the compensation of your claim, 75% vanishes away. If a lot of cases where there are no witnesses and no one is taking responsibility of the accident these will be split 50/50. That means generally you get 50% of the value of the claim. So a £5000 claim pays you £2500, and so on. Simple. In fact a lot of a personal injury lawyers day job is basically playing the averages with these percentages and with insurance companies, is it cheaper to accept a 75% responsibility or go to court to fight for less, and so on.

In this case I think they'd be lucky to even get a 25/75...

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 1:38pm
RogerThat wrote:I wasn't at the scene so can't comment on exact sequence of events...................................

But that's exactly what you appear to be doing.

You're also saying now that she didn't stop but this contradicts what you've said before.

Your nephew needed to assess the junction and decide whether he needed to stop or not. It seems he didn't do this but based his decision on what he assumed the car driver was going to do. And he got it wrong.

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 1:30pm
Regarding braking had at a junction; people can brake hard for loads of different reasons e.g. dog runs out in front of them, pedestrian steps-out, etc., etc.. So traffic needs to take account of that possibility. To do the sort of damage and injury you describe (visit at A&E, bike written-off, repair bills for the car), your nephew must have been doing quite a speed when hitting the car.

Based on the information presented I suspect the driver will win the case. But it will probably come down to what the insurance companies agree between them.

Ian

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 12:52pm
I wasn't at the scene so can't comment on exact sequence of events. However my nephew confirms that the driver did NOT stop at the T junction which is why he followed on, and only braked violently when through the junction and halfway out into the road when she noticed the oncoming tractor. I imagine that's why he's in a position to testify about not paying due attention at a junction. The driver, imo is 100% at fault here.

Re: Please ignore!

10 April 2015 - 12:29pm
Maybe yellow diamond stickers with 'Father on board' or 'human on board'

Or give all cyclists the right to issue a £100 fine to one driver in their lifetime.

Re: Please ignore!

10 April 2015 - 12:06pm
Generally I find lorry drivers are really good, much better on the whole than average car drivers, but then they need to be.

My other half nearly got killed right outside our house by a Fedex van hurtling down the street on the pavement just as she walked out of the drive. She jumped back just in time but said if she hadn't it would have hit her square-on. She didn't think to get the reg. no. and Fedex closed ranks insisting they couldn't identify which driver was out that day (yeah right!). I know we all moan on about surveillance society and big brother etc. but nailing dangerous drivers is essential.

I'm eternally baffled by a) the generally perceived sub-human status conferred by getting on a bike, and b) the loss of humanity caused by getting in a motor of any sort. Comments made by motorists occasionally give away a stark insight into double standards - e.g. in a thread on a motoring forum about the cyclist that hit a young woman who cracked her head on a kerb and died, the discussion was totally about the "menace" of "those bl00dy cyclists" and one guy in particular was full of "that cyclist should have been given life, lock him up and throw away the key, hanging's too good for'im"... later in the same thread the same guy says of jaywalkers "it's simple: you don't want to get killed, STAY OUT OF MY WAY!" (his capitals). The effort of squaring those two opinions in the same person is still making my eyes water.

Re: What is gr8 about motorcycling?

10 April 2015 - 11:33am
I don't know whether it is the bikes that polarise or the riders personally. It is like everything the minority have a bigger say than the majority. To explain, with bikers it is the minority in their full race leathers on race ready super sports riding like a race track on country lanes that cause difficulties and polarization among the non-biker sections of the populations. I have never had a problem with bikers of any type that ride responsibly. That does not at all preclude them pushing it a bit or speeding just not taking blind bends at a racing angle on the wrong side of the road and other riding faux pas.

Seriously, it is not hard to realise there is a minority here that is creating such hatred of bikes and bikers. Perhaps that needs addressing. Policing is not going to work because anyone can take it easy if there are police around. Observation based policing needs the law breaker to be observed. Just like car, van and truck drivers. Limiting performance is a nice idea but so many pitfalls not least the political will to get anything through that will work. Stopping the wreckless and irresponsible in any transport group is a nice aim but without the political and official will to do it this will never happen.

So to summarise my problem with bikers, cyclists, car drivers, white van man, truck drivers, etc. is irresponsible and inconsiderate driving/riding. I also totally dislike aggression to other road users. I had a poorly car recently when driving in a new area. The car so obviously cut out in a narrow constriction in a small village halting the progress of 3 motor cyclists. I had no way of stopping it and got going again asap. That was after the lead touring biker (with partner on the back with full touring kit) had lifted his full face helmet and given me a really nasty, foul mouthed rant through my open window. My young boy was also listening. That could easily have happened to have been a cyclist, car driver or van driver. It happened to be one of three bikers who I had earlier said to my partner "why can't all bikers be like them, responsible?" What a case of spoke too soon.

I repeat that all my problems with certain issues with the biker community could easily apply to similar issues with all other modes of transport. IMHO that makes it the person not the machine at fault. However if you can not moderate human behaviour then there are cases of equipment moderation such as delivery vans getting limited to 56mph or 60/70mph in trucks (saves fuel too). Not sure how to stop the bikers on the wrong side of bends. I guess the only solution now is those grating "THINK BILKE!" signs. Since they are not thinking of us.

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 10:45am
RogerThat wrote:irc wrote:So she was stopping at a T junction and got rear ended? I think you'll struggle to put any of the blame on her.

Not really that simple: she braked violently, apparently half way out into the road before stopping to avoid a tractor which she did not either see or more likely look for. We've spoken to the farmer and although he did not see the impact of my nephew behind her, he is willing to testify that the driver was not paying attention at a junction.

So if your nephew hadn't hit the car he'd have gone in front of the tractor and been hit by it? If your nephew saw the tractor he should have been anticipating the car braking and should been stopped before the car.

And the farmer can be a reliable witness despite missing a bike crashing into a car right in front of him?

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

10 April 2015 - 10:25am
eileithyia wrote:5 in just over 3 months ...

Not including deaths in other places. Or injuries or near misses which amazingly don't result in loss of life.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

10 April 2015 - 9:50am
5 in just over 3 months ...

Re: Accident claims, does anyone else feel like this?

10 April 2015 - 9:33am
RogerThat wrote:....................she braked violently, apparently half way out into the road before stopping to avoid a tractor which she did not either see........................

Ah, I see. So we have a motorist stopping for a vehicle they couldn't see, a farmer who claims to know the motorist's state of mind and a cyclist who wasn't expecting to stop at a T junction. Good luck with that one. I'm beginning to understand the OP's point of view.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

10 April 2015 - 9:17am
The opening lines from the linked report:-

A cyclist has been killed in a collision with a tipper lorry in central London.
The 55-year-old woman was struck by the HGV near the junction of Horseferry Road and Millbank, close to Lambeth Bridge, at 09:30 BST.

That doesn't seem to put the blame on the cyclist

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

10 April 2015 - 8:57am
Once again it's a tipper truck,once again the cyclist is a woman.It's an unfortunate pattern that's developed in the capital and causes one to ask why that is?



I offer my condolences to the family.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions