CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 38 min 28 sec ago

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

10 April 2015 - 7:14am
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.

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

10 April 2015 - 1:07am
In 2012 I suffered a very minor injury caused by a motorist and rang the CTC linked solicitors.

They told me the laws had recently changed on injury claims and it was not worth them taking on very minor claims like it had been years previously when they got me £1000 for what was effectively no more than a bump on my knee from a motorist opening his door on me.

I'd say your injury sounds similarly minor and the injury claims people wouldn't take it on.

However, it's worth a try. When I used them for my successful claim years ago the process was entirely straightforward. I just filled in a few forms, agreed with every decision the solicitor wanted to make on my behalf and waited a year for the money.

I'd always claim if solicitors would take it on for no win/no fee as a win hits drivers or insurers in their pockets and might therefore make them take cyclist safety more seriously in future.

Re: Accident Tue 7 Apr 18:00 Uddingston

9 April 2015 - 10:07pm
This is my area too and I haven't heard anything about it either so hopefully not as bad as it might seem. Talking of the nearby A725 roundabout this really is Russian Roulette on a bike. I cross it in the mornings just before 7am and in the afternoon just before 4pm. Cars, HGVs, busses and vans tend to accelerate to dual-carriage way speeds on the roundabout before hitting the slip roads onto the A725 beneath. I have almost been hit from behind on at least 4 occasions in recent months by vehicles cutting me up at speed. Problem is there is no alternative route for cyclists.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

9 April 2015 - 10:04pm
This is another one on front page of Evening Standard today

"Banned Truck driver admits killing cyclist"
"A lorry driver with a cavalier lack of respect for the law is facing jail for killing a cyclist after jumping a red light...Trucker barry Meyer had been banned 5 times and was not licensed to be driving the tipper lorry that crushed Alan Neve to death at Holborn in 2013... He yesterday admitted to causing death by careless driving - after 2 years of denial"

if u want to read about this monster -

http://i.imgur.com/tcYu1WZ.jpg

About time the law was changed to make this equivalent to murder and life in prison so they can only be let out under licence and sent back if if they so much as cross a double white line? Also this should apply to who ever employs them - no excuses allowed.

A friend of mine IN A CAR was smashed up a few yearsago as a lorry driver smashed into the passenger seat turning from a side road without looking - she had broken every thing & lucky to be alive and it took a very long time to recover - the lorry driver was also put into prison.

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

9 April 2015 - 9:41pm
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.

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

9 April 2015 - 9:11pm
I believe she stopped violently at a T junction to avoid a farm vehicle which she didn't notice to the last second. The farmer was unaware my nephew had run into the rear of the car, as I said there were no witnesses and the police did not attend. My cousin drove him to the nearest A+E.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

9 April 2015 - 9:05pm
Let's not do grammar Bob. It's too serious and we don't want her relations stumbling over it. Best

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

9 April 2015 - 9:03pm
Mick F wrote:Vantage wrote:Condolences to her family Yes, condolences.
FIFTH this year!


I do wonder about the reporting of these tragic incidents.The woman collided with the HGVShould they not have said that she was run over by an HGV?

"Collided" seems (to me at least) that the bicycle and the HGV inadvertently crashed into one another ........ or at least the bicycle hit the HGV.


Sue for libel? You can say they "were in a collision", but to say that "a collided with b" is an active voice, and is therefore a sentence with a subject and an object.

Re: Another truck / cyclist incident in the capital

9 April 2015 - 8:48pm
Mick F wrote:Vantage wrote:Condolences to her family Yes, condolences.
FIFTH this year!


I do wonder about the reporting of these tragic incidents.The woman collided with the HGVShould they not have said that she was run over by an HGV?

"Collided" seems (to me at least) that the bicycle and the HGV inadvertently crashed into one another ........ or at least the bicycle hit the HGV.

And another woman, such a sad thing to read

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

9 April 2015 - 8:47pm
I don't think it matters why or if she 'braked too hard.' If you run into the back of someone you are at fault. You were following too close for your speed/reaction time.
The only exception I can think of to this is someone moving in front of you too closely (say, after overtaking) and then braking hard and that could be considered assault.

Re: Get off the road horn blast from passing artic driver!

9 April 2015 - 8:09pm
gaz wrote:I can't see any justification for the artic' driver's actions.

In case you are unaware the cycle provision starts about 100 yards past your streetview location. At the end of the lay-by cycles can continue on a shared use path emerging here. I have no knowledge of the current state of repair of the path nor it's desirability as an alternative to the A road for that short stretch.
Thanks Gaz. That's where I was heading for. It's a usable path and cuts out a very short stretch of that horrible road. Anything's better than nothing! However for a relatively newly constructed A26 there could have been a cycle link at least from Eridge Stn to Sandhill Lane for NCN 21 to follow to Rotherfield, which is where I'd been. The existing NCN 21 from Eridge is unrideable on a mountain bike as well as leading in the wrong direction to start with.

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

9 April 2015 - 7:40pm
RogerThat wrote:My nephew recently ran into the back of a car which (in his estimation) braked too fiercely.

Why was it braking? If it was braking for a valid reason to avoid a hazard I think your nephew was at fault. Cars have better brakes than bikes so an appropriate gap needs to be maintained. In an emergency stop situation drivers can be expected to brake hard rather than assessing precisely how much braking is needed.

Why does your nephew think she braked too hard?

Re: Get off the road horn blast from passing artic driver!

9 April 2015 - 7:37pm
I can't see any justification for the artic' driver's actions.

In case you are unaware the cycle provision starts about 100 yards past your streetview location. At the end of the lay-by cycles can continue on a shared use path emerging here. I have no knowledge of the current state of repair of the path nor it's desirability as an alternative to the A road for that short stretch.

Edit: IIRC this was a Mid-Late 90's "improvement" of the road.

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

9 April 2015 - 7:26pm
Funnily enough, I came across a report of a similar incident in Norway.... http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/45-dagers- ... 20496.html

The article is in Norwegian. You can maybe stick it in a translator, but I will provide a summary...

The driver stopped with the car (Audi!) blocking a pedestrian crossing, which the cyclist wanted to use, an argument ensued, and the cyclist smashed a mirror on the car. The driver chased him down with the car, ran up onto the pavement and knocked him down. He had some pain, but was not seriously injured. The driver claimed she was only trying to scare the cyclist, but admitted the the sequence of events.

She was driving illegally because she did not yet have a licence. She was banned from taking a driving exam for three years and given 30 days in jail. It would have been 90 days, except that she admitted guilt. Liability was not discussed in the article, though that is usually assigned at the same time as any criminal charges in Norway. My guess is that because they each damaged the others' property, the judge said they were even in that regard.

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

9 April 2015 - 7:21pm
RogerThat wrote:any thoughts?
If he has any form of legal assistance or public liability insurance (e.g. cycle club membership, home insurance, union) it's time to use it. If not then phone one of the "no win, no fee" people, they'll only take the case if they think he could win. If they don't think he can win then it's either paying up, trying to settle or waiting to see what the driver does next.

Get off the road horn blast from passing artic driver!

9 April 2015 - 7:16pm
Today I cycled a very short stretch of the A26 Crowborough-Tunbridge Wells road. This is a fairly new stretch of road, but in its construction no provision whatsever was made for cyclists so it's not pleasant. I was at about this place http://goo.gl/maps/QRZjN. There wasn't any traffic ahead (unlike the Google view) and nothing at all coming in the opposite direction, so essentially the road was clear for about half a mile ahead.
Artic driver sounded his horn as he approached me from behind. Whilst passing he continuously sounded the horn. Yes his offside wheels were on the double white lines, but visibility was so good and the road so free ahead that it wouldn't have mattered at all if he had completely crossed them. I couldn't see the number or firm name of the vehicle, so I cannot complain to anyone about this appalling driving or attitude.

In contrast I soon turned into Forge Rd http://goo.gl/maps/yxfCTwhich is narrow and less than two car widths wide in places, and a car driver coming towards me stopped and waved me to go past.

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

9 April 2015 - 7:09pm
My nephew recently ran into the back of a car which (in his estimation) braked too fiercely. To cut a long story short he suffered pretty extensive facial lacerations and a broken tooth. The car sustained bumper and paint damage. He contacted me to say the woman was now asking for £750 to repair the car. I've advised him to sue her for physical injury and write off of a brand new bike. No witnesses, or statements given to the police (by him at any rate) any thoughts?

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

9 April 2015 - 7:04pm
We don't know the details of what preceded the collision, but the charge of careless driving doesn't seem appropriate for the collision, which appears to have been on purpose, I don't know if she could have argued she was just apprehend the criminal who had just damaged her private property?

Re: What is gr8 about motorcycling?

9 April 2015 - 4:51pm
The examiner is with you all the time now on the part 2. He indeed follows you on his bike and issues instructions. You also have to do the turn around in the road in front of the examiner controlling clutch and revs. This after the theory test and of course initial exam where you have to weave between cones and do an observed road circuit frun by an authorised learner school.
I think they are now trying to make it even harder.

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

9 April 2015 - 4:46pm
I don't understand why you feel like that Dionherbike. If you had run into their car you can bet they would be suing you for damages now. There is very little redress for injury by careless motorists. So little that many motorists don't give a second thought to putting vulnerable road users at risk. The civil system of negligence claims for damages paid for by insurance is just about the only protection you will get as a vulnerable road user (and a non vulnerable one as well).

Motorists are usually not aware that they can be sued for negligence if they injure a vulnerable road user. Strict and presumed liability has been discussed in other threads. The only practical benefit that it brings is that it makes road users aware that they can be sued if they cause injury to others. The evidence from more civilised European countries suggests that by doing that it makes the roads a whole lot safer for vulnerable road users. Claiming damages for your loss and injury in this case will make at least one more motorist aware that they can't cause harm to vulnerable road users without risk of redress and, more importantly, it will cover your loss from people who chose to act in that way.

You have a right to claim damages as result of their negligence, to put you back into a position that leaves you at least no worse off. You say that you don't want that and seem to find it distasteful. I find it distasteful that people use motor vehicles in public places in a way that presents serious risk to vulnerable road users, frequently causing harm to vulnerable road users and without concern for the consequences. Your message gives the view that you're ok with that and better still its ok to cause injury and damage because their won't be any consequences.

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