# Right Hook - Advice



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

This happened:



The driver has now asked to meet in a public place this evening ostensibly to discuss the way forward. Bike is in the LBS with preliminary reports suggesting it will need:

- New handlebars
- New bar tape
- Wheels re-trued

Parts and labour may run into the hundreds, but this is conjecture at this point.

I'm keen to resolve the repair issues ASAP as i have a sportive next Sunday so will happily send the bill and leave it at that. Pursuing damages (and i am damaged, let's not understate that) is not my main aim here.

Anyone with advice as to what to do?


----------



## T4tomo (9 May 2019)

Meet him, but take Big Dave with you.


----------



## derrick (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> This happened:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get insurance details. if a problem go through British cycling, they sorted it all out when my wife got hit.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2019)

I think @classic33 has a sticky thread somewhere with good advice.

Personally, I'd deal with it via his insurance company or at the very least get his insurer's details in case a private settlement offer is insufficient or delayed. And since you've been injured I'd also be checking with police that he's reported the collision. This can be a good indicator of a driver's propensity to avoid his financial as well as legal responsibilities.

Good luck.


----------



## mjr (9 May 2019)

Sorry but what is there to discuss? I don't see the point of the meeting.

In your shoes, if I could afford it, I'd photograph everything, swallow the repair cost for now, send them or their insurer the bill and get insurers or lawyers involved if they dispute it.

Also, report it to the police. It's an injury/damage collision. I wonder whether the driver will, or if the police might be interested in their failure to do so, or the video which seems to show careless/reckless driving (which you should take down immediately else the police won't use it).


----------



## mjr (9 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I think @classic33 has a sticky thread somewhere with good advice.


Well remembered: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/accident-advice.151618/


----------



## Milkfloat (9 May 2019)

Whatever you do, don't immediately settle with him. You don't know if your injuries will get worse or if the LBS find something more damaged with the bike. I would expect at least scratches. Him handing over £100 in a pub might help in the short term, but could leave you considerably more out of pocket.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2019)

Do not meet him.
He either coughs up the damage without argue for the complete replace and repair as per your LBS bill or you go through his insurance.


----------



## icowden (9 May 2019)

Driver probably wants to meet up to try and avoid an insurance claim and / or police investigation which would probably end up with points and a fine for due care and attention. The problem with meeting up is that anything you agree will effectively end your chances of recovering any unforeseen costs or injury claims.

Personally, I would reply to them very nicely, that although you appreciate that they want to resolve this via a meeting, that for your own protection and theirs, you would prefer to go through the insurance company. Therefore if they can provide details of their policy, that would be helpful.

If they refuse, report to Police. Regardless of whether you are considering a personal injury claim, make sure you visit your GP / Walk-In as appropriate so that there is an official record of the injuries you sustained. Then if you have later issues with whiplash / shoulder / rotator cuff etc. you have a much better basis for the claim. It is not uncommon for the real extent of injuries not to be known for days, if not weeks after an injury. If injuries do get worse, don't "man up", go to the GP - again it's important to make a record. Make a personal note of any missed work, additional costs etc. Then you have all of this information to hand if you go the personal injury route.

I would recommend that you do, as you have a clear video showing fault. A good solicitor will resolve it quickly and makes sure all your costs are covered along with compensation for the injury sustained. (I'm not a Solicitor but I worked for a Personal Injury solicitor for 4 years). Oh - and when you do contact their insurance, they are likely to try to offer you their own legal service. Do *not* accept. They represent their client, not you. Appoint your own legal representative.

Remember - this is not about a vendetta with the driver, it's about resolving the damage done to your and your bike. The worst the driver will sustain (unless you get the police involved) is a small increase* to their insurance policy next time they renew.

*unless they are a terrible driver with other claims against them


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> The driver has now asked to meet in a public place this evening



A police station is a public place, give him the address of your nearest one and meet him there. I'm sure he'll get the message.


----------



## KneesUp (9 May 2019)

Out of interest, did the driver know you had footage before they said they wanted to meet?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Out of interest, did the driver know you had footage before they said they wanted to meet?



That is a good point. I never reveal to anyone at an incident that I have footage; it's better to let the other party make his statement to police or give his account to his insurer first before pulling out the video evidence. Yes, I am a cynical old bastard.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That is a good point. I never reveal to anyone at an incident that I have footage; it's better to let the other party make his statement to police or give his account to his insurer first before pulling out the video evidence. Yes, I am a cynical old bastard.



He does not and i will be adopting this tactic as well!


----------



## Spinney (9 May 2019)

Good luck with it.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Whatever you do, don't immediately settle with him. You don't know if your injuries will get worse or if the LBS find something more damaged with the bike. I would expect at least scratches. Him handing over £100 in a pub might help in the short term, but could leave you considerably more out of pocket.



Interim report now includes the pedals being knacked, so there's that too.



icowden said:


> Driver probably wants to meet up to try and avoid an insurance claim and / or police investigation which would probably end up with points and a fine for due care and attention. The problem with meeting up is that anything you agree will effectively end your chances of recovering any unforeseen costs or injury claims.
> 
> Personally, I would reply to them very nicely, that although you appreciate that they want to resolve this via a meeting, that for your own protection and theirs, you would prefer to go through the insurance company. Therefore if they can provide details of their policy, that would be helpful.
> 
> ...



I am keeping this in mind; i don't think i've got time to head to the GP just now but the local A&E might suffice. The personal injury route is something i'd like to avoid but note that if worst comes to worst then i'll embark on it.



ianrauk said:


> Do not meet him.
> He either coughs up the damage without argue for the complete replace and repair as per your LBS bill or you go through his insurance.



This is a recurring theme and one i'm divided on. I'm not sure of the chap, he seems earnest (despite the initial victim blaming of "you came flying round that corner i had no time to react!") and remorseful, perhaps this is just to see what kind of costs he will incur. I think i'll attend (he has suggested a local coffee stop) and suss it out, reject any offers until such a time that the LBS repair bill comes in.


----------



## Phaeton (9 May 2019)

My opinion would be all about his attitude, we all have the capacity to make mistakes, it could well be he just was looking more to the right where he was going rather than ahead where you came from (not excusing him). But if he does make a genuine apology & offer, seems contrite then I would think I would go ahead without involving insurance, but make him clearly aware that the costs could well be substantial & insurance might be a better route.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Interim report now includes the pedals being knacked, so there's that too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As you hear with a lot of these type of meetings. They want to meet and are happy to pay until you tell them exactly how much repairs will cost. Then the weasel words start.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 May 2019)

If you would be happy with a simple cash settlement for bike damage then it's worth meeting him.

He has a newish Merc which may at least indicate he has some grasp of the high cost of consumer goodies.

He may still think a bike is something you pay a fiver for at a car boot sale, in which case it's insurance time.

You ought to be able to establish his attitude within a few minutes of talking to him.

Safety is always a consideration, but if he wanted to do you serious harm he could have done that when you were starfished on the road, and you presumably have his name, if not his address.


----------



## icowden (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> he seems earnest (despite the initial victim blaming of "you came flying round that corner i had no time to react!") and remorseful, perhaps this is just to see what kind of costs he will incur.



I'm sure that he is, and that is quite likely. But IIRC Solicitor will tell you that meeting up could be prejudicial to any claim, and would therefore advise against no matter how lovely the person you are meeting. 

The "you came flying round the corner" is IMHO ruled out by the footage. You are visible 2 seconds before the turn, and he could have stopped the turn at any point. you also take avoidance action by moving to the left and he still fails to stop the turn, which is what creates the collision. Weather conditions are poor but visibility is reasonable unless you are dressed like a ninja (i'm presuming you weren't).


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)

How do you know he'll be on his own when you meet him?

Put your safety first. Get yourself checked over as soon as possible. Delaying that may come against you.


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 May 2019)

I would go via the insurance, possibly police route, and take down the video.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (9 May 2019)

I've had to make a couple of claims in the past. Some thoughts. I would report to police *before* meeting him, and get an incident number. It's an injury accident, he's obliged to report it. 

Include clothing damage in your costs. 

If he pays in full, take it and avoid the hassle. If not, go to his insurers. Include descriptions of injuries suffered and police incident number. Even minor injuries are far more expensive than your bike and clothing, and insurers will be trying to avoid payout.

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/injury-compensation-amounts

Do not delay reporting until he decides to pay. That could take weeks if he prevaricates. Agree on the advice not to mention the video to him - only use that with insurers. And take it down from here and anywhere else.


----------



## tom73 (9 May 2019)

If you do and get yourself checked out you will have a long wait in a and e. Unless they are not busy. It’s more than likely you’d be assessed as low priority. If you wait more than 24 hours than you will be. 

TBO unless you are in need of treatment. Practice Nurse or walk in centre is best bet.
A and e have enough to do than just document injuries. 

As others have said let others sort it he maybe trying to let it slip under the radar. Report it you have it in camera. It may not come to anything but at least it covers you. 

Good luck what ever you end up doing.


----------



## mjr (9 May 2019)

icowden said:


> [...] unless you are dressed like a ninja (i'm presuming you weren't).


 It's broad daylight. Even someone "dressed like a ninja" is going to be massively visible cycling in the middle of the lane (if only the motorist bothers to look!), so please don't start trying to excuse motorists colliding with people just because you don't like some clothes. There is pretty much no excuse for this one. Even if the Merc's wipers had failed so they couldn't see for rain, its driver should have immediately stopped instead of proceeding when they could not positively see their way was clear - as noted, the driver kept turning so long it made the collision unavoidable.


----------



## alicat (9 May 2019)

Classic case of driving without due care and attention and all captured on camera. I'd show it to the police before doing anything else.


----------



## mjr (9 May 2019)

icowden said:


> I'm sure that he is, and that is quite likely. But IIRC Solicitor will tell you that meeting up could be prejudicial to any claim, and would therefore advise against no matter how lovely the person you are meeting.


And that's the best case. I'd be recording the whole thing. There's more than a chance that you'll find yourself surrounded by his friends and gently pressured into agreeing with something, even in a public place.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

tom73 said:


> If you do and get yourself checked out you will have a long wait in a and e. Unless they are not busy. It’s more than likely you’d be assessed as low priority. If you wait more than 24 hours than you will be.
> 
> TBO unless you are in need of treatment. Practice Nurse or walk in centre is best bet.
> A and e have enough to do than just document injuries.
> ...



Cheers bud; A&E is not my preferred option but it's the closest at this juncture. Will see how this evening goes!


----------



## flake99please (9 May 2019)

Do not meet up with the driver. Call 101 and report the incident (obtaining number in process). I would also inform the driver that you wish to go through the correct legal channels and use their insurers. Contact drivers insurance company about all damages. Cease any further contact with driver after that.


----------



## vickster (9 May 2019)

Are you a British Cycling or CUK member or similar? If so just let them deal with it once you’ve been checked over

He should be reporting to his insurers as he’s been involved in a collision with damage to third party property and person. Tough luck if he doesn’t want to


----------



## Bazzer (9 May 2019)

Personally I wouldn't meet up. 
Call me cynical but I would guess he is looking to sweep the incident under the carpet. I have had too many near misses and been hit too many times not to contact the police and his insurers. 
In fact I am slightly surprised at you going down this route. May be I am miss remembering, but I thought from some of your comments in commuting thread you had experienced a number of close calls.


----------



## roadrash (9 May 2019)

A the very least report to police yourself and go through his insurance , all saying he is insured , all he is doing is trying to get away with possible prosecution and increased insurance premiums, which is illegal, hes trying to look after number one , nothing more. do it properly.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

We are a cynical lot here, aren't we!

That's not a criticism, it's exactly why i asked. Perhaps i am being too naive here. Time will tell.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)




----------



## Dommo (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> We are a cynical lot here, aren't we!



Yes. It comes with riding on the roads with these types of drivers around 

I'd echo most of the comments. I certainly wouldn't meet up. Just get it dealt with via insurance and even the police if you fancy trying to find one who might be even be interested. Oops, more cynicism. 

Dom


----------



## mjr (9 May 2019)

Dommo said:


> Yes. It comes with riding on the roads with these types of drivers around


And probably from some of us settling things quickly and quietly and later doubting that we did the right thing... as there's a driver now on the road insured fraudulently because they probably didn't report a third-party-damage collision.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> We are a cynical lot here, aren't we!
> 
> That's not a criticism, it's exactly why i asked. Perhaps i am being too naive here. Time will tell.




A lot of the replies come from bitter experience I would guess.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

Update: driver a little miffed that bills might run to the £300-400 mark. Asking if we can get a second opinion. Blithely stated that we could, but won't make much difference. Suggests it might be a hundred quid or so. Asks if I recollect exactly what happened. Produced video, questioning of incident immediately ceased.

Advised that we can do it offline with a bill, or online via insurance. Chap was very insistent that insurance is not an option. 

Outcome: LBS will advise bill, chap will stump up. Advised him that video has him bang to rights and we can proceed down solicitor route if he so wants. Unfortunate that he has recently lost his job but he will "beg, borrow and steal" to make it right.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Update: driver a little miffed that bills might run to the £300-400 mark. Asking if we can get a second opinion. Blithely stated that we could, but won't make much difference. Suggests it might be a hundred quid or so. Asks if I recollect exactly what happened. Produced video, questioning of incident immediately ceased.
> 
> Advised that we can do it offline with a bill, or online via insurance. Chap was very insistent that insurance is not an option.
> 
> Outcome: LBS will advise bill, chap will stump up. Advised him that video has him bang to rights and we can proceed down solicitor route if he so wants. Unfortunate that he has recently lost his job but he will "beg, borrow and steal" to make it right.


Have either of you reported the incident?


----------



## Milkfloat (9 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Update: driver a little miffed that bills might run to the £300-400 mark. Asking if we can get a second opinion. Blithely stated that we could, but won't make much difference. Suggests it might be a hundred quid or so. Asks if I recollect exactly what happened. Produced video, questioning of incident immediately ceased.
> 
> Advised that we can do it offline with a bill, or online via insurance. Chap was very insistent that insurance is not an option.
> 
> Outcome: LBS will advise bill, chap will stump up. Advised him that video has him bang to rights and we can proceed down solicitor route if he so wants. Unfortunate that he has recently lost his job but he will "beg, borrow and steal" to make it right.



Alarm bells!!! This sounds like it could get into a very protracted situation where you never get paid and he tries to get away with it. From what you have said I would be reporting to police and insurance straight away,


----------



## Bazzer (9 May 2019)

^^^^^WHS^^^^^

Edit. Why is insurance not an option? If his no claims is already damaged by previous incidents, it is potentially all the more reason for his insurance to be aware of the incident. Or are you dealing with an uninsured driver, who has therefore committed an offence?


----------



## roadrash (9 May 2019)

sob, sob, woe is me , ive lost my job......tough shoot, that doesn't excuse you driving like a bell end , nor does it mean you can break the law by not reporting it to police and insurers , or expect the person you drove into to break the law by not reporting it to police , like I said earlier all he wants to do is look after number one....


----------



## lane (9 May 2019)

Do you know if he has any insurance? 

If you are not a CUK / BC member your house insurance may cover legal costs.


----------



## winjim (9 May 2019)

A used Mercedes is still worth a few bob if he's lost his job.

Police. Insurance.


----------



## roadrash (9 May 2019)

Ask mid shows it as insured ...Mercedes A180 sport


----------



## Pat "5mph" (9 May 2019)

I'm another one saying: OP, you should not have met with that driver!
Police, Doctors, Insurance, in that order, imo.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (9 May 2019)

Report to police now. Even if only to get the option to go through his insurance should he not stump up. 

Whatever you do pay no attention to his monetary sob story. He's driving a 2yo merc ffs.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2019)

I agree with @Milkfloat , the driver's behaviour is highly suspicious. Did you ask him if he'd reported the collision to the police? I don't expect he did and that should make you wonder why not.

There's going to be something else he's worried about; it might not be his car, he might not have had permission to use it, he might be disqualified or not even have a licence, or has no insurance.

Right now, if you don't already have it, I'd be asking him for his insurance details. If you like, pretend it's just as a fallback in case he doesn't cough but I'd get straight onto them with a claim. With the video you have there will be no contest and you'll have a far better chance of proper recompense. And whether he gives you insurance details or not, get straight on to the police and report the incident.

P.S. I wouldn't have let him know about the video before giving him enough rope to hang himself with either the police, insurance or both but it's done now.


----------



## Bazzer (9 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> .........
> 
> *Right now, if you don't already have it, I'd be asking him for his insurance details. If you like, pretend it's just as a fallback in case he doesn't cough but I'd get straight onto them with a claim. ...........*.



I wouldn't give it any pretense. If he doesn't provide it, the Motor Insurers' Bureau will provide it online for £3, then reclaim the cost as part of the claim.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)

lane said:


> Do you know if he has any insurance?
> 
> If you are not a CUK / BC member your house insurance may cover legal costs.


"Roadside" service available from AskMid. Link in the Accident Advice thread, near the bottom.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 May 2019)

classic33 said:


> "Roadside" service available from AskMid. Link in the Accident Advice thread, near the bottom.



That free service assumes the involvement of two motor vehicles as it asks for your reg number as well as the other party's. Even if he has a vehicle whose reg number he can use, that will flag on his own insurance as a reportable collision with his vehicle when there wasn't one.

I think I'd stick to the paid service for simplicity.


----------



## ianrauk (9 May 2019)

Exactly what I said in an earlier post. Happy to pay until told the bill of repair . Then come the weasel words.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That free service assumes the involvement of two motor vehicles as it asks for your reg number as well as the other party's. Even if he has a vehicle whose reg number he can use, that will flag on his own insurance as a reportable collision with his vehicle when there wasn't one.
> 
> I think I'd stick to the paid service for simplicity.


£4.50 for the paid one off enquiry. £2.60 when they started it.
https://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx


----------



## I like Skol (9 May 2019)

I have watched and rewatched that video multiple times now and I am sorry to say I am still uncertain on where the blame lies! I think you might have trouble making your claim stick if you go down the insurance claim route, the video 'evidence' does you no favours.

The road/lane you are traveling along is narrow (hence no centre markings) and there is a big SLOW sign painted in the road just before the junction where the collision occured. Despite this, unless it is a trick of the camera, you appear to be travelling at a fair lick and don't seem to slow down at all even when you reach the busy junction. You then proceed to aim for a gap that is much narrower than a car width without considering the vehicles intended actions and without slowing to check if you are actually seen by the driver and it is safe for you to proceed.
The incident is at best 50:50. The driver is in an awkward situation, it is a sharp turn and it is simply not possible to look into the road he is entering (i.e watching where he is going) and simultaneously watch for oncoming traffic approaching at excessive speed. Their driving does not look negligent or hasty. I'm not surprised the driver suggested you approached too fast.

Having said all that, the developments since the collision are making alarm bells ring, so if you intend to pursue your claim I would suggest you do so via the official route because I suspect any attempt to settle privately, off the record, will end in frustration!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 May 2019)

Trying to bypass the insurance company rings alarm bells, and makes you ask what else are they hiding. Report to police, doctors, get their insurance details. For instance the insurance may not cover him, and he may be driving around uninsured.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 May 2019)

Askmid shows that at least someone has the car insured.


----------



## Rusty Nails (9 May 2019)

I like Skol said:


> I have watched and rewatched that video multiple times now and I am sorry to say I am still uncertain on where the blame lies! I think you might have trouble making your claim stick if you go down the insurance claim route, the video 'evidence' does you no favours.
> 
> The road/lane you are traveling along is narrow (hence no centre markings) and there is a big SLOW sign painted in the road just before the junction where the collision occured. Despite this, unless it is a trick of the camera, you appear to be travelling at a fair lick and don't seem to slow down at all even when you reach the busy junction. You then proceed to aim for a gap that is much narrower than a car width without considering the vehicles intended actions and without slowing to check if you are actually seen by the driver and it is safe for you to proceed.
> The incident is at best 50:50. The driver is in an awkward situation, it is a sharp turn and it is simply not possible to look into the road he is entering (i.e watching where he is going) and simultaneously watch for oncoming traffic approaching at excessive speed. Their driving does not look negligent or hasty. I'm not surprised the driver suggested you approached too fast.
> ...



Apart from your last sentence that is rubbish.

What speed is a "fair lick"? If a car was travelling at that speed would it still be a "fair lick". Afaik "fair lick" is not mentioned in the Highway Code.

The op is in his lane moving forward, the driver has crossed into the wrong lane. If the driver cannot look at oncoming (cycling) traffic as part of his manoeuvre to turn right then he should not turn, or at best stop and turn when he is able to observe oncoming traffic.

I suggest he suffers from the same problem as many other drivers who look through cyclists because they are more concerned at looking for motorised transport.

A similar thing almost happened to me today but the driver noticed me at the last moment and slammed on his brakes when he saw I was coming through.


----------



## classic33 (9 May 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Askmid shows that at least someone has the car insured.


But the DVLA seems to show it as having been sold recently. There's that bit about the VED not passing over with the vehicle.

I'm for going down the insurance route, which may well require dhd.evans to get in touch with the police to get an incident/collision number.

I'd prefer he got himself checked out first. The police will ask him to anyway.


----------



## dhd.evans (9 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> My opinion would be all about his attitude, we all have the capacity to make mistakes, it could well be he just was looking more to the right where he was going rather than ahead where you came from (not excusing him). But if he does make a genuine apology & offer, seems contrite then I would think I would go ahead without involving insurance, but make him clearly aware that the costs could well be substantial & insurance might be a better route.



Regarding ball the replies I took this approach. Despite being a seasoned misanthrope I have him the benefit of the doubt; it may or may not work out.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Regarding ball the replies I took this approach. Despite being a seasoned misanthrope I have him the benefit of the doubt; it may or may not work out.


You okay?


----------



## berty bassett (10 May 2019)

not sure what would happen if he all of a sudden says i am not paying that amount ? if you go down official routes after an argument and it comes out that you met in a pub demanding cash ( that may be how it is described if it doesnt go right ), i don't think it will be in your favour 
i was also knocked off bike in very much the same situation and it is a long winded frustrating process going down the legal road , but i wouldn't choose the meet in pub option - why risk it , just do the legal right thing


----------



## simon the viking (10 May 2019)

If he stumps up snd stays stum to his insurance.. He is committing fraud. Quotes say had an accident? Not just.. Had a claim?

Just saying.... 


Personally i just say... Forget im contacting insurers


----------



## dhd.evans (10 May 2019)

classic33 said:


> You okay?



Absolutely; as someone said the weasel words came out but presented with the video evidence of the car not indicating, reacting and then cutting across me the chap seemed to accept that we could pursue the legal route or he could settle the bill ASAP and be done. I just want to get back on the road.

Those who know my post history will know this is not my first accident rodeo and I have used legal, part-legal and "gentleman's agreement" methods. My gut feel is this lands in the latter camp. Of course the alarm bells are there but time will tell.

I wonder if he did report it - if not, then we are probably both on a sticky wicket.

As ever, thanks to all for concerns and replies. If it goes belly up at least you can have the satisfaction of telling me you told me so!


----------



## Phaeton (10 May 2019)

simon the viking said:


> If he stumps up snd stays stum to his insurance.. He is committing fraud. Quotes say had an accident? Not just.. Had a claim?


Not all, you need to read the form


----------



## simon the viking (10 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Not all, you need to read the form


Most ask both


----------



## Phaeton (10 May 2019)

simon the viking said:


> Most ask both


Possibly/Maybe/Nope I have no numbers, but I have seen both quite recently


----------



## Bazzer (10 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Possibly/Maybe/Nope I have no numbers, but I have seen both quite recently



Having recently been spending far too long on price comparison web sites for child 2, at least two of them have this:

*Claims*
Have you had or caused had any motor accidents, claims or losses in the past 5 years, no matter who was at fault or if a claim was made?

Edit: Insurers own web sites may be different, but I would be very surprised if the wording was much different.


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Absolutely; as someone said the weasel words came out but presented with the video evidence of the car not indicating, reacting and then cutting across me the chap seemed to accept that we could pursue the legal route or he could settle the bill ASAP and be done. I just want to get back on the road.
> 
> Those who know my post history will know this is not my first accident rodeo and I have used legal, part-legal and "gentleman's agreement" methods. My gut feel is this lands in the latter camp. Of course the alarm bells are there but time will tell.
> 
> ...


It was more your wording in the post that made me ask if you were alright.


----------



## Phaeton (10 May 2019)

classic33 said:


> It was more your wording in the post that made me ask if you were alright.


It was jist a coople of spilling mustakes mide on the phine


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2019)

Rusty Nails said:


> What speed is a "fair lick"? If a car was travelling at that speed would it still be a "fair lick". Afaik "fair lick" is not mentioned in the Highway Code.


I think you know exactly what I mean by fair lick. I was trying to be diplomatic, but will spell it out in plain English. From the video, which as I said may be giving an inaccurate impression of the bicycle speed, it would seem that DHD approached the situation far *too fast*. The speed limit on that lane is probably 30mph but as is oft repeated, this is a limit and not a target, not that such limits apply to cyclists. Doing even 20mph in the situation portrayed would still be excessive and I am sure the highway code frequently mentions reducing speed to suit the prevailing conditions.



Rusty Nails said:


> The op is in his lane moving forward, the driver has crossed into the wrong lane. If the driver cannot look at oncoming (cycling) traffic as part of his manoeuvre to turn right then he should not turn, or at best stop and turn when he is able to observe oncoming traffic.


The video is gone now so it is just your opinion/memory against mine, but there appear to be a number of faults in your reasoning.

There are no lanes, the driver has not crossed into the wrong lane as it is a single lane road. The driver has just passed a parked car on their nearside and is now ready to turn right. This is similar to the frequently given advice on this forum to 'take the lane' or use a 'strong primary position'. Having effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic it is then unfortunate that a cyclist travelling at speed comes along and decides to squeeze through the remaining gap.

I accept that the driver could have done better, but they certainly were not reckless. The OP certainly could have exercised more caution given the situation and conditions, I would have done. I didn't see if the car was indicating or not, due to the low quality of the video, but the move was predictable regardless when looking at the car position (stopped or almost stopped, well over to their right). The OP's safety is not just the responsibility of others. He must assume some of that responsibility himself. Coming round a bend and rushing headlong into that situation regardless is a recipe for disaster, which on this occasion it was.

Too many on this forum have a 'driver bad, cyclist good' mantra but this is wrong and unfair, not all drivers are bad and not all cyclists are perfect. Both parties could have done better, which is why I suggest the responsibility is, at best, 50:50.​


----------



## Pale Rider (10 May 2019)

I wonder what we would be saying if the roles were reversed:

"I was on my bike about to turn right when some loony in a Merc came flying round the bend and wiped me out."

In other words, the oncoming road user has some responsibility to allow for a right turner.

In this case, the cyclist may be entitled to some extra consideration as the vulnerable road user, but as Skolly says, apportioning blame is far from straightforward.

All those who say 'claim insurance' assume the insurer will instantly pay up in full.

That's a risky assumption, although experience seems to suggest insurers take a pragmatic view of claims for a few hundred pounds - it costs more to dispute them than pay them.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 May 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> All those who say 'claim insurance' assume the insurer will instantly pay up in full.



I don't think anyone's of that view at all, @berty bassett even emphasised "it is a long winded frustrating process going down the legal road".

The advice to claim against the driver's insurance is better than leaving it to the scruples of a man who "was very insistent that insurance is not an option", is balking at the possibility of a £300 or more bill, and claims to be unemployed.


----------



## mjr (10 May 2019)

I like Skol said:


> From the video, which as I said may be giving an inaccurate impression of the bicycle speed, it would seem that DHD approached the situation far *too fast*.


That's easy to say after the fact, as a collision occurred. However, was it unreasonably fast? I don't think it looked like it. Maybe @dhd.evans has a GPX recording and can clarify the last speed recording before the incident.



I like Skol said:


> There are no lanes, the driver has not crossed into the wrong lane as it is a single lane road. The driver has just passed a parked car on their nearside and is now ready to turn right. This is similar to the frequently given advice on this forum to 'take the lane' or use a 'strong primary position'. Having effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic it is then unfortunate that a cyclist travelling at speed comes along and decides to squeeze through the remaining gap.


You say "decides to squeeze through the remaining gap", I'd say "was left with nowhere else to go". It's a tough call: on first viewing, I thought in that situation I might attempt an emergency turn (USA site, so see "turning left" for a situation like this right-cross), but on seeing the close examination of the road later in the video, it loosituationks like it may have been too wet for that and could have resulted in a low-side skid/crash leaving the rider on the road in front of the unobservant motorist's vehicle, which could have been much worse.

If the motorist thought they had "effectively blocked the road to oncoming traffic" then they failed to remember two-wheeled oncoming traffic and may have proceeded without looking properly.



I like Skol said:


> I accept that the driver could have done better, but they certainly were not reckless.


I think that's far from certain (reckless = "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous"), but even if so, were they careless ("the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver")?



I like Skol said:


> The OP's safety is not just the responsibility of others. He must assume some of that responsibility himself. Coming round a bend and rushing headlong into that situation regardless is a recipe for disaster, which on this occasion it was.


That's still assuming "rushing".

Also, let's compare with a similar everyday situation: when did you ever see a motorist proceeding straight ahead through a T on a priority route (as you put it earlier) "aim for a gap that is [narrower than 3x their vehicle's] width without considering the [oncoming] vehicles intended actions and without slowing to check if [they] are actually seen by the driver and it is safe for [them] to proceed"? That's almost every motorist on almost every road, isn't it?



I like Skol said:


> Too many on this forum have a 'driver bad, cyclist good' mantra but this is wrong and unfair, not all drivers are bad and not all cyclists are perfect. Both parties could have done better, which is why I suggest the responsibility is, at best, 50:50.


I suggest that's far too harsh for the reasons above - and I feel that far too many on this forum have a personal-responsibility/"only crap cyclists crash" mantra, which is also wrong and unfair. Calling this 50:50 just because both parties might have maybe been able to do things differently seems unreal to me: one vehicle was proceeding straight ahead along the priority route and its rider seemed to grab handfuls of brake as soon as they saw what was happening, while the other was turning across its path and its driver apparently failed to react before the collision. The burden is clearly on the road user turning across a priority flow. Even at worst, this should be nearer 80:20 against the driver IMO.


----------



## roadrash (10 May 2019)

I for one was suggesting doing it legally , for reasons @glasgowcyclist points out above and because,... well … I guess because its the right thing to do, not that doing the right thing seems to count for much anymore, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## nickAKA (10 May 2019)

Apropos of sweet FA, IME folk who wantonly blab a sob story regarding accidental & undeserved penury when confronted with a costly mistake are by & large bullsh*tters.

I present this without prejudice as an anecdotal observation and not hard fact...


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2019)

mjr said:


> That's still assuming "rushing".


It certainly looked quick in the video clip. Unfortunately we don't have the video anymore, neither do we have any speed logs from the OP to confirm or contest the appearance of rapid progress.


mjr said:


> You say "decides to squeeze through the remaining gap", I'd say "was left with nowhere else to go". It's a tough call:


Only 'nowhere else to go' due to the excessive speed. If DHD had considered the situation (wet road, single lane highway, junction and other road users) and heeded the 'SLOW' warning that was painted on the road in big, white, well defined letters, he would have had a lot more time to think through the situation. The driver would also have had more time to spot him.
We can argue the whys and wherefores until the cows come home, we weren't there and have limited information to go on and hindsight is a magical thing, but it would seem the vehicle was showing many of the signs that suggest it was about to turn, and me personally having just entered the scene at that kind of speed from around a hidden bend would be wondering if the driver had seen me. Assuming they had would be a mistake.

And no, I do not believe only crap cyclists crash. Each situation is different and must be considered on its own merits.


----------



## mjr (10 May 2019)

I like Skol said:


> Only 'nowhere else to go' due to the excessive speed. If DHD had considered the situation (wet road, single lane highway, junction and other road users) and heeded the 'SLOW' warning that was painted on the road in big, white, well defined letters, he would have had a lot more time to think through the situation. The driver would also have had more time to spot him.


I suspect it wouldn't matter how much time that driver had because he wasn't looking properly and kept turning long after DHD was visible.

And that's still making various assumptions about the speed. The meaningful question is whether it was a reasonable speed. I felt it was, but there's always someone on this site saying one could cycle slower or use another route and get up earlier or get home later in order to accommodate the extra time needed.



I like Skol said:


> [...] but it would seem the vehicle was showing many of the signs that suggest it was about to turn, and me personally having just entered the scene at that kind of speed from around a hidden bend would be wondering if the driver had seen me. Assuming they had would be a mistake.


And yet it's a "mistake" that motorists make often.

Was it "a hidden bend"? I don't remember a reverse-angle shot other than the one from inside the turning.

"About to turn" is not the same as "turning" and I would expect most experienced cyclists to have discovered that slowing for motorists "about to turn" sometimes encourages them to turn across you regardless - it could equally be that DHD's slowing/braking encouraged the Merc driver to turn, although I still think it's more likely that they didn't see him because they were looking only for motor vehicles.

Anyway, we can't really discuss this until the cows come home because tough questions just get cut out and left unanswered.


----------



## dhd.evans (10 May 2019)

£135 for repairs. Bike is miraculously intact. New bars, tape and stem plus wheel truing. Chap should be chuffed to rocks with that!


----------



## Poacher (10 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> £135 for repairs. Bike is miraculously intact. New bars, tape and stem plus wheel truing. Chap should be chuffed to rocks with that!


Pedals OK then? Interim report stated they were "knacked".


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2019)

roadrash said:


> I for one was suggesting doing it legally , for reasons @glasgowcyclist points out above and because,... well … I guess because its the right thing to do, not that doing the right thing seems to count for much anymore, but maybe that's just me.


I went down the insurance route because of roadside result on the night. I'd assumed it would be pretty straight forward, for a week, then it went pearshaped. I also assumed it wouldn't be quick, from the outset.

Correct on one count at least


----------



## roadrash (10 May 2019)

chap probably will be chuffed at the £135 quote , he will be more chuffed about not telling his insurers


----------



## classic33 (10 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> £135 for repairs. Bike is miraculously intact. New bars, tape and stem plus wheel truing. Chap should be chuffed to rocks with that!


I'll add another £45 for advice given.

Hope you get the outcome you wanted, and that there's nothing to stop you getting back on it soon.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 May 2019)

roadrash said:


> chap probably will be chuffed at the £135 quote , he will be more chuffed about not telling his insurers



I'd still inform his insurance once he'd settled up. Fark 'im.


----------



## fossyant (10 May 2019)

I hope you aren't injured and the driver coughs up. Make sure the bike shop quote is like for like... £135 sounds cheap.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'd still inform his insurance once he'd settled up. Fark 'im.



A bloke makes a minor mistake, makes amends, and you would still seek to punish him by dobbing him in to his insurance.

You seem to be fighting an imaginary cyclist v motorist war, but much worse than that, such action would show you cannot be trusted to keep your word.


----------



## sheddy (11 May 2019)

This is just an observation based on personal experiences -
I wonder if motorists brains have difficulty in processing narrow objects coming straight towards them at speed.
(Motorcyclists have a similar problem with SMIDSY Kcufwits).

If I'm in _any _doubt that I've not been seen by a motorist coming towards me, I'll try to weave sideways to try and make myself appear bigger.


----------



## numbnuts (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'd still inform his insurance once he'd settled up. Fark 'im.


That's despicable to even think about ….sorry


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 May 2019)

A gendered brain doesn't even exist so I doubt there is any such thing as a motorist brain. Just your standard issue human brain.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> A bloke makes a minor mistake, makes amends, and you would still seek to punish him by dobbing him in to his insurance.



Do I owe him something? Is it punishment having someone made accountable for something they did? 
I don't think so, you might. 



Pale Rider said:


> You seem to be fighting an imaginary cyclist v motorist war, but much worse than that, such action would show you cannot be trusted to keep your word.



This is both interesting and revealing but let's get rid of the cyclist v motorist war nonsense. My actions would be the same regardless of my mode of transport; I walk, I cycle, I ride a motorcycle, I drive a car.

Now, back to the matter of trust. No matter what the driver thinks he's got from me by settling in cash (and bear in mind he's avoided paying for the injuries and the damaged clothing), I owe him nothing. 

When I took out my motor insurance, part of the T&Cs is that I must notify them of any accident I am involved in or any claim made against me. It's also a condition that I do not settle a claim myself or admit any liability.
Come renewal time, I would have a duty to tell any new insurer of past accidents or claims. This is part of a contract that I am bound to honour. The same will apply to this driver.

But your position appears to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this driver should renege on his responsibility, breach his contract, and be allowed to obtain further insurance by dishonestly representing himself; a driver who has also failed in his legal obligation to notify the police as soon as reasonably practicable that he was involved in a 3rd party injury collision.

With all of that taken into account, you say that _*I*_ am the one who cannot be trusted?


----------



## Gary E (11 May 2019)

I'd still put this through his insurance company (most insurance companys state in their small print that you (in this case him) report ALL accidents regardless of severity). This is so the insurance company can assess whether or not he is at more of a risk of having accidents (what type of driver he is) and adjust his premium to match the risk. I'd also have reported it to the police, if only to have it documented.
This guy may have done this before, or may do it again next week. If nobody reports his behaviour and he keeps just paying up and walking away from it, what's to stop him from just carrying on until something more serious happens?
If not for you, then for other road users, I'd say you have a responsibility to report this.
Sorry if this comes over as a bit heavy but, having been the victim of a left hook (broken collar bone/bent bike) incident where the driver slowed initially after the collision and then sped away (without me getting his plate), I can't help thinking that we need to actively do what we can in these situations to modify the behaviour of unsafe/uncaring drivers.
Who knows? a chat from the police (even if it goes no further) and an increased insurance premium might be all it takes to make the guy take more care around cyclist?
Rant over - hope you and your bike fully recover


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2019)

numbnuts said:


> That's despicable to even think about ….sorry



Despicable?
Crikey.

What's your verdict of the driver breaching his contractual obligations?
What's your view on him lying to an insurer to obtain future cover?
Any comment on his failure to report the collision to the police?


----------



## numbnuts (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Despicable?
> Crikey.
> 
> What's your verdict of the driver breaching his contractual obligations?
> ...


Come on we all make mistakes, he is doing the right thing by paying up and it's not them and us as most of us do drive and we all make the wrong judgement sometimes in our lives, live and let live.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Come on we all make mistakes, he is doing the right thing by paying up and it's not them and us as most of us do drive and we all make the wrong judgement sometimes in our lives, live and let live.



Wow.

Nothing to say about the driver's deception and law breaking. 
That's quite something.

Why are my actions despicable (with no supporting argument from you) yet the dishonest driver gets a free pass?


----------



## Markymark (11 May 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Come on we all make mistakes, he is doing the right thing by paying up and it's not them and us as most of us do drive and we all make the wrong judgement sometimes in our lives, live and let live.


I’ll bet one of my cars that the crash wasn’t a one off mistake but one of thiusands of decisions of entitlement and poor road judgement. The only difference was that this time the vulnerable road user didn’t dive out if the way in time. Drivers are allowed a certain number of these incidents until they accumulate enough ooints to ban them (most of the time). However that only happens if reported. Else he gets away with it. No sympathy. Should have reported it.


----------



## T4tomo (11 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> £135 for repairs. Bike is miraculously intact. New bars, tape and stem plus wheel truing. Chap should be chuffed to rocks with that!


Ignoring all the self righteousness bickering that has descended......
Do make sure that covers everything as you only have one shot at this. Check for minor scratches, ripped clothes etc, is truing ok for wheels or should it be new ones? If bars and stem are shagged, are you sure your brifter levers are OK?


----------



## steve292 (11 May 2019)

You need to report the accident. If not for your sake, you need to do it for the sake of others. The video is down so I havent seen it, but from the comments its the same scenario as the guy that hit me. 

i don't really see what the arguement is here. The Law is the Law, and the Law says you must report an accident involving an injury https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q894.htm

*I will put this bluntly, and I mean no offence, but you would be foolish not to go down the correct channel re reporting and insurer. *If he is already breaking the law by being uninsured or untaxed/ no MOT what makes you think he will do the right thing by you?


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Do I owe him something? Is it punishment having someone made accountable for something they did?
> I don't think so, you might.
> 
> 
> ...



In the example of accepting the cash settlement you have made an agreement.

You should stick to it.

Anything else is stroke pulling dishonesty.

You also misunderstand the role of the insurance company.

They are not there to punish, they are there to make sure the policyholder can meet his liabilities, particularly to a third party.

In this case - assuming he pays - the policyholder has met his liabilities from his own resources.

If you want the driver punished, you should report the matter to the police.


----------



## steve292 (11 May 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> In the example of accepting the cash settlement you have made an agreement.
> 
> You should stick to it.
> 
> ...


But by not reporting it the driver is breaking the law. And if you, the cyclist are injured I believe you are legally obliged to do so as well. It's not a question of punishment more of following the law. The CPS decide on punishment, its not a decision for the cyclist.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> In the example of accepting the cash settlement you have made an agreement.
> 
> You should stick to it.



An agreement to do what?
Oh, one of those nudge nudge, wink wink agreements?

If I made any agreement it would be to not pursue the outstanding recompense for injury and damaged clothing. Considering the potential for the injury payment to exceed everything else I'd say he's getting a bargain. 

The agreement would not include my being party to his deliberate failure to make his insurer aware of a notifiable event.



Pale Rider said:


> You also misunderstand the role of the insurance company.
> 
> They are not there to punish, they are there to make sure the policyholder can meet his liabilities, particularly to a third party.



I do not misunderstand.
An insurer is in the business of covering liabilities for a premium. That premium is based on risk. You want a driver who may be considered a higher risk, and therefore attracting a higher premium or even a refusal of cover, to benefit from breaching his contract by deceiving his insurer.




Pale Rider said:


> If you want the driver punished, you should report the matter to the police



I'm glad you mentioned that because I would most definitely have reported the incident to the police. Of course, this ought to turn out to have been superfluous because the driver will have already reported the collision himself, as required by law, won't he?

Since you haven't disputed the summary in the second last paragraph of my previous post then I will take that as acceptance of my observations. Frankly, this is somewhat disappointing. I enjoy your posts on procedural matters within the justice system which show a knowledgeable insight into the application of the law. I can't then quite understand why you seem happy in this case for a driver to break the law.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2019)

steve292 said:


> But by not reporting it the driver is breaking the law. And if you, the cyclist are injured I believe you are legally obliged to do so as well. It's not a question of punishment more of following the law. The CPS decide on punishment, its not a decision for the cyclist.


Which law?


----------



## Pale Rider (11 May 2019)

steve292 said:


> But by not reporting it the driver is breaking the law. And if you, the cyclist are injured I believe you are legally obliged to do so as well.



It's reasonable to decline any private deal and go through the insurance.

What is not reasonable is to accept a private deal then tell his insurer as an act of vengeance.

We also don't know what the driver has done.

If it were me, I would be inclined to pay the £135 and tell my insurer what I had done.

Premiums are not the most open of books, but I reckon a notification/no claim would not count against me as much as a paid claim.

Nor would I be that fussed if the cyclist wanted to claim on my insurance, since I believe the occasional paid claim doesn't have a great impact on premiums.


----------



## Slick (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Do I owe him something? Is it punishment having someone made accountable for something they did?
> I don't think so, you might.
> 
> 
> ...


I think you make a great point and mirrors my limited experience in such matters. 

Not the exact same but it does remind me of the time I drove in to a 24 hour Asda car park late at night and my wife went in to pick up a few things. I watched a group of young boys walk to an old car and just knew something was going to go wrong. He reversed straight into my car and long story short, admitted liability but as he drove away again I felt suspicious so toom a photograph of his car and realised he had thise number plates that reflect light back to beat the speed cameras so I knew I was dealing with someone not to be trusted. I sent him a text and he answered apologising for hitting me and promising to make it right. Almost inevitably, my insurance company called me accusing me of hitting him and were really quite unhelpful until I forwarded his text and the photo showing the reflective number plate and everyone soon changed their tune. 

I know it's not quite the same but the principle you describe as everyone has to protect themselves is definitely valid.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 May 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Which law?



www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

Of course, this assumes that the driver in this case did not produce his certificate of insurance to the OP at the time, a reasonable assumption given the driver's reported reaction.


----------



## DCBassman (11 May 2019)

numbnuts said:


> he is doing the right thing


No. He isn't.


----------



## Phaeton (11 May 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
> 
> Of course, this assumes that the driver in this case did not produce his certificate of insurance to the OP at the time, a reasonable *assumption* given the driver's reported reaction.


Big assumption, not at all reasonable, Thank you for the link I was well aware of that, I missed a couple of the earlier replies so I presumed it referred to being a law about reporting it to your insurer, not the Police


----------



## numbnuts (11 May 2019)

DCBassman said:


> No. He isn't.


Another one that want to see him crucified 
Well if your without sin you can cast the first stone........yeah thought not


----------



## DCBassman (11 May 2019)

numbnuts said:


> Another one that want to see him crucified
> Well if your without sin you can cast the first stone........yeah thought not


Not interested in crucifying anyone. It's simply the incorrect way to deal with this type of situation. If he also informs his insurers, job done and no complaint. But it's still a reportable incident, and there's no getting away from it.


----------



## classic33 (11 May 2019)

The car appears to have changed owners in the last few weeks/recently. If that's the case, has the new owner got all their paperwork in order?

I was hit by a car that was showing as insured. The problems really started when it was confirmed that the driver at the time wasn't insured to drive it. Further problems arose when other matters came to light.

IF the driver at the time of the incident/collision isn't insured to drive it, how would the views expressed to date change? Is there anything wrong with an uninsured driver being taken off the roads.

I'd like to see the three disc system in Ireland, Tax, NCT(MOT) & insurance being on display over here. At least you've a chance of checking should you see it later.

What ever dhd.evans does, I hope it works out for him.


----------



## fossyant (11 May 2019)

Any news OP

Classic33 is the resident 'investigator' - I hope you are sorted out.


----------



## classic33 (11 May 2019)

fossyant said:


> Any news OP
> 
> Classic33 is the resident 'investigator' - I hope you are sorted out.


Thanks, I think.


----------



## classic33 (12 May 2019)

Hope the silence, from dhd.evans, isn't a bad sign, and that he's okay.


----------



## dhd.evans (13 May 2019)

Hi folks, busy weekend so reporting in now!

My LBS is very thorough in their inspections so i trust their judgement. I am not one for aesthetics so when they said the pedals were scuffed and potentially knacked they were erring on the side of caution; transpires the bearings are sound but there are scrapes. Are they functional but not pretty? Yes. So i'm fine with that. Clothing is dinged but not destroyed, i'm bruised and scraped. I'll live.

I am simply looking to get back on the road to get some miles in before the Etape Caledonia this Sunday. Oh, and climb some silly hills as well, hence why i took this route that morning.

To answer the calls of 50:50 on this accident and, furthermore, the accusation that i was doing a 'fair lick': Strava has me at 16mph on this section. Regardless of speed this chap did not indicate and pulled across my bow _as I was riding past him. _Not before i got there (i.e. i was travelling too fast to stop) not after (i.e. he mistimed the turn and caught me) but drove directly through me as I was alongside him.

By his own admission he was not switched on and was already looking to the right for a parking space. I didn't even register in his field of view. 

We agreed a bank transfer which was processed and received yesterday afternoon. To that end i call the case closed. 

As a postmortem, it is worth noting the following:

- You can choose to pursue these things in a variety of ways, be it down a legal route or an offline discussion.
- My choice here reflects my understanding of the situation, my confidence in the evidence present and my own judgement of the parties involved.
- These choices may not reflect best practice but embraced a less solicitor-heavy approach, one which I am happy with.
- If anything the takeaway should be "You do you".
- All drivers are human (currently) and to that end they will react accordingly. Demonising them is a surefire way to get their hackles up and cause delay to the preferred outcome.

Finally, this could have ended in a legal sparring match. I was more than happy to deploy my solicitor and pursue damages _ad infinitum _if we could not reach an agreement or payment for repairs was not satisfactory - however, as stated above, we reached an agreement and I will be back on the road this evening.


----------



## ianrauk (13 May 2019)

I'm pleased that the outcome was to your satisfaction. I also hope the driver learnt a lesson in all this.


----------



## alicat (13 May 2019)

I'm glad you're back on the road and I'm grateful to know how it all panned out. I do hope the driver reads and replies honestly to the insurer's questions when he next renews.


----------



## DCBassman (13 May 2019)

dhd.evans said:


> Hi folks, busy weekend so reporting in now!
> 
> My LBS is very thorough in their inspections so i trust their judgement. I am not one for aesthetics so when they said the pedals were scuffed and potentially knacked they were erring on the side of caution; transpires the bearings are sound but there are scrapes. Are they functional but not pretty? Yes. So i'm fine with that. Clothing is dinged but not destroyed, i'm bruised and scraped. I'll live.
> 
> ...


Ok, good outcome, everyone happy.


----------



## classic33 (13 May 2019)

Concern was more for the rider than the bike. Harder to fix the rider.

You got what you wanted, your bike back on the road, and that's what matters.

Best o'luck on Sunday though.


----------



## Globalti (19 Jun 2019)

Good outcome if you are happy. The worst that can happen is for the case to fall into the hands of avaricious lawyers who will milk it for all they can.


----------



## icowden (19 Jun 2019)

Or alternatively, in personal injury cases, Solicitors are rarely avaricious. 

Once liability has been agreed (which is usually the difficult bit), damages are calculated based on the injuries sustained, damage to property to be repaired and loss of earnings of the victim. It is the solicitor's job to obtain as much compensation as possible for the victim. There is no avarice at all. 

The riskiest part is the solicitors own fee. if fault is determined to lie with the driver, then his insurers pay the fees. If any part of fault lies with the cyclist then you might end up having to pay some of the fees (which can be expensive) depending on the arrangement (many now work on No Win, No Fee), or at least the disbursements (cost of medical reports etc). Personal injury solicitors rarely drive round in Lamborghinis.


----------

