GF hit a cyclist, advice pls!
Discussion
As above...
Basically whilst pulling out of work a cyclist glanced the front of her car and took a little tumble. He was absolutely fine bar a grazed knee, exchanged tel numbers and went on his way after being checked over by my gf who is a nurse. She has since sent him a text and he has confirmed he's fine.
Anyways, I've advised the gf to think nothing more of it and put it down to experience (the road system there is terrible with the cycle lane going against the direction of traffic).
But after speaking to her Mother she's now worrying if this guy could pull some sort of litigious stunt but I'm struggling to see how....
Gf now wants to report the incident to the Police (which involves muggins going down the station with her of course).
Opinions would be gratefully received!
Basically whilst pulling out of work a cyclist glanced the front of her car and took a little tumble. He was absolutely fine bar a grazed knee, exchanged tel numbers and went on his way after being checked over by my gf who is a nurse. She has since sent him a text and he has confirmed he's fine.
Anyways, I've advised the gf to think nothing more of it and put it down to experience (the road system there is terrible with the cycle lane going against the direction of traffic).
But after speaking to her Mother she's now worrying if this guy could pull some sort of litigious stunt but I'm struggling to see how....
Gf now wants to report the incident to the Police (which involves muggins going down the station with her of course).
Opinions would be gratefully received!
DoubleSix said:
The 'bint' in question happens to be a Palliative Nurse, that is to say she cares for Cancer sufferers in their final days. w
ker.
Sorry to say OP, regardless of how noble her occupation, it doesn't give her the right to go ploughing cyclists, admitedly its a sore time to make tongue in cheek posts, as the poster did. You need to calm down and step back for a second, you're getting the advice but please accept that people here may not be 100% behind you due to the facts.ker.To clarify:
This happened yesterday. The guy seemed decent (on his way to work) and was concerned about damage to the car. GF said he was going silly speed before he dropped anchors, this is a really steep hill and cyclists tear down it... not that thats of much consequence.
You do realise if I give her the green light to go to the Police that'll be a major climb down on my part??
If she does report it will that automatically involve the insurers?
EDIT: I used to be sponsored XC cyclist so am not anti bike, but I also know how they tear down this hill!! But thats beside the point the issue is should she go to the Police?, not the opticians...
This happened yesterday. The guy seemed decent (on his way to work) and was concerned about damage to the car. GF said he was going silly speed before he dropped anchors, this is a really steep hill and cyclists tear down it... not that thats of much consequence.
You do realise if I give her the green light to go to the Police that'll be a major climb down on my part??
If she does report it will that automatically involve the insurers?
EDIT: I used to be sponsored XC cyclist so am not anti bike, but I also know how they tear down this hill!! But thats beside the point the issue is should she go to the Police?, not the opticians...
Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 8th March 17:38
DoubleSix said:
To clarify:
This happened yesterday. The guy seemed decent (on his way to work) and was concerned about damage to the car. GF said he was going silly speed before he dropped anchors, this is a really steep hill and cyclists tear down it... not that thats of much consequence.
You do realise if I give her the green light to go to the Police that'll be a major climb down on my part??
If she does report it will that automatically involve the insurers?
EDIT: I used to be sponsored XC cyclist so am not anti bike, but I also know how they tear down this hill!! But thats beside the point the issue is should she go to the Police?, not the opticians...
If she really did see him going 'silly speed' and then still hit him, I'd avoid the police tbh. Don't want to be getting done for intentionally running people down.This happened yesterday. The guy seemed decent (on his way to work) and was concerned about damage to the car. GF said he was going silly speed before he dropped anchors, this is a really steep hill and cyclists tear down it... not that thats of much consequence.
You do realise if I give her the green light to go to the Police that'll be a major climb down on my part??
If she does report it will that automatically involve the insurers?
EDIT: I used to be sponsored XC cyclist so am not anti bike, but I also know how they tear down this hill!! But thats beside the point the issue is should she go to the Police?, not the opticians...
Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 8th March 17:38
Maybe I haven't explained properly, but she was stationary. Nosing out of a car park onto this one way hill with cycle lane going the wrong way. Guy comes flying round the corner takes evasive action of the gf's stationary vehicle, clips the bumper and takes a wee tumble. I reckon a non-event.... but I seem to be in a minority.
To be honest, she must report it to her insurers.
Almost certainly there will be a claim. It is a rightful and just claim, as a car/bicycle/tarmac interface can be very painful, and the chances of him being unaware of his ability to make a claim these days is remote. As soon as he goes to the bike shop/gp someone will push a card into his hand. And why not - ultimately, your partner is totally at fault, and covered by insurance for her negligence.
Report it and move on, as she knows, life can be too short to worry about these things. The chances are it will increase her premium by no more than 10% over what it would have been next renewal anyway (on a base loading, before ncd disallowment is considered) so whats the big deal?
Almost certainly there will be a claim. It is a rightful and just claim, as a car/bicycle/tarmac interface can be very painful, and the chances of him being unaware of his ability to make a claim these days is remote. As soon as he goes to the bike shop/gp someone will push a card into his hand. And why not - ultimately, your partner is totally at fault, and covered by insurance for her negligence.
Report it and move on, as she knows, life can be too short to worry about these things. The chances are it will increase her premium by no more than 10% over what it would have been next renewal anyway (on a base loading, before ncd disallowment is considered) so whats the big deal?
DoubleSix said:
Maybe I haven't explained properly, but she was stationary. Nosing out of a car park onto this one way hill with cycle lane going the wrong way. Guy comes flying round the corner takes evasive action of the gf's stationary vehicle, clips the bumper and takes a wee tumble. I reckon a non-event.... but I seem to be in a minority.
Regardless, it should be reported to the police to cover her back. I had a similar situation last year (cyclist overtaking a line of traffic around a corner which has the junction I was pulling out of on the apex, he was going full speed and we couldn't have seen each other until it was too late; luckily no injuries to him) and I still reported it just to make sure the police had my side of the story first.IIRC the Police have a form you can fill out for self reporting incidents like this. You use it where you're not sure whether the other party will try it on; so you make a voluntary contemporaneous statement first and the Police hold it on file.
Sounds like that's what your gf should be doing.
That said, as at least one other person has said it will take 24 hours for the injury to come out, so the cyclist may truthfully be able to say that he felt fine at the time but much worse the next day.
Sounds like that's what your gf should be doing.
That said, as at least one other person has said it will take 24 hours for the injury to come out, so the cyclist may truthfully be able to say that he felt fine at the time but much worse the next day.
No witnesses I presume.
She says she was stationary and he came round the corner really fast and hit her.
He says he was cycling merrily along saving the planet when this nasty carbon producing car pulled out in front of him.
You have to hope sense and honour will prevail but it would be good to get your side of the story on record first.
She says she was stationary and he came round the corner really fast and hit her.
He says he was cycling merrily along saving the planet when this nasty carbon producing car pulled out in front of him.
You have to hope sense and honour will prevail but it would be good to get your side of the story on record first.
If he hit her stationary car he is at fault. Especially if she had been there for more than a few seconds.
It is no different to you driving down the road and there is someone parked across your lane waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic. It doesn't give you the right to plough into them just because they may be in your lane.
It is no different to you driving down the road and there is someone parked across your lane waiting for a gap in the oncoming traffic. It doesn't give you the right to plough into them just because they may be in your lane.
Being stationary doesn't make her non fault.
She is emerging, into his path. She has a greater duty of care to make sure it's safe to do so. How long had she been stationary for? if just a couple of seconds, perhaps longer, she is still at fault.
Why did she "have to nose out"? More to the point, if you were not her b/f but a mate of the cyclist, would you even believe she stopped and was just "ridden into".
Which seems the more straightforward and satisfactory version of events? Someone having to nose out, then stopping and being ridden, into? Or someone pulling out because they couldn't see and colliding with an unexpected vehicle due to it being in a barely used cycle lane against flow of traffic.
Besides, who owes who a greater duty of care? The person in the large steel box with bumpers, or the cyclist?
This ones got fault written all over it i'm afraid. Even if it came to one persons word against the other, then in court I cant see a judge finding the car driver not at fault, and more likely to weight the standards of care needed more heavilly against the motorist. Not even a 50/50 in my view, even on a one persons word against the other.
She is emerging, into his path. She has a greater duty of care to make sure it's safe to do so. How long had she been stationary for? if just a couple of seconds, perhaps longer, she is still at fault.
Why did she "have to nose out"? More to the point, if you were not her b/f but a mate of the cyclist, would you even believe she stopped and was just "ridden into".
Which seems the more straightforward and satisfactory version of events? Someone having to nose out, then stopping and being ridden, into? Or someone pulling out because they couldn't see and colliding with an unexpected vehicle due to it being in a barely used cycle lane against flow of traffic.
Besides, who owes who a greater duty of care? The person in the large steel box with bumpers, or the cyclist?
This ones got fault written all over it i'm afraid. Even if it came to one persons word against the other, then in court I cant see a judge finding the car driver not at fault, and more likely to weight the standards of care needed more heavilly against the motorist. Not even a 50/50 in my view, even on a one persons word against the other.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff