GF hit a cyclist, advice pls!
Discussion
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.
If he was "flying" down this hill at he speed you said earlier in the thread, how is it that after he clipped the front of her car that he only had a "Wee Tumble" ?? I would have thought any departure from a bike when "Flying" down a steep hill would make the rider "Fly" across the road, sounds lucky he wasn't seriously injured?By the way ,hope you GF is Ok .as this must have shaken her as up quite a lot, as she obviously never intended this collision.
Fastdruid said:
Do you carry your insurance documents round with you?
I carry a copy/print out, so I doubt that complies with the letter of the law (although with more Insurance companies expecting you to print your own certificate, I wonder how that sits with the law?), so I'd report.But that's a bit irrelevant - all I'm trying to highlight is the idea that you don't have to report an injury RTC if you comply with the requirements in s170.
STHi said:
otolith said:
STHi said:
I love the fact that evryone is hanging off the "stationary" aspect. It can't be proven that she was stationary. Also, if I dart out of a side road, then stop just in front of you, then it's still your fault? Somehow I doubt it.
This is all semantics, Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, I know how this claim would settle and I know how a court would find in the absence of independent witness(es).
The fact is that neither of us were there, but you seem to think you know better what happened than the person who was there - based entirely upon prejudice, as far as I can see.This is all semantics, Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, I know how this claim would settle and I know how a court would find in the absence of independent witness(es).
otolith said:
Yes, I imagine you are quite right about the likely outcome in court - and if the account we have been given is true (and personally I have no grounds to call the OP or his partner a liar), that would be a miscarriage of justice.
The reality is that in the large majority of claims neither side believes they are at fault and wants to blame the other side. Personal accounts are always biased in their own favour and the truth often lies somewhere in between, hence the need for independent witnesses.Without independent witnesses, then the court has to rely on the basics of the situation, by way of example.
A crash on a roundabout.
I pull out onto a roundabout in front of you and you T-bone me. My fault.
I am on the roundabout, you come round it and run into the back of me. Your fault.
We are side by side and collide. Both of us blames the other. No witnesses means 50/50.
Same as above but a witness(es) come forward all with the same recollection of events that I hit you. My fault
Same as above, but the witness evidence is one in my favour and one in yours. 50/50.
The facts and outcome are clear when you're not personally involved.
otolith said:
I know, I've been there. Without impartial witnesses it's very difficult to determine who was at fault. That doesn't alter the fact of who actually was at fault though.
True, but that doesn't aalter the fact that nobody believes they are at fault for an accident. So it goes both ways. In your case you lost, but the other side will claim justice was done.LoonR1 said:
True, but that doesn't aalter the fact that nobody believes they are at fault for an accident. So it goes both ways. In your case you lost, but the other side will claim justice was done.
In my case it went 50:50 - if he thought he was in the right, I expect he was as pissed off as I was. Still, it was years ago, and I learnt not to put myself in the way of other people's mistakes.
saaby93 said:
LoonR1 said:
True, but that doesn't alter the fact that nobody believes they are at fault for an accident.
Are you sure that's a fact? Or is it the difference between accident and collision 
Youve reverted to a reversed form of your old name
Very few people believe that if they have a coming together with another vehicle, or other from of property that they are in any way to blame.
It's probably got a lot to do with the view that there's always someone else to blame in life and nobody has to accept the consequences of their actions.
By way of example (for "I" read "A friend of a friend")
- "I crashed on ice, Can I sue the Council?"
- "I drove on the pavement and ran some people down, but the tarmac was the ame colour. Who should I sue."
- "I crashed into a car parked on double yellow lines. How do I claim off their insurance?"
- "I crashed into a tree. How do I sue the landowner / council / God?"
Most people, most of the time, believe that their choices are reasonable and sensible - otherwise they wouldn't make them!
In most cases where a cyclist on a main road hits a car emerging from a side road, I should think the driver pulled out on the bike and was at fault, and I also agree that in many cases the driver will claim otherwise - but I think it's pretty rude in the absence of evidence to treat someone who says that they were not at fault as a fool or a liar.
In most cases where a cyclist on a main road hits a car emerging from a side road, I should think the driver pulled out on the bike and was at fault, and I also agree that in many cases the driver will claim otherwise - but I think it's pretty rude in the absence of evidence to treat someone who says that they were not at fault as a fool or a liar.
otolith said:
Most people, most of the time, believe that their choices are reasonable and sensible - otherwise they wouldn't make them!
In most cases where a cyclist on a main road hits a car emerging from a side road, I should think the driver pulled out on the bike and was at fault, and I also agree that in many cases the driver will claim otherwise - but I think it's pretty rude in the absence of evidence to treat someone who says that they were not at fault as a fool or a liar.
I'm not suggesting either. Many people believe they are completely innocent of blame, even when faced with some damning evidence. See this thread for exampleIn most cases where a cyclist on a main road hits a car emerging from a side road, I should think the driver pulled out on the bike and was at fault, and I also agree that in many cases the driver will claim otherwise - but I think it's pretty rude in the absence of evidence to treat someone who says that they were not at fault as a fool or a liar.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Ok, so for the sake of completion:
GF went to Police. Police shrugged and said not to worry about anything and sent her on her way. No forms, no reference number, nothing.
This reinforces my negative view of the BIB sadly. A view which has been constructed from many such instances of laziness or bulls
t when seeking their assistance.
GF went to Police. Police shrugged and said not to worry about anything and sent her on her way. No forms, no reference number, nothing.
This reinforces my negative view of the BIB sadly. A view which has been constructed from many such instances of laziness or bulls
t when seeking their assistance. 
DoubleSix said:
Ok, so for the sake of completion:
GF went to Police. Police shrugged and said not to worry about anything and sent her on her way. No forms, no reference number, nothing.
This reinforces my negative view of the BIB sadly. A view which has been constructed from many such instances of laziness or bullst when seeking their assistance.
Well, she shouldn't have worried about anything.GF went to Police. Police shrugged and said not to worry about anything and sent her on her way. No forms, no reference number, nothing.
This reinforces my negative view of the BIB sadly. A view which has been constructed from many such instances of laziness or bulls
t when seeking their assistance. A slightly enthusiastic bike guy will be a bit more careful - common sense prevails.
This promotes a positive view of BIB to me - nothing to see, no paperwork made!
Bizarre - should they charge your mrs for non-existent lycra-rape because the 'victim's' graze has healed and it's so minor it's not worth popping to the station? Maybe charge her and release with a 10p fine for the plaster?
I can only imagine the sighs when they were presented with a 'confession' to such a terrible 'crime'.
Thankyou for posting the update. But did you want your mrs to 'go down' so to speak?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff