Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 3 4
6
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Zeeky

2,505 posts

96 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
Vaux said:
Based purely on the words in s170, I'm still not seeing this oft quoted requirement to have to report injury RTCs if you've complied with the exchange of information.
You can only comply with the requirements at the scene if any person who has reasonable grounds to the information. ...has required him to produce it.

The legislation, as it is written, appears to state that the person requiring it must demand or request it.

I would not advise anyone involved in an accident to hand their certificate to someone injured in the accident and hope that this suffices for discharging their duty to produce. What would you expect an injured cyclist to do with the document?






Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 10th March 03:56

streaky

19,311 posts

133 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
Geoff38 said:
streaky said:
Which is a debatable point ... Especially without witnesses.

Streaky
back from work and ready to rant again..

why is it debatable ? the OP said the car was stationary , fact. no witness means no one can say either way except the person involved. unless the actual cyclist joins in and disputes the incident then why can't the OP be believed to be telling the truth , he has nothing to gain by trying to blame the cyclist. ( and he isn't )
The OP wasn't there!

Streaky

STHi

18,825 posts

61 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.
I do know better. Hre's what will happen in court:

Op's GF: "I was inching out, saw the cyclist riding like a mad man and stopped. He then rode into me"

Cyclist: "I was cycling down the road at a safe speed and this car just pulled out in fron of me, I swerved to avoid it, but it kept coming and knocked me off my bike"

Court: "What do the witnesses say?"

Cyclist & Op's GF: "There are no witnesses"

Court: "You're both very credible witnesses with different recollections. However, as the car was emerging from a side road onto a main road, you owe a duty of care to others already on that main road. As such I find 100% in favour of Mr Cyclist."

I have staff who deal with 1,000s of cases like this every year, so I know what would happen if it ran to Court. All that ill do is increase the cost of the claim with no gain in outcoem for the OP's GF, she'll still be at fault, she'll still lose 2 years NCD (assuming it's her first accident ths policy year) and her premiums will still rise.

badyaker said:
FFS

Insurance will probably take the chance to up your premium
Only if there's a claim, which would be the right thing to do, as there's been a claim on the policy.

badyaker said:
Police will either tell your insurance (see above) and do nothing, or look for a prosecution where there is none. Forget it.
The Police don't inform your insurer. They have no reason to. Other insurers, ambulance chasers, or even you can do that by finding the insurance details out on via the MID database (askmid.com)

Johnnytheboy

10,170 posts

70 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
bicycleshorts said:
zygalski said:
Welshbeef said:
Imagine if you had risen into a child....
Err. I'll pass on that one.
rofl
I notice a poster called Garyglitter has contributed to this thread: perhaps we should ask him his opinion on this?

laugh

HardToLove

520 posts

84 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.
Advertisement

Citizen09

692 posts

55 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
Geoff38 said:
Hi OP ,
It makes me so annoyed to see loads of cyclists with dark clothing , no lights or at best a one led 50p jobby from t_sco's and they expect You to see them in a sea of car lights ????
^ one of the arguments against mandatory DRLs in this country.

Pothole

20,235 posts

166 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
mat777 said:
I am speaking as someone who when driving gets very angry
Lost you right there, mate.

Vaux

1,515 posts

100 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.

otolith

25,287 posts

88 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.
I do know better. Hre's what will happen in court:
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.

LoonR1

18,825 posts

61 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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

25,287 posts

88 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.

LoonR1

18,825 posts

61 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.

otolith

25,287 posts

88 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
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.

trashbat

3,762 posts

37 months

[news] 
Saturday 10th March 2012 quote quote all
I haven't any advice per se, but if your girlfriend hit a cyclist, I know it's really serious. Do you really think he'll pull through?

hora

18,381 posts

95 months

[news] 
Sunday 11th March 2012 quote quote all
C.A.R. said:
Bugger!

If you're going to the trouble of hitting a cyclist you want to do more than just give him a grazed knee.
Are you suggesting violence to a vunerable road user? Just remember, when the cyclist is no longer on his bike he's no longer vunerable. Be it injured or plain angry.

I ALWAYS give cyclists plenty of room and watch them carefully. Partly because of the way I was brought up. Partly because I'd react the same if I felt my life or health was threatened.

saaby93

12,842 posts

62 months

[news] 
Sunday 11th March 2012 quote quote all
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 scratchchin
Youve reverted to a reversed form of your old name smile

DoubleSix

Original Poster:

4,988 posts

60 months

[news] 
Monday 12th March 2012 quote quote all
I am abroad at the moment but will be updating as to the outcome from the Police on return. Thanks for all the views so far, very interesting.

LoonR1

18,825 posts

61 months

[news] 
Monday 12th March 2012 quote quote all
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 scratchchin
Youve reverted to a reversed form of your old name smile
OK how's this.

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?"
And the list goes on and on



otolith

25,287 posts

88 months

[news] 
Monday 12th March 2012 quote quote all
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.

LoonR1

18,825 posts

61 months

[news] 
Monday 12th March 2012 quote quote all
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 example

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
1 2 3 4
6
Reply to Topic