Advice Needed, Car vs Bicycle Accident
Discussion
monktoc said:
As far as we are aware the cyclist is fine, just trying to claim damages. But that's another story
I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across that way, but it rather sounds like you don't think the cyclist is entitled to anything...?Although I'm not a cyclist, I'm interested to know this 'other story' of which you speak.
From your own description, your father was 100% at fault and has caused minor injury to another road user, as well as probably causing damage to the bike into the bargain. Rather than be thankful that your dad's lack of observation skills didn't lead to something more serious, it rather sounds like you think the cyclist is trying it on.
I'm sure I've misunderstood, and that your dad is actually concerned for the well-being of the cyclist and the bike he's likely to have damaged.
monktoc said:
As far as we are aware the cyclist is fine, just trying to claim damages. But that's another story
Guys,I really do not think it is insensitivity over the injury the cyclist sustained, when he hit the car (which we know from the posts showed no damage).
Those words above were written back on 25th June and would have been representative of their view of the cyclists physical condition whilst sat in the ambulance (for which we do not have a transcript of the 999 call).
Its been 90days since trhe accident so unless anyone knows this cyclist personally and his medical condition, or the OP gives us an update, then any 'serious injuries' are just heresay.
Im sure I cannot the only one who read it back in June and thought 'Claim company alert'.
I wasn't even in my car when it got damaged on my driveway and three years later I still get calls asking me if im sure ' I was not injured - because I have a valid claim'.
hora said:
I'd rather (honestly) fall down my stairs.
That might be a good idea, as it might help with your eyesight and stop you putting your words in other peoples mouths.On 25th June, the cyclist was not showing signs of any serious injury - based on eye witness accounrs. No further update has since been received.
How you got from what was written to some fantasy about premiership footballers - I have no idea?
Edited by Hol on Tuesday 23 September 13:18
Hol said:
On 25th June, the cyclist was not showing signs of any serious injury - based on eye witness accounrs. No further update has since been received.
Tells you nothing. When I went over the handlebars of my bicycle, I didn't spot I'd broken and dislocated my little finger until someone else pointed it out. The effects of shock are huge. The cyclist could have broken a rib or two and it wouldn't be obvious until they were well on the way to hospital. And personal injuries aside, a claim could also be for damage to the bicycle, which could range from cosmetically damaged shifters needing replacing through to a cracked carbon fibre frame needing repair or replacement - CF cracks wouldn't be especially obvious when everyone is focussed on the cyclist and not the bike.Edited by Hol on Tuesday 23 September 13:18
But as you say, there's no point trying to guess - the range of possibilities is huge.
Hol said:
Guys,
I really do not think it is insensitivity over the injury the cyclist sustained, when he hit the car (which we know from the posts showed no damage).
Those words above were written back on 25th June and would have been representative of their view of the cyclists physical condition whilst sat in the ambulance (for which we do not have a transcript of the 999 call).
Its been 90days since trhe accident so unless anyone knows this cyclist personally and his medical condition, or the OP gives us an update, then any 'serious injuries' are just heresay.
Im sure I cannot the only one who read it back in June and thought 'Claim company alert'.
I wasn't even in my car when it got damaged on my driveway and three years later I still get calls asking me if im sure ' I was not injured - because I have a valid claim'.
On the one hand you're saying that people shouldn't make any assumptions about injuries and on the other you're making assumptions yourself.I really do not think it is insensitivity over the injury the cyclist sustained, when he hit the car (which we know from the posts showed no damage).
Those words above were written back on 25th June and would have been representative of their view of the cyclists physical condition whilst sat in the ambulance (for which we do not have a transcript of the 999 call).
Its been 90days since trhe accident so unless anyone knows this cyclist personally and his medical condition, or the OP gives us an update, then any 'serious injuries' are just heresay.
Im sure I cannot the only one who read it back in June and thought 'Claim company alert'.
I wasn't even in my car when it got damaged on my driveway and three years later I still get calls asking me if im sure ' I was not injured - because I have a valid claim'.
All we have is the original OPs account so as you say not enough evidence to start talking about serious injuries, but also not enough to start throwing the words "Claim company alert" about.
As others have said landing on tarmac bloody hurts and in my experience the injries don't always show up straight away. I went over my handle bars once and did some very obvious damage to my hand and throught i'd just grazed my leg. I rode home without any problems and it was only the next day when my hip had swelled up with a lump the size of half a grapefruit and a massive bruise that covered the entire side of my thigh appeared that I realised how much of a knock i'd given it. I couldn't pysically get on my bike for a week and was in physical discomfort for a couple of months.
So the cyclist may well have been fine or he may not. The OPs limited account of the actual event is not enough information for anyone to draw any kind of conclusion.
Devil2575 said:
Hol said:
Guys,
I really do not think it is insensitivity over the injury the cyclist sustained, when he hit the car (which we know from the posts showed no damage).
Those words above were written back on 25th June and would have been representative of their view of the cyclists physical condition whilst sat in the ambulance (for which we do not have a transcript of the 999 call).
Its been 90days since trhe accident so unless anyone knows this cyclist personally and his medical condition, or the OP gives us an update, then any 'serious injuries' are just heresay.
Im sure I cannot the only one who read it back in June and thought 'Claim company alert'.
I wasn't even in my car when it got damaged on my driveway and three years later I still get calls asking me if im sure ' I was not injured - because I have a valid claim'.
On the one hand you're saying that people shouldn't make any assumptions about injuries and on the other you're making assumptions yourself.I really do not think it is insensitivity over the injury the cyclist sustained, when he hit the car (which we know from the posts showed no damage).
Those words above were written back on 25th June and would have been representative of their view of the cyclists physical condition whilst sat in the ambulance (for which we do not have a transcript of the 999 call).
Its been 90days since trhe accident so unless anyone knows this cyclist personally and his medical condition, or the OP gives us an update, then any 'serious injuries' are just heresay.
Im sure I cannot the only one who read it back in June and thought 'Claim company alert'.
I wasn't even in my car when it got damaged on my driveway and three years later I still get calls asking me if im sure ' I was not injured - because I have a valid claim'.
I just pointed out that the op wrote what he did within days of the accident over 90 days ago. Based on his observation of the the rider on the day.
MY ONLY opinion was based on the fact that I had a non fault accident where I wasnt in the car and following that accident I was pestered by claims companies to make a claim from hour zero to nearly three years following.
OTHER PEOPLE are making assumptions that the cyclist was injured significantly over 90 days after the accident, and with no updates from either the cyclist or the OP.
ITS NOT MY FAULT, that the OP said he did not think the rider was injured much. They WERE NOT MY WORDS.
The IDIOTIC words about my claiming that the cyclist was some formof footballer? WERE ALSO SOMEBODY ELSES WORDS.
Seen with interest the posts from the last couple of days, and thought (as requested by some) an update might be of use.
My father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
My father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
monktoc said:
Seen with interest the posts from the last couple of days, and thought (as requested by some) an update might be of use.
My father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
Bu-hulllllllll-sMy father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
t. In 3 months? I doubt his injuries would've fully presented for a full claim to go in, let alone it to be decidedly fraudulent, a full case prepared and a court date set.
Still, as it's now a matter of record point us to the court and the transcripts please.
[quote]
Bu-hulllllllll-st.
In 3 months? I doubt his injuries would've fully presented for a full claim to go in, let alone it to be decidedly fraudulent, a full case prepared and a court date set.
Still, as it's now a matter of record point us to the court and the transcripts please.
[/quote]
As the original post stated, it was 3 months since the accident when posted. making it now 6 months. As for the case details, you'd have to speak to my fathers company as I am now out of the main loop with this. I do know that being a company car and insurance policy they always fully investigate any claims against them as would most if not all of us.
All views are of course your own
Bu-hulllllllll-s
t. In 3 months? I doubt his injuries would've fully presented for a full claim to go in, let alone it to be decidedly fraudulent, a full case prepared and a court date set.
Still, as it's now a matter of record point us to the court and the transcripts please.
[/quote]
As the original post stated, it was 3 months since the accident when posted. making it now 6 months. As for the case details, you'd have to speak to my fathers company as I am now out of the main loop with this. I do know that being a company car and insurance policy they always fully investigate any claims against them as would most if not all of us.
All views are of course your own
Edited by monktoc on Tuesday 23 September 22:53
monktoc said:
LoonR1 said:
Bu-hulllllllll-st.
In 3 months? I doubt his injuries would've fully presented for a full claim to go in, let alone it to be decidedly fraudulent, a full case prepared and a court date set.
Still, as it's now a matter of record point us to the court and the transcripts please.
As the original post stated, it was 3 months since the accident when posted. making it now 6 months. As for the case details, you'd have to speak to my fathers company as I am now out of the main loop with this. I do know that being a company car and insurance policy they always fully investigate any claims against them as would most if not all of us.t. In 3 months? I doubt his injuries would've fully presented for a full claim to go in, let alone it to be decidedly fraudulent, a full case prepared and a court date set.
Still, as it's now a matter of record point us to the court and the transcripts please.
All views are of course your own
Edited by monktoc on Tuesday 23 September 22:53
Please can you post details of the court case as I'm staggered by the efficiency of the whole thing.
Who found the cyclist at fault and what was the reasoning?
We need to let the Daily Mail know, they'd love this story.
OP you need to be a little clearer (at best you are vague, at worst you are full of st)
your dad was 'cleared' by who?
did you give evidence? was it the truth? was it how you presented it in this thread? did you include your view your dad was at fault? did you declare your first aider and Motorsport marshalling experience?
which court exactly dealt with the cyclist? and what's happening with that?
t)your dad was 'cleared' by who?
did you give evidence? was it the truth? was it how you presented it in this thread? did you include your view your dad was at fault? did you declare your first aider and Motorsport marshalling experience?
which court exactly dealt with the cyclist? and what's happening with that?
monktoc said:
Seen with interest the posts from the last couple of days, and thought (as requested by some) an update might be of use.
My father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
All that in 6 months? Your fathers insurance company, and the cyclists accident management company, and the various medical specialists he'll no doubt have seen along the way must work a lot faster than those involved in a similar situation I had about a year ago. That one took about a year to be resolved, mind the police were quick off the mark to offer a Driver Alertness course to me, which by your postings your father almost certainly earned the pleasure of being invited to.My father was cleared of fault.
The other story I can now comment on. The cyclist has been taken to court for claiming for serious neck and back injuries, whilst still going about his day job as a postman.
My views of his injury on the day were yes as a witness and also persons involved. But also as a fully trained First Aider and motorsport Marshall. I do agree though that there might have been some shock at the time but who knows now what there body and emotions were doing that long ago?
Still, great result for your father that it swung completely in his favour.
Methinks the OP has done a serious U-turn here.
Given the facts as presented, plus his own offered opinion that his dad was at fault (and the fact that he went on record to state this) and given that the cyclist (by the OP's own account) hit his dad's car because the car pulled out on front of him, I simply don't buy the fact that his dad was suddenly cleared of all fault, and that the cyclist is now in the naughty corner.
Also, it's nice that the OP is a first aider and a motorsport marshall, but "amateur bandaging 101" != "medical opinion". If it was, we could all be assessed by someone who has spent a day falling asleep on a first aid course, rather than 5 years at University.
I would hazard a guess that nothing of the sort has happened. I can't see how, even if the cyclist was testing a cloaking device, that the OP's dad wouldn't at least share the blame for this accident, and would find it hard to shift anyone's opinion from him being 100% in the wrong for poor observation. So to suggest that suddenly the cyclist is 100% to blame is taking the p*ss, to be honest.
Given the facts as presented, plus his own offered opinion that his dad was at fault (and the fact that he went on record to state this) and given that the cyclist (by the OP's own account) hit his dad's car because the car pulled out on front of him, I simply don't buy the fact that his dad was suddenly cleared of all fault, and that the cyclist is now in the naughty corner.
Also, it's nice that the OP is a first aider and a motorsport marshall, but "amateur bandaging 101" != "medical opinion". If it was, we could all be assessed by someone who has spent a day falling asleep on a first aid course, rather than 5 years at University.
I would hazard a guess that nothing of the sort has happened. I can't see how, even if the cyclist was testing a cloaking device, that the OP's dad wouldn't at least share the blame for this accident, and would find it hard to shift anyone's opinion from him being 100% in the wrong for poor observation. So to suggest that suddenly the cyclist is 100% to blame is taking the p*ss, to be honest.
I think the forum is being a bit aggressive to the OP who appears to have come here in good faith to ask for advice, having openly admitted that he considers his Dad to have been at fault.
He's told us that his father has been "cleared" - I interpret this to mean that having investigated, the police have advised him they intend to take no further action.
He's also told us that the claim for damages has collapsed and a criminal prosecution is ongoing against the cyclist for fraudulently claiming exagerated damages.
He hasn't told us that the cyclist took advantage of his Dad's admitted driving error to deliberately caused the accident as part of a premeditated insurance fraud - but from what I've read that's the opinion that I've formed of waht happened.
I cycle 20 miles a day through Central London. I have nothing but contempt for people who endanger cyclists and then try to evade responsibility after causing a collision, but I don't think that's what happened here. I could very easily have a collision every day if I wanted as the consequence of other people's bad driving that an insurance company would absolve me of any blame for and result in a credible personal accident claim.
As a personal annecdote, I was in my Local Bike Shop recently discussing yet another unecessary purchase - a guy came in with his arm in a sling and covered in recent bruises and cuts wheeling a bike with snapped forks, asking for a damage report on the bike for an insurance claim following a collision with a car the previous day. I natuarally expressed my sympathy for the guy and outrage at what he subsequently described had happened, which made him out to be a completely innocent party. The bike shop people told me later that this was the fourth time this guy had done exactly the same thing that year (and it was only May)....
He's told us that his father has been "cleared" - I interpret this to mean that having investigated, the police have advised him they intend to take no further action.
He's also told us that the claim for damages has collapsed and a criminal prosecution is ongoing against the cyclist for fraudulently claiming exagerated damages.
He hasn't told us that the cyclist took advantage of his Dad's admitted driving error to deliberately caused the accident as part of a premeditated insurance fraud - but from what I've read that's the opinion that I've formed of waht happened.
I cycle 20 miles a day through Central London. I have nothing but contempt for people who endanger cyclists and then try to evade responsibility after causing a collision, but I don't think that's what happened here. I could very easily have a collision every day if I wanted as the consequence of other people's bad driving that an insurance company would absolve me of any blame for and result in a credible personal accident claim.
As a personal annecdote, I was in my Local Bike Shop recently discussing yet another unecessary purchase - a guy came in with his arm in a sling and covered in recent bruises and cuts wheeling a bike with snapped forks, asking for a damage report on the bike for an insurance claim following a collision with a car the previous day. I natuarally expressed my sympathy for the guy and outrage at what he subsequently described had happened, which made him out to be a completely innocent party. The bike shop people told me later that this was the fourth time this guy had done exactly the same thing that year (and it was only May)....
Edited by Seight_Returns on Wednesday 24th September 12:20
Seight_Returns said:
As a personal annecdote, I was in my Local Bike Shop recently discussing yet another unecessary purchase - a guy came in with his arm in a sling and covered in recent bruises and cuts wheeling a bike with snapped forks, asking for a damage report on the bike for an insurance claim following a collision with a car the previous day. I natuarally expressed my sympathy for the guy and outrage at what he subsequently described had happened, which made him out to be a completely innocent party. The bike shop people told me later that this was the fourth time this guy had done exactly the same thing that year (and it was only May)....
I'm a bit surprised that somebody on a push bike would get into a collision serious enough to snap a set of forks in an attempt to commit fraud.I've know three people who broke a set of forks, two of which broke their necks.
Takes all sorts I suppose.
There is a certain ambiguity about the OP's use of the word 'cleared'. By that, it could mean that the police aren't pressing any careless driving charges (or similar) but I still can't see how, given the facts as stated, the driver could be cleared of any wrong-doing, or not found to be at least 50% liable for the crash.
Whatever the cyclist is/isn't doing in terms of claiming through insurance, that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fault / liability for the accident itself. Unless, of course, it can somehow be proven that the cyclist deliberately engineered the accident in order to commit fraud.
I have to say, that sounds highly unlikely indeed.
Whatever the cyclist is/isn't doing in terms of claiming through insurance, that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fault / liability for the accident itself. Unless, of course, it can somehow be proven that the cyclist deliberately engineered the accident in order to commit fraud.
I have to say, that sounds highly unlikely indeed.
budgie smuggler said:
I'm a bit surprised that somebody on a push bike would get into a collision serious enough to snap a set of forks in an attempt to commit fraud.
I've know three people who broke a set of forks, two of which broke their necks.
Takes all sorts I suppose.
Perhaps the guy was Superman, and the wounds were just painted on?I've know three people who broke a set of forks, two of which broke their necks.
Takes all sorts I suppose.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff