Cyclist hit by a car. What next?
Discussion
Pit Pony said:
Yeah, I'm a such a t
t, that's why I drove to London, with my bike on the back of the car, so he'd be able to get to work whilst he waited for the money so he could fix his bike, and why I'm without a bike. That's why I gave him my best gloves, and put iodine on his cuts for him and took him out for a decent meal as he looked decidedly peaky. and that's why I'm out of pocket and the driver has got off lightly. Yeah a proper tt.
None of which matters because you essentially said waste the emergency services time instead of getting a taxi/friend to A&E to get his head checked.t, that's why I drove to London, with my bike on the back of the car, so he'd be able to get to work whilst he waited for the money so he could fix his bike, and why I'm without a bike. That's why I gave him my best gloves, and put iodine on his cuts for him and took him out for a decent meal as he looked decidedly peaky. and that's why I'm out of pocket and the driver has got off lightly. Yeah a proper tt. If the 'hit' party passes away 24 hours after a road accident (which might happen from head injuries, as suggested upthread), the matter would be passed for the coroner's attention 
.
Arguably in almost all cases there would be no need for a full house of emergency services at the time and place as described, then?
. Arguably in almost all cases there would be no need for a full house of emergency services at the time and place as described, then?
Pit Pony said:
Yeah, I'm a such a tt, that's why I drove to London, with my bike on the back of the car, so he'd be able to get to work whilst he waited for the money so he could fix his bike, and why I'm without a bike. That's why I gave him my best gloves, and put iodine on his cuts for him and took him out for a decent meal as he looked decidedly peaky. and that's why I'm out of pocket and the driver has got off lightly. Yeah a proper tt.
He's your son, and he needed your help - do you expect a medal for that? A parade? It doesn't make your suggestion to fraudulently inflate his claim a reasonable one, and that suggestion is what makes you a tt, that's why I drove to London, with my bike on the back of the car, so he'd be able to get to work whilst he waited for the money so he could fix his bike, and why I'm without a bike. That's why I gave him my best gloves, and put iodine on his cuts for him and took him out for a decent meal as he looked decidedly peaky. and that's why I'm out of pocket and the driver has got off lightly. Yeah a proper tt. t.iandc said:
Pit Pony said:
This is what I keep telling my son. It's no use being RIGHT and DEAD.
He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
Yes you are! The OP is being honest and just asking for advice. You are suggesting he invents injuries. How about whiplash claim then. Get more money that way as difficult to prove!!He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
I'd suggest you've never been in severe pain by coming off a bike at speed! Let me tell you, it f
kin hurts!If you were walking across a petrol station forecourt and some old biddy ran you over, would you be so amicable then? 'Oh, don't worry about it love, it'll heal'...
Shock can mask fatal injuries, there is nothing wrong with being over cautious and being checked out!
If that's his primary transport, I also don't see a problem with claiming for taxi fares whilst bike and body are fixed...
Jim1556 said:
How is cuts, bruises, blood, pain & potential head/internal injuries faking it?
I'd suggest you've never been in severe pain by coming off a bike at speed! Let me tell you, it fkin hurts!
If you were walking across a petrol station forecourt and some old biddy ran you over, would you be so amicable then? 'Oh, don't worry about it love, it'll heal'...
Shock can mask fatal injuries, there is nothing wrong with being over cautious and being checked out!
If that's his primary transport, I also don't see a problem with claiming for taxi fares whilst bike and body are fixed...
What has this got to do with the OP. He seems quite happy to get his bike fixed amicably. Perhaps he could claim off the "old biddy" as she reverses over his bike having just run over me. Really!!!I'd suggest you've never been in severe pain by coming off a bike at speed! Let me tell you, it f
kin hurts!If you were walking across a petrol station forecourt and some old biddy ran you over, would you be so amicable then? 'Oh, don't worry about it love, it'll heal'...
Shock can mask fatal injuries, there is nothing wrong with being over cautious and being checked out!
If that's his primary transport, I also don't see a problem with claiming for taxi fares whilst bike and body are fixed...
Thanks for the advice chaps.
I spoke to the chap earlier and he is happy to resolve this the way I proposed, so I have booked the bike in for an insurance style assessment at my local bike shop. Once the outcome is known we'll meet up to shake hands and sort the costs.
Sounds like the Cayman lost the battle with my foot/rear quick release and has gained a few battle scars too. Which is a shame as I never like to see nice cars damaged.
At the end of the day whilst it was his fault, accidents do happen. I'm just thankful that i didn't end up over the bonnet or worse, hitting oncoming traffic.
I spoke to the chap earlier and he is happy to resolve this the way I proposed, so I have booked the bike in for an insurance style assessment at my local bike shop. Once the outcome is known we'll meet up to shake hands and sort the costs.
Sounds like the Cayman lost the battle with my foot/rear quick release and has gained a few battle scars too. Which is a shame as I never like to see nice cars damaged.
At the end of the day whilst it was his fault, accidents do happen. I'm just thankful that i didn't end up over the bonnet or worse, hitting oncoming traffic.
TVR1 said:
I'd simply give him the choice. His call. It's going to cost you nothing if he starts fumbling about paying for the damage.
Playing Devils advocate for a moment......
You say he pulled out of a blind junction? Therefore, no matter that you had lights on, he would have no chance of seeing you.
However, he was driving carefully and slowly- otherwise you would have sustained injury.
You on the otherhand, knew the blind junction was there and must have seen his lights, so why didnt you anticipate that he may pull out?
Lastly, what was the nature of the damage? If he hit you broadside, you where very lucky not to sustain injury. Only the bike was damaged, therefore did you run into the side of him when he pulled out?
Sounds to me that no one really at fault but cycling at night in the winter, no matter how well lit up, is fraught with danger. you really can't be seen sometimes. A bit of defensive cycling perhaps? Assume the driver hasn't seen you.
Hope the bike is fixed though.
So if someone drives into your pride and joy from a side street, you will happily say "oh, my bad, I should have known he would do that" and go on your way?Playing Devils advocate for a moment......
You say he pulled out of a blind junction? Therefore, no matter that you had lights on, he would have no chance of seeing you.
However, he was driving carefully and slowly- otherwise you would have sustained injury.
You on the otherhand, knew the blind junction was there and must have seen his lights, so why didnt you anticipate that he may pull out?
Lastly, what was the nature of the damage? If he hit you broadside, you where very lucky not to sustain injury. Only the bike was damaged, therefore did you run into the side of him when he pulled out?
Sounds to me that no one really at fault but cycling at night in the winter, no matter how well lit up, is fraught with danger. you really can't be seen sometimes. A bit of defensive cycling perhaps? Assume the driver hasn't seen you.
Hope the bike is fixed though.
Jim1556 said:
iandc said:
Pit Pony said:
This is what I keep telling my son. It's no use being RIGHT and DEAD.
He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
Yes you are! The OP is being honest and just asking for advice. You are suggesting he invents injuries. How about whiplash claim then. Get more money that way as difficult to prove!!He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
I'd suggest you've never been in severe pain by coming off a bike at speed! Let me tell you, it f
kin hurts!If you were walking across a petrol station forecourt and some old biddy ran you over, would you be so amicable then? 'Oh, don't worry about it love, it'll heal'...
Shock can mask fatal injuries, there is nothing wrong with being over cautious and being checked out!
If that's his primary transport, I also don't see a problem with claiming for taxi fares whilst bike and body are fixed...
Dammit said:
BertBert said:
Why do you think that?
Bert
About the reference number? Not sure what you are asking to be honest.Bert
In terms of logging the crash that needs to happen, otherwise the collision data used to make pretty fundamental policy decisions is inaccurate.
Also, the chap would seem to be being cooperative now, but if the frame is bent and the bill suddenly gets into the thousands he may change his tune.
So - best practice, really.
If he's happy to make everything good then great, of course - and it won't hurt the chap in the car if you log the collision with 101.
I don't think there's any "need" at all to get a police reference - I think you'll find they they don't think so either. There's a specific set of criteria to make an accident reportable.
Dammit said:
About the reference number? Not sure what you are asking to be honest.
In terms of logging the crash that needs to happen, otherwise the collision data used to make pretty fundamental policy decisions is inaccurate.
Also, the chap would seem to be being cooperative now, but if the frame is bent and the bill suddenly gets into the thousands he may change his tune.
So - best practice, really.
If he's happy to make everything good then great, of course - and it won't hurt the chap in the car if you log the collision with 101.
In terms of logging the crash that needs to happen, otherwise the collision data used to make pretty fundamental policy decisions is inaccurate.
Also, the chap would seem to be being cooperative now, but if the frame is bent and the bill suddenly gets into the thousands he may change his tune.
So - best practice, really.
If he's happy to make everything good then great, of course - and it won't hurt the chap in the car if you log the collision with 101.
BobSaunders said:
Getting the police involved is just going to draw everything out, and the guy made a honest mistake - he wouldn't have given you his card.
Very naive.I was driven into the back of by someone who gave me his card.
But of course it wasn't his card. It was someone else's, and he'd given it to me to distract me from taking down the number place while his mate moved his truck.
BertBert said:
And you are entitled to think that, of course.However, if this all goes sour and the OP had to take the driver to court to recover his costs etc then having reported the collision promptly is going to help.
Even if (as it sounds) things go well in terms of the driver making things good, this needs to be reported in order for the statistics to be representative.
In the vast majority of cases shunts like this don't get reported - so we don't have (can't have) a true picture.
Which means that advocates of strict liability, for instance, don't have the figures from the ONS which they have anecdotally, and the UK stays in the select little group of it, Cyprus and Malta who don't have it for vulnerable road users.
The other side to this is that if the OP had not ridden defensively and anticipated the collision, taking evasive action etc, then he might now be a C4 Paraplegic.
This is what leads to the fundamental inequality we have on the roads - a minor shunt that needs a new wing if it is car-car is often life changing (or ending) if it's car-bike or car-ped.
Thus it is important to get these figures into the record so that there is a chance that public policy will catch up to the rest of Europe at some point when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable road users in the UK.
AW111 said:
TVR1 said:
I'd simply give him the choice. His call. It's going to cost you nothing if he starts fumbling about paying for the damage.
Playing Devils advocate for a moment......
You say he pulled out of a blind junction? Therefore, no matter that you had lights on, he would have no chance of seeing you.
However, he was driving carefully and slowly- otherwise you would have sustained injury.
You on the otherhand, knew the blind junction was there and must have seen his lights, so why didnt you anticipate that he may pull out?
Lastly, what was the nature of the damage? If he hit you broadside, you where very lucky not to sustain injury. Only the bike was damaged, therefore did you run into the side of him when he pulled out?
Sounds to me that no one really at fault but cycling at night in the winter, no matter how well lit up, is fraught with danger. you really can't be seen sometimes. A bit of defensive cycling perhaps? Assume the driver hasn't seen you.
Hope the bike is fixed though.
So if someone drives into your pride and joy from a side street, you will happily say "oh, my bad, I should have known he would do that" and go on your way?Playing Devils advocate for a moment......
You say he pulled out of a blind junction? Therefore, no matter that you had lights on, he would have no chance of seeing you.
However, he was driving carefully and slowly- otherwise you would have sustained injury.
You on the otherhand, knew the blind junction was there and must have seen his lights, so why didnt you anticipate that he may pull out?
Lastly, what was the nature of the damage? If he hit you broadside, you where very lucky not to sustain injury. Only the bike was damaged, therefore did you run into the side of him when he pulled out?
Sounds to me that no one really at fault but cycling at night in the winter, no matter how well lit up, is fraught with danger. you really can't be seen sometimes. A bit of defensive cycling perhaps? Assume the driver hasn't seen you.
Hope the bike is fixed though.
I like the way that TVR1 feels that the driver must have been driving slowly and carefully because the cyclist wasn't injured!
TVR1: So if it was a car on the main road that T-boned the car pulling out of the side road, and the driver of the car on the main road was not injured in the accident but their vehicle was badly damaged, then you would not consider the driver who pulled out to be a fault as there was no injury?
Dammit said:
And you are entitled to think that, of course.
However, if this all goes sour and the OP had to take the driver to court to recover his costs etc then having reported the collision promptly is going to help.
Even if (as it sounds) things go well in terms of the driver making things good, this needs to be reported in order for the statistics to be representative.
In the vast majority of cases shunts like this don't get reported - so we don't have (can't have) a true picture.
Which means that advocates of strict liability, for instance, don't have the figures from the ONS which they have anecdotally, and the UK stays in the select little group of it, Cyprus and Malta who don't have it for vulnerable road users.
The other side to this is that if the OP had not ridden defensively and anticipated the collision, taking evasive action etc, then he might now be a C4 Paraplegic.
This is what leads to the fundamental inequality we have on the roads - a minor shunt that needs a new wing if it is car-car is often life changing (or ending) if it's car-bike or car-ped.
Thus it is important to get these figures into the record so that there is a chance that public policy will catch up to the rest of Europe at some point when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable road users in the UK.
But my point is that you originally said "need" as if it were an obligation of the process to claim money from the driver or his insurance.However, if this all goes sour and the OP had to take the driver to court to recover his costs etc then having reported the collision promptly is going to help.
Even if (as it sounds) things go well in terms of the driver making things good, this needs to be reported in order for the statistics to be representative.
In the vast majority of cases shunts like this don't get reported - so we don't have (can't have) a true picture.
Which means that advocates of strict liability, for instance, don't have the figures from the ONS which they have anecdotally, and the UK stays in the select little group of it, Cyprus and Malta who don't have it for vulnerable road users.
The other side to this is that if the OP had not ridden defensively and anticipated the collision, taking evasive action etc, then he might now be a C4 Paraplegic.
This is what leads to the fundamental inequality we have on the roads - a minor shunt that needs a new wing if it is car-car is often life changing (or ending) if it's car-bike or car-ped.
Thus it is important to get these figures into the record so that there is a chance that public policy will catch up to the rest of Europe at some point when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable road users in the UK.
You have actually cited two reasons why it might be a good idea. One to benefit the OP and one to benefit society as a whole. I have my opinions on those reasons but they are not relevant. What is relevant is whether the OP agrees with those reasons. Pedantic but it's PH and the OP doesn't #need# to report it.
Bert
I think TVR1 would think this accident was the car drivers fault...
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B4vUPMPIgAAcKGj....
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B4vUPMPIgAAcKGj....
londonbabe said:
BobSaunders said:
Getting the police involved is just going to draw everything out, and the guy made a honest mistake - he wouldn't have given you his card.
Very naive.I was driven into the back of by someone who gave me his card.
But of course it wasn't his card. It was someone else's, and he'd given it to me to distract me from taking down the number place while his mate moved his truck.
I hope you manage to resolve your incident.
Pit Pony said:
Jim1556 said:
iandc said:
Pit Pony said:
This is what I keep telling my son. It's no use being RIGHT and DEAD.
He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
Yes you are! The OP is being honest and just asking for advice. You are suggesting he invents injuries. How about whiplash claim then. Get more money that way as difficult to prove!!He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
I'd suggest you've never been in severe pain by coming off a bike at speed! Let me tell you, it f
kin hurts!If you were walking across a petrol station forecourt and some old biddy ran you over, would you be so amicable then? 'Oh, don't worry about it love, it'll heal'...
Shock can mask fatal injuries, there is nothing wrong with being over cautious and being checked out!
If that's his primary transport, I also don't see a problem with claiming for taxi fares whilst bike and body are fixed...
t
ttish without a doubt.Pit Pony said:
dingg said:
Pit Pony said:
This is what I keep telling my son. It's no use being RIGHT and DEAD.
He was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
your Son sounds a decent chapHe was hit by a driver the other week. My retrospective advice to him was STAY on the ground, groaning, clutching your ribs, get an ambulance (and a police car) to attend, go to hospital, and be checked out for injuries to your head. Head injuries can kill 24 hours after impact, and drivers (like me) need to know the pain of their failure to take care.
I'm not suggesting faking an injury claim, but he had cuts and bruises on his legs and hands (his gloves did help reduce the cuts, but were totally shredded), and was in pain for a week or so. He thought £85, for a new wheel, new jeans, and new gloves, was fair.
I'd be using a Taxi to work for a week, putting in a claim for the pain and blood, and having my bike fixed by a professional, not spending 2 evenings fixing it myself.
you on the other hand
t, that's why I drove to London, with my bike on the back of the car, so he'd be able to get to work whilst he waited for the money so he could fix his bike, and why I'm without a bike. That's why I gave him my best gloves, and put iodine on his cuts for him and took him out for a decent meal as he looked decidedly peaky. and that's why I'm out of pocket and the driver has got off lightly. Yeah a proper tt. t. Suggesting your son should have made more of a drama out of it, wasting emergency services time (police AND ambulance!) and then suggesting others do it....and see nothing wrong with any of that!? You are bang out of line, at least your son is made of sterner stuff then you are... edit: OP/Ponk, good to see at least you're a decent chap, give the guy a ring discuss it & see if you can come to some mutually agreeable middle ground! There is little need to go out of your way to to cause trouble just for the sake of it - accidents do happen. If all else fails, then go through his insurance company.
Edited by Andehh on Wednesday 17th December 19:50
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff