Cyclist hit by a car. What next?

[Ponk]

Just to follow up on this. I had the bike assessed and passed the quote to the chap. We met up last night so he could write me a cheque and shake hands.

The damage was minor in the end and whilst it's been an inconvenience having to drive in and pay for parking etc, I'm happy with the resolution. Well, provided the cheque doesn't bounce! Lol

[v12Legs]

Ponk said:

Just to follow up on this. I had the bike assessed and passed the quote to the chap. We met up last night so he could write me a cheque and shake hands.

The damage was minor in the end and whilst it's been an inconvenience having to drive in and pay for parking etc, I'm happy with the resolution. Well, provided the cheque doesn't bounce! Lol

You should have added on the petrol and parking costs.
I don't see why you should be out of pocket because this driver couldn't check the road properly.

[wolves_wanderer]

If I was the driver I would have been getting you a bloody nice bottle of wine as thanks for being more reasonable than I had any right to expect.

[Mr Taxpayer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Ponk said:

I expect the repair costs will be £100-£200 or thereabouts. Certainly lower than most excesses.

His excess won't apply because yours is a third party claim, and the excess is only for the driver's own damage. So his insurers would pay you in full and he wouldn't have to pay anything. May effect his ncb/future premiums though.

He'll still have to tell his insurers he's had an accident even thoughhe does not intend to claim; failure to do so would be very unpleasant for him. The question "Any accidents, claims or convictions in the last 5 years? is asked by all insurance companies and the comparison websites.

I investigated a few accidents like this, where the first thing the insurance company knew about the accident was when a low level claim came in involving their client and a third party, and the client had not told them that they'd had an accident a few weeks ago; behavoir like that annoys them. Insurance companies like to investigate all claims involving cyclists and pedestrians because the cyclist/pedestrian has three years to bring a claim and the insurance company likes to know if it's going to have to pay out and if so, how much. The OP might be fine now but over the next few weeks he may devolop a pain that doesn't seem to go away and before you know it he's down the physio's office...

[Stevoox]

Mr Taxpayer said:

He'll still have to tell his insurers he's had an accident even thoughhe does not intend to claim; failure to do so would be very unpleasant for him. The question "Any accidents, claims or convictions in the last 5 years? is asked by all insurance companies and the comparison websites.

I investigated a few accidents like this, where the first thing the insurance company knew about the accident was when a low level claim came in involving their client and a third party, and the client had not told them that they'd had an accident a few weeks ago; behavoir like that annoys them. Insurance companies like to investigate all claims involving cyclists and pedestrians because the cyclist/pedestrian has three years to bring a claim and the insurance company likes to know if it's going to have to pay out and if so, how much. The OP might be fine now but over the next few weeks he may devolop a pain that doesn't seem to go away and before you know it he's down the physio's office...

But even if no claim is made, simply by notifying them of an accident they will use that as an opportunity to screw you for more?

If i was in that situation I'd settle with some cash, a hand shake, then continue with life.

[Devil2575]

Pit Pony said:

iandc said:

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!!

I am saying GO to hospital, and get checked over, if you have banged your head on the floor even lightly, and if you have any cuts or bruises then you'll be in pain for a few days. At the scene with adrenaline flowing you'll feel fine. Hence Stay on the floor and wait for an ambulance.

I agree. It's a judgement call of course but if you're involved in a collision with a car then i'd be getting checked out at the hospital. I've come off my bike before now and felt ok only to discover the next day that i've done more damage than I realised.

The other thing to remember, and it may have already been brought up, is that if a car is involved in an accident where someone is injured then the Police should be informed. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that telling the Police was a legal requirement. I've certainly had to go to the Police station after a 3rd party decided to put in a personal injury claim the day after I'd gone into the back of her.

[Devil2575]

Andehh said:

Yes...you were right on both accounts! You are a proper tt. 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...

As I said I think informing the Police is a requirement so I don't thibnk this is classed as wasting Police time.

Secondly, a few years back a lad fell down a bank when he was drunk. He got up and dusted himself down and wanted to walk away. However his friends called an ambulance but a couple of hours later he was dead due to a brain hemorrhage.

[Mr Taxpayer]

Stevoox said:

Mr Taxpayer said:

He'll still have to tell his insurers he's had an accident even thoughhe does not intend to claim; failure to do so would be very unpleasant for him. The question "Any accidents, claims or convictions in the last 5 years? is asked by all insurance companies and the comparison websites.

I investigated a few accidents like this, where the first thing the insurance company knew about the accident was when a low level claim came in involving their client and a third party, and the client had not told them that they'd had an accident a few weeks ago; behavoir like that annoys them. Insurance companies like to investigate all claims involving cyclists and pedestrians because the cyclist/pedestrian has three years to bring a claim and the insurance company likes to know if it's going to have to pay out and if so, how much. The OP might be fine now but over the next few weeks he may devolop a pain that doesn't seem to go away and before you know it he's down the physio's office...

But even if no claim is made, simply by notifying them of an accident they will use that as an opportunity to screw you for more?

If i was in that situation I'd settle with some cash, a hand shake, then continue with life.

"Screw you for more" or accurately assess the risk you pose? A matter of interpretation. If it is a low speed, bike damage only, no injury, minor thing then the insurer probably won't make any adjustment. However if it turns out later that the OP is hurt, or the bike repair is more expensive than thought a claim is made later then issues about dishonesty start ot come up. Insurance companies don't like dishonest folk; that they WILL load for.

[staniland]

Stevoox said:

But even if no claim is made, simply by notifying them of an accident they will use that as an opportunity to screw you for more?

If i was in that situation I'd settle with some cash, a hand shake, then continue with life.

Then you'd be complicit in insurance fraud. What on earth do you think Full Disclosure means? Too many people on here are completely dishonest when it comes to their driving.

[Jim1556]

staniland said:

Then you'd be complicit in insurance fraud. What on earth do you think Full Disclosure means? Too many people on here are completely dishonest when it comes to their driving.

Is it any wonder when premiums go up for a non fault claim?!

The insurance industry is corrupt as they come and will screw people out of anything if they can 'legally' get away with it!

wkers!

[Mave]

Jim1556 said:

staniland said:

Then you'd be complicit in insurance fraud. What on earth do you think Full Disclosure means? Too many people on here are completely dishonest when it comes to their driving.

Is it any wonder when premiums go up for a non fault claim?!

The insurance industry is corrupt as they come and will screw people out of anything if they can 'legally' get away with it!

wkers!

This isn't a non fault claim though is it? This is continuing through a blind junction without stopping and knocking someone off their bike, luckily without causing serious injury?

[Jim1556]

Mave said:

This isn't a non fault claim though is it? This is continuing through a blind junction without stopping and knocking someone off their bike, luckily without causing serious injury?

Mine was an example, but still applies - if the guy on the bike had been in a car, the other car pulled out. 100% at fault, yet the other guy's insurance would have gone up as a result of the non fault claim!

[Devil2575]

Jim1556 said:

Mave said:

This isn't a non fault claim though is it? This is continuing through a blind junction without stopping and knocking someone off their bike, luckily without causing serious injury?

Mine was an example, but still applies - if the guy on the bike had been in a car, the other car pulled out. 100% at fault, yet the other guy's insurance would have gone up as a result of the non fault claim!

I think what you are missing is that the fact that even if it is a non fault claim it still makes you a higher risk of making a claim.

I remember one of the things I was told when I did some advanced driver training was that there are things that you can do to avoid other people crashing into you. Even if you are involved in a no fault claim you need to think about what you could have done differently to avoid it happening.