Collegue knocked off bike

[chopper602]

Last week one of my work colleagues was knocked off his Brompton. Cycling round a roundabout wearing a high-viz jacket, he was t-boned by a woman driving a Clio. He was knocked a fair distance along the road and stayed laid in the road as something wasn't quite right with one of his legs. The police & ambulance were summoned. The driver of the car didn't even have the decency to ask if he was Ok and was busy trying to influence any witnesses about the incident. Police took a statement off her and friend went to hospital with a nasty, very painful fracture of the upper part of the tibia. He had surgery on Sunday. He's expected to be able to weight bare on the leg in about three months and probably off work for 4-5 months.
I've waffled enough, but apart from a knackered bike, what should be be able to claim from the insurance of the brain dead driver (who hasn't apologised or been to see him in hospital) ? Is a claim based on a prosecution by the police?

Edited by chopper602 on Tuesday 17th June 14:25

[Chris993C2]

http://www.cycleaid.co.uk/

[creampuff]

chopper602 said:

What should be be able to claim from the insurance of the brain dead driver (who hasn't apologised or been to see him in hospital)?

That would depend on who was at fault. You say he was T-boned. That information alone is not sufficient to determine fault.

Your description that your colleague was hit at speed indicates to me that rather than a rear or side collision, your colleague may have entered the roundabout in front of a vehicle which was already on the roundabout. If this is the case, then fault would lie with your colleague, rather than the car driver, and no insurance payout.

But you need to provide further information.

Edited by creampuff on Tuesday 17th June 14:49

[TC99]

He needs to prove liability first. Hard to do on a roundabout.

[chopper602]

creampuff said:

That would depend on who was at fault. You say he was T-boned. That information alone is not sufficient to determine fault.

Why not? He was on the roundabout and the car drove into him from the next entry point.

[V8forweekends]

chopper602 said:

.... Is a claim based on a prosecution by the police?

Edited by chopper602 on Tuesday 17th June 14:25

No. If the Police prosecute that's a criminal matter. Your mate can claim from the driver if the driver was negligent - the standard of proof is different and so it's separate from any prosecution. The Police also won't be interested in this bit - he needs proper legal advice (which I can't give as I am not a lawyer).

[Rovinghawk]

chopper602 said:

he was t-boned by a woman driving a Clio......etc

Were you there or is this a second-hand account of events?

[Jasandjules]

V8forweekends said:

No. If the Police prosecute that's a criminal matter. Your mate can claim from the driver if the driver was negligent - the standard of proof is different and so it's separate from any prosecution.

That being said, if the driver was convicted then this conviction may be used in evidence under S11 of the Civil Evidence Act in any civil claim.

[chopper602]

I arrived shortly after, but this is the story from a witness. Unfortunately the witness works in the same place as the cyclist (as do I!), so might not be allowed.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

And here come the Cyclist Haters....

[creampuff]

chopper602 said:

I arrived shortly after, but this is the story from a witness. Unfortunately the witness works in the same place as the cyclist (as do I!), so might not be allowed.

Everything is allowed, it is just a question of how credible and impartal the witness is. In addition to how well their story matches any physical evidence.

[chopper602]

Here is the roundabout - red line is path of cyclist, from the office car park, where existing small gold car is where the Clio was before pulling into the side of the cyclist. Leg/knee fracture is on the side that the car hit.



Strava plots shows he was 57 seconds into his ride!

[0markymark0]

If the cyclist was on the roundabout and the driver drove into the cyclist then that would suggest the driver was at fault as the cyclist had priority. No excuses of not beig seen etc. cyclist needs legal representation sharpish and advise them to get copies of all expenses,medical, loss of earning,bike damage etc which should be sought from drivers insurance.

Chances are police won't care but that won't stop insurance claim.

[chopper602]

Surely they would prosecute for 'Careless driving' or 'without due care' or something ??

[Slidingpillar]

I presume he's not, but question bears asking, is he a member of Cyclists Touring Club? They do offer solicitor services to members and as far as I can tell, do get reasonable results for cyclists in this position.

Possible other cycling clubs also offer such services, but I'm only a member of the CTC.

[Rovinghawk]

chopper602 said:

Surely they would prosecute for 'Careless driving' or 'without due care' or something ??

Surely they'd establish the full facts before deciding whether a prosecution was justified?

[ralphrj]

chopper602 said:

Surely they would prosecute for 'Careless driving' or 'without due care' or something ??

I think that 'careless driving' and 'driving without due care and attention' are different names for the same offence (one of the BiB or legal folk will be able to confirm). I would have thought that offence was more appropriate for a near miss or collision that did not cause injury. Given the level of injury your colleague has suffered the Police might go for a more serious charge such as 'dangerous driving'.

[vonhosen]

ralphrj said:

chopper602 said:

Surely they would prosecute for 'Careless driving' or 'without due care' or something ??

I think that 'careless driving' and 'driving without due care and attention' are different names for the same offence (one of the BiB or legal folk will be able to confirm). I would have thought that offence was more appropriate for a near miss or collision that did not cause injury. Given the level of injury your colleague has suffered the Police might go for a more serious charge such as 'dangerous driving'.

Carless driving & without due care are essentially the same thing (Sec 3 Road Traffic Act 1988).
The level of injury does not determine the offence in respect of whether it amounts to careless or dangerous driving, it's the driver's actions that do. The circumstances as described would not amount to dangerous & there are many factors that would need to be considered (beyond an injury & apparent offence present) before a prosecution would take place for careless. None of that adversely affects potential success in a civil claim.

[ralphrj]

^^Interesting, thanks.

[SHutchinson]

ralphrj said:

chopper602 said:

Surely they would prosecute for 'Careless driving' or 'without due care' or something ??

I think that 'careless driving' and 'driving without due care and attention' are different names for the same offence (one of the BiB or legal folk will be able to confirm). I would have thought that offence was more appropriate for a near miss or collision that did not cause injury. Given the level of injury your colleague has suffered the Police might go for a more serious charge such as 'dangerous driving'.

Or, they may not prosecute at all and merely send the driver on a Driver Alertness course. However, how the police treat the driver shouldn't have any relevance on the claim that the cyclist can make for damages. He isn't more or less 'damaged' if the driver does or doesn't get prosecuted for DWDCAA etc.