GF hit a cyclist, advice pls!

[STHi]

This thread is brilliant and follows the usual rule of PH poster is never in the wrong.

So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?

Secondly, the cyclist has 3 years to make a claim for an injury. He will win if he does. Firstly becasue the OPs OH is at fault and secondly because he is the more vulnerable road user. The latter souldn't really happen, but it is moot anyay, as the first point overrides any subsequent discussion.

The speed of the cyclist is irrelevant, not least because if you can assess his speed, you can see him and therefore should stop and give way, not run into him!

[jazzyjeff]

STHi said:

If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?

I would if they were stationary at the time.

[Deva Link]

My missus got done for careless driving when a cyclist rode off the footpath opposite a T junction into the front of her car.

[streaky]

jazzyjeff said:

STHi said:

If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?

I would if they were stationary at the time.

Which is a debatable point ... Especially without witnesses.

Streaky

[Vaux]

Fastdruid said:

Yes, I'm afraid my highlighting didn't work as I'd planned (I'm not sure why, I presume the extra square brackets confused it) but 1a, 5a and 6a/6b apply


(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(5) says if you don't produce a certificate of insurance you need to report it. If you provide the details as in (2) and show insurance, I don't see s170 says you still have to go and find a Police station or constable to report to.

[otolith]

STHi said:

So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?

If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it?

[Jujuuk68]

otolith said:

STHi said:

So here's a question for all saying that the cyclist was at fault. If you were driving down a road and someone pulled out on you from a minor road would you expect to be blamed for the accident?

If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it?

If I was cycling on the road, following anothe car which had stopped in traffic and whacked it up the arse, then clearly thats fault.

If however, you are in a dedicated cycle lane, on the major road, and a car pulls out on you because it failed to sight you, but then stopped because it had failed to see it was clear to complete its manoevere as well, right in front of you, but just happened to become stationary at that moment, in your path, then I would NOT expect to be blamed for it.

Two versions of the accident, one more likely than the other, and one where one driver has the greater onus to take care. It's a tough one, but frankly falling off a bike onto tarmac, at even 15 mph, isn;t like comming off your bmx bike in the woods - its likely to cause a greater injury even at soft tissue level, that most of the whiplash claims that scumbags get away with.

[STHi]

otolith said:

If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it?

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).

[Geoff38]

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 )

and how do you exchange documents with the cyclist who does not have any ??

after the only major RTA I have been involved in , I phoned the police to be told "is anyone hurt ? - no , ok we're not interested ,here's your crime number for the insurance company - bye"
And yes I was stationary , really . so was the 7.5ton truck infront of me that I got rammed into by the pickup truck that did not brake when I had the cheek to stop in front of it. must have been My fault for stopping as required by the highway laws.

2nd rant of the day over
have a nice evening
G

and yes I have had a bad day at work and need to vent some frustration

Edited by Geoff38 on Friday 9th March 19:43

[otolith]

STHi said:

otolith said:

If you hit a stationary object because you were going too fast to stop in the distance you could see to be clear, would you expect to be blamed for it?

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.

[Fastdruid]

Vaux said:

Fastdruid said:

Yes, I'm afraid my highlighting didn't work as I'd planned (I'm not sure why, I presume the extra square brackets confused it) but 1a, 5a and 6a/6b apply


(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(5) says if you don't produce a certificate of insurance you need to report it. If you provide the details as in (2) and show insurance, I don't see s170 says you still have to go and find a Police station or constable to report to.

Not how I read it at all but it may be the intention. As others have said, if there is no injury the police aren't interested. I doubt they would be seriously interested in anything further for a minor graze but I'm 100% sure you have to report it within 24 hours if just to show the insurance.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/failing_to_...
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/...
http://www.roadtrafficlawdirect.com/uncategorized/...

Seems I missed that it's 5-10 points too.

Edited by Fastdruid on Friday 9th March 23:53

[Rich_W]

jazzyjeff said:

I would if they were stationary at the time.

Sorry but bks!

You're driving down the main road. I pull out from a side street when you are 10foot from me, see you, panic and stop. Whose at fault?

Happened exactly like that to an associate of mine. He ended up T boning their Alfa. Insurance sided with him and Alfa driver lost his no claims.


Running into the back of someone is an entirely different scenario and Yes, in that case it's the person behinds fault.

[Vaux]

Fastdruid said:

Not how I read it at all but it may be the intention. As others have said, if there is no injury the police aren't interested. I doubt they would be seriously interested in anything further for a minor graze but I'm 100% sure you have to report it within 24 hours if just to show the insurance.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/failing_to_...
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/...
http://www.roadtrafficlawdirect.com/uncategorized/...

Seems I missed that it's 5-10 points too.

From your last link:

"1. Provided you comply with the requirements to stop, exchange information and in injury cases to produce your insurance, there is no automatic obligation to report an accident to the police."

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.

[Fastdruid]

Vaux said:

Fastdruid said:

Not how I read it at all but it may be the intention. As others have said, if there is no injury the police aren't interested. I doubt they would be seriously interested in anything further for a minor graze but I'm 100% sure you have to report it within 24 hours if just to show the insurance.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/failing_to_...
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/...
http://www.roadtrafficlawdirect.com/uncategorized/...

Seems I missed that it's 5-10 points too.

From your last link:

"1. Provided you comply with the requirements to stop, exchange information and in injury cases to produce your insurance, there is no automatic obligation to report an accident to the police."

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.

Difference between exchanging information and exchanging information *and* producing your insurance. Do you carry your insurance documents round with you?

[johnpeat]

KevinA3DSG32 said:

You can advise all you like, the fact remains it is a legal requirement to report it.

You can quote laws until your underpants explode - we live in the real world and in the real world people use common sense rather than just following 'the law' to the letter (in every walk of life, every minute of the day).

If she goes to the Police, what will happen (at least in my experience) is she'll be given a producer (so she must take all her documents with her) and be treat like a criminal. I know this because I've done it - I reported hitting a dog and ended-up being summonsed for driving without a licence (despite having a perfectly valid one!!) and then (stupid me didn't learn) reported a drink driver and ended-up AGAIN being told to produce MY documents whilst the Police did fk all about the reported drunk driver (but tried as hard as they could to suggest I wasn't properly insured when I was!!)

This is because, in their tiny arrogant minds, the Police only see 'potential criminals' in everything they do. If the OP's GF does to report this, their first thought will be "what has she got to hide - let's tear through this to see if we can find something to charge her with".

Tis an idiot who gives the Police (or the Tax Man or the Vat Man or whoever) 1 ounce of information they do not need to know UNLESS THEY ASK

Oh - and whilst ignorance of the law is no excuse, "injury" is a pretty vague term - I mean a bruised tow is an injury but are we really talking about that?

[badyaker]

FFS

Cyclist wakes up with a sore neck and a bruised knee. Who's to say he didn't sleep funny?

It was dealt with at the scene. They're grown ups. Get over it.

Insurance will probably take the chance to up your premium

Police will either tell your insurance (see above) and do nothing, or look for a prosecution where there is none. Forget it.

[Zeeky]

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]

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]

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]

bicycleshorts said:

zygalski said:

Welshbeef said:

Imagine if you had risen into a child....

Err. I'll pass on that one.

I notice a poster called Garyglitter has contributed to this thread: perhaps we should ask him his opinion on this?