Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
Cat said:
It reads to me that the cyclist who was on the inside of the cycle lane collided with the rear of the vehicle which was still within the lane. If the car was clear of the cycle lane I'm sure the OP would have mentioned it.
Cat
Yep, and as for why the other two got past, it's quite possible that they were on the right hand side of the cycle lane, and the person who collided was on the left. It could be enough of a difference, especially if they were riding side by side, so couldn't move right immediately.Cat
Not saying that's what happened, but it's a plausible explanation for those speculating otherwise.
Personally, this is one of the reasons I like to be in the middle of the traffic lane, especially in urban environments. It's generally much easier to go around stuff cutting across you, while also reducing the chance of that happening. Especially when somebody pulls out of a side road, which is the most common, simply overtaking as an evasive action is quite satisfying.
[quote=KaiserDahms] 
Not sure if it makes a difference but they're saying the accident happened at a different time and day.
Surely this stops the claim in its tracks ? Girlfriend provides evidence she was nowhere near the area at their claimed date and time ?
Not sure if it makes a difference but they're saying the accident happened at a different time and day.
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 18:13
Surely this stops the claim in its tracks ? Girlfriend provides evidence she was nowhere near the area at their claimed date and time ?
KaiserDahms said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What should we expect to happen?, I'm not saying she's not at blame, only that the police didn't assign blame.If the cyclist is claiming for injury would the a&e records not show she had no injury etc?.
Not sure if it makes much of a difference but they've said the accident happened on a different date at a different time.
My first instinct would be for the GF to respond to the claim by saying she was nowhere near that location on that date and time, unless by some coincidence she was.
Cat said:
NGee said:
andburg said:
regardless of whether the rider was paying attention, OP's girlfriend did not complete her turn across the cycle lane before the cyclists arrived,.................
Genuinely interested to know how you know this information?KaiserDahms said:
Back in January my girlfriend was pulling into a side street, there were three cyclists travelling the same direction but we're pretty far away from the junction.
She pulled in and one cyclist went past with no issue but the other had kept closer to the pavement and clipped the back of her car.
She pulled in and one cyclist went past with no issue but the other had kept closer to the pavement and clipped the back of her car.
It reads to me that the cyclist who was on the inside of the cycle lane collided with the rear of the vehicle which was still within the lane. If the car was clear of the cycle lane I'm sure the OP would have mentioned it.
Cat
if the cyclist was in the cycle lane as described, and the car had safely completed the move there would be no way the cyclist could have hit here unless he left the carriageway and got on the pavement, be that on the bike or off it having gone over the handlebars in avoidance.
Happened to me a couple of years ago, but there was no debating fault, it was mine. Unfortunately I thought everything was fine as there was no damage to his bike and his only injury was a very small graze to his elbow.
At the scene he had removed his cycling top easily pulling it over his head to inspect his elbow and walking around fine, that was until he rang his Wife... I could hear her shouting at him over the phone from about 10m away, not “are you okay“ or concerns for his wellbeing, but stuff like ring the police, call an ambulance etc. Anyway, within seconds he started holding his shoulder, complaining about his hip, elbow and basically anything else he could think of. Funny how seconds before he had removed his top without any issue and yes I understand adrenaline but this was like now watching a terrible acting scene.
I then decided to ring the police myself before he had a chance to dramatise the whole thing and told them exactly what happened. I made a point of raising my voice about the the call from his wife whilst looking him straight in the eye and funny old thing he seemed to turn a shade of red. They told me they would get in contact with me later and asked to speak to him so I handed over my phone.
We collected his totally unmarked bike and put both it, and him into my car and drove to his home. On arrival his Wife came running out and headed straight for me shouting and screaming without ever checking on her husband. So I proceeded to remove his bike from my boot and placed it against his garden wall whilst completely ignoring his Wife. Obviously this made things worse as she started raging at me for ignoring her, but I casually returned to the car and drove off whilst watching her standing in the middle of the street fuming
Anyway, police rang back and said there would be no further action as he was fine. Roll on a few months later and my insurance rang up to ask about the incident. I explained everything in detail and they mentioned he was claiming for personal injuries, funny old thing... Found out later he received just over 6k
. I didn’t pay any excess charges and not sure if my NCB was effected as it’s protected. I changed insurer at the end of that year without any financial hit, actually new insurers were cheaper.
At the time I was really angry and thought Karma will hopefully catch up with him, but thinking back it made me smile thinking he had the rest of his life living with his horrendous dragon of a Wife would be payment enough
At the scene he had removed his cycling top easily pulling it over his head to inspect his elbow and walking around fine, that was until he rang his Wife... I could hear her shouting at him over the phone from about 10m away, not “are you okay“ or concerns for his wellbeing, but stuff like ring the police, call an ambulance etc. Anyway, within seconds he started holding his shoulder, complaining about his hip, elbow and basically anything else he could think of. Funny how seconds before he had removed his top without any issue and yes I understand adrenaline but this was like now watching a terrible acting scene.
I then decided to ring the police myself before he had a chance to dramatise the whole thing and told them exactly what happened. I made a point of raising my voice about the the call from his wife whilst looking him straight in the eye and funny old thing he seemed to turn a shade of red. They told me they would get in contact with me later and asked to speak to him so I handed over my phone.
We collected his totally unmarked bike and put both it, and him into my car and drove to his home. On arrival his Wife came running out and headed straight for me shouting and screaming without ever checking on her husband. So I proceeded to remove his bike from my boot and placed it against his garden wall whilst completely ignoring his Wife. Obviously this made things worse as she started raging at me for ignoring her, but I casually returned to the car and drove off whilst watching her standing in the middle of the street fuming
Anyway, police rang back and said there would be no further action as he was fine. Roll on a few months later and my insurance rang up to ask about the incident. I explained everything in detail and they mentioned he was claiming for personal injuries, funny old thing... Found out later he received just over 6k
. I didn’t pay any excess charges and not sure if my NCB was effected as it’s protected. I changed insurer at the end of that year without any financial hit, actually new insurers were cheaper.At the time I was really angry and thought Karma will hopefully catch up with him, but thinking back it made me smile thinking he had the rest of his life living with his horrendous dragon of a Wife would be payment enough
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It was obviously tongue in cheek, don’t be so miserable you two. Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
Pegscratch said:
People wonder why there is widespread significant disdain for cyclists. I'd say it is reasonable on the evidence given (i.e. at least one of the cyclists that made it past was in front) it was a case of "I'll teach you" gone wrong or not paying attention/not in full control. To bring a claim this far on in the day is risible, however "legal" it is.
However the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt d
heads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.
This says different...However the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt d
heads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.roadsmash said:
It was obviously tongue in cheek, don’t be so miserable you two.
Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
There are many reasons why one cyclist out of three might have been unable to avoid the car, most of which would not support any degree of culpability. It doesn't take a lot of working out. What is clear from the OP's post is that the car driver drove across a cycle lane without ensuring it was clear. Cyclists having to take avoiding action is a clear case of careless/inconsiderate driving. Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
As for your second question; the cyclist might have received an injury that took time to heal, didn't heal or appeared at a later date. Or they might have been advised to wait a bit to see how a condition developed. Some injuries are concealed by bruising. It might be that the cyclist has felt unable to return to cycling, thereby removing a source of previous enjoyment from them. If anything, the delay tends to negate the suggesting that all they are not injured and want to lie to get some money.
andburg said:
NGee said:
andburg said:
regardless of whether the rider was paying attention, OP's girlfriend did not complete her turn across the cycle lane before the cyclists arrived,.................
Genuinely interested to know how you know this information?if the cyclist was in the cycle lane as described, and the car had safely completed the move there would be no way the cyclist could have hit here unless he left the carriageway and got on the pavement, be that on the bike or off it having gone over the handlebars in avoidance.
We don't even know if there was a collision and you yourself have come up with an explanation of how it might have happened differently.
So I repeat, how do you know, for a fact, that the OP's girlfriend did not complete her turn across the cycle lane?
It is difficult to see from the description how the accident happened at all.
If the OPs girlfriend pulled into that side road 50m ahead of the cyclists, she would have done nothing wrong and would have cleared the cycle lane before they arrived unless they were absolutely belting it.
She must have passed them shortly before the turn (given the comment that they were behind her and travelling in the same direction) - unless she was in slow moving traffic and travelling at a similar speed to them for some time. The only two options I can think of are:
1) Cyclists were much closer than she thought and she basically cut them up, and she wasn't aware of them/had lost sight of them (in her blind spot) or they weren't the same cyclists as near the bus stop?
2) She couldn't make it fully into the side road and stopped, at some point several seconds later one of the cyclists hit her car.
I would have expected that if it was point 1) the cyclists would have had something to say rather than the "I wasn't concentrating". I can only see the reaction described being the case if the car was stationary, sticking into the cycle lane for a period of time. If so, then the driver should be able to confirm.
Anyway - it is irrelevant really - What is likely to happen is this: If the driver has protected NCB, then no issue (unless there have been other incidents), NCB will be unaffected. It is likely to go down as a fault claim, and the cyclist is likely to receive compo of a few thousand pounds. Sadly the insurance company will be unlikely to fight it if it will cost them more to fight it than settle.
In terms of excess, there will be nothing to pay as the excess only applies to claims for the insured's own vehicle. In terms of the impact to premium - there may or may not be an impact, next years premium may be higher due to the fact that there is an "at fault" claim against her. Shopping around for alternative quotes at renewal time may mitigate that.
The only saving grace potentially is that they are claiming the wrong date and time. There is the option to truthfully say "Nope, wasn't there at that day and time", but given that she did have an incident at that location it would look bad on her when it later cane to light she had had a matching accident on a different date - therefore would be best to say so: "The rear of my vehicle was hit by a cyclist at that location, but it was on xyz date and time, the cyclist identified themselves as xyz"
What is likely to have happened is that they had forgotten about it until an ambulance chaser called them up and told them they could get a few grand, and they couldn't remember the details correctly!
As others have said, the insurance company will deal with it all. Other than furnishing details, the OP's girlfriend is unlikely to have to do anything else.
If the OPs girlfriend pulled into that side road 50m ahead of the cyclists, she would have done nothing wrong and would have cleared the cycle lane before they arrived unless they were absolutely belting it.
She must have passed them shortly before the turn (given the comment that they were behind her and travelling in the same direction) - unless she was in slow moving traffic and travelling at a similar speed to them for some time. The only two options I can think of are:
1) Cyclists were much closer than she thought and she basically cut them up, and she wasn't aware of them/had lost sight of them (in her blind spot) or they weren't the same cyclists as near the bus stop?
2) She couldn't make it fully into the side road and stopped, at some point several seconds later one of the cyclists hit her car.
I would have expected that if it was point 1) the cyclists would have had something to say rather than the "I wasn't concentrating". I can only see the reaction described being the case if the car was stationary, sticking into the cycle lane for a period of time. If so, then the driver should be able to confirm.
Anyway - it is irrelevant really - What is likely to happen is this: If the driver has protected NCB, then no issue (unless there have been other incidents), NCB will be unaffected. It is likely to go down as a fault claim, and the cyclist is likely to receive compo of a few thousand pounds. Sadly the insurance company will be unlikely to fight it if it will cost them more to fight it than settle.
In terms of excess, there will be nothing to pay as the excess only applies to claims for the insured's own vehicle. In terms of the impact to premium - there may or may not be an impact, next years premium may be higher due to the fact that there is an "at fault" claim against her. Shopping around for alternative quotes at renewal time may mitigate that.
The only saving grace potentially is that they are claiming the wrong date and time. There is the option to truthfully say "Nope, wasn't there at that day and time", but given that she did have an incident at that location it would look bad on her when it later cane to light she had had a matching accident on a different date - therefore would be best to say so: "The rear of my vehicle was hit by a cyclist at that location, but it was on xyz date and time, the cyclist identified themselves as xyz"
What is likely to have happened is that they had forgotten about it until an ambulance chaser called them up and told them they could get a few grand, and they couldn't remember the details correctly!
As others have said, the insurance company will deal with it all. Other than furnishing details, the OP's girlfriend is unlikely to have to do anything else.
Derek Smith said:
There are many reasons why one cyclist out of three might have been unable to avoid the car, most of which would not support any degree of culpability. It doesn't take a lot of working out. What is clear from the OP's post is that the car driver drove across a cycle lane without ensuring it was clear. Cyclists having to take avoiding action is a clear case of careless/inconsiderate driving.
I think the argument is that one particular cyclist didn’t take the necessary avoiding action. Regardless of the reason why, it was an error.If the first two cyclists made it through, then the third made an error.
I’d also like to point out that just because another road user makes an error, you can’t simply crash into them because they shouldn’t be in your way.
The roads require all drivers to take avoiding action on each other’s mistakes. Two of the cyclists did, the third did not.
I would argue that on the basis two of the cyclists avoided the car, that there must have been a significant and appropriate gap for the car driver to turn left into.
You’re presuming, that just because there was contact with the third cyclist, that the gap must have been too small.
That suggestion is far weaker than the presumption of the cyclist making an error. And it’s further strengthened by the fact that two others made it past.
Derek Smith said:
As for your second question; the cyclist might have received an injury that took time to heal, didn't heal or appeared at a later date. Or they might have been advised to wait a bit to see how a condition developed. Some injuries are concealed by bruising. It might be that the cyclist has felt unable to return to cycling, thereby removing a source of previous enjoyment from them. If anything, the delay tends to negate the suggesting that all they are not injured and want to lie to get some money.
Considering the cyclist was OK at the scene, I think all of that is extremely unlikely. Especially the “felt unable to cycle home” part.I presume that they cycled home from the accident!
roadsmash said:
It was obviously tongue in cheek, don’t be so miserable you two.
Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
1. I don't know, I wasn't there, but I also haven't made up some far fetched scenario to explain it.Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
2. I don't know, is it a long time? In my limited experience of insurance claims nothing seems to be done quickly, and we don't know the medical situation either. Add in a lawyer with a busy schedule and I can see how it can be months before the paperwork finally gets to the OP's girlfriend.
roadsmash said:
Derek Smith said:
There are many reasons why one cyclist out of three might have been unable to avoid the car, most of which would not support any degree of culpability. It doesn't take a lot of working out. What is clear from the OP's post is that the car driver drove across a cycle lane without ensuring it was clear. Cyclists having to take avoiding action is a clear case of careless/inconsiderate driving.
I think the argument is that one particular cyclist didn’t take the necessary avoiding action. Regardless of the reason why, it was an error.If the first two cyclists made it through, then the third made an error.
I’d also like to point out that just because another road user makes an error, you can’t simply crash into them because they shouldn’t be in your way.
The roads require all drivers to take avoiding action on each other’s mistakes. Two of the cyclists did, the third did not.
I would argue that on the basis two of the cyclists avoided the car, that there must have been a significant and appropriate gap for the car driver to turn left into.
You’re presuming, that just because there was contact with the third cyclist, that the gap must have been too small.
That suggestion is far weaker than the presumption of the cyclist making an error. And it’s further strengthened by the fact that two others made it past.
Derek Smith said:
As for your second question; the cyclist might have received an injury that took time to heal, didn't heal or appeared at a later date. Or they might have been advised to wait a bit to see how a condition developed. Some injuries are concealed by bruising. It might be that the cyclist has felt unable to return to cycling, thereby removing a source of previous enjoyment from them. If anything, the delay tends to negate the suggesting that all they are not injured and want to lie to get some money.
Considering the cyclist was OK at the scene, I think all of that is extremely unlikely. Especially the “felt unable to cycle home” part.I presume that they cycled home from the accident!
KaiserDahms said:
She pulled in and one cyclist went past with no issue but the other had kept closer to the pavement and clipped the back of her car.
All this talk of how come only one cyclist hit the car, and yet the answer is there in the original post, the cyclist was closer to the pavement, and so didn't have the room to get round the car.gazza285 said:
All this talk of how come only one cyclist hit the car, and yet the answer is there in the original post, the cyclist was closer to the pavement, and so didn't have the room to get round the car.
Or potentially chose not to/didn't realise - you can't automatically assume that moving wasn't an option.Pegscratch said:
Or potentially chose not to/didn't realise - you can't automatically assume that moving wasn't an option.
It's a pretty reasonable presumption that they didn't try to hit the car. As for not realizing, legally, they shouldn't have had to, so it's likely not going to be anything more than 50:50.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff