Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
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.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
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.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
- Updated to a group of 3 cyclists
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 19:13
KaiserDahms said:
Back in January my girlfriend was pulling into a side street, there were two 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.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
So she overtook two people and then cut them up by turning left?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.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
The police just said it was an accident, they never said anyone was specifically to blame.
Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 18:03
KaiserDahms said:
The police just said it was an accident, they never said anyone was specifically to blame.
Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 20m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
Still struggling to see how they came into contact?Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 20m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
Did she overtake and immediately turn left in front of them? If so they've probably got a claim.
The cyclists are at the bus stop you can see coming towards where the van is. She was pulling into the lane where the van is. In my mind that's enough visibility and time to allow a cyclist to slow down if necessary (not that it should be)
I know cars are ultimately accountable for any accidents involving a bike regardless of who was at fault.
What is likely to happen regarding the claim?, There was no injury at the time which has been confirmed by police, ambulance service or A&E.
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
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 18:13
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.
She should have dealt with that cycle lane as another lane and only cut across it if it was clear of approaching cyclists. It wasn’t and there was a collision.
Let her insurers deal with it.
Just because there wasn’t any criminal liability doesn’t mean that there can’t be civil liability.
Let her insurers deal with it.
Just because there wasn’t any criminal liability doesn’t mean that there can’t be civil liability.
KaiserDahms said:
The police just said it was an accident, they never said anyone was specifically to blame.
Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
They obviously were not 50m away if one of them hit the vehicle, it takes over eleven seconds to travel 50m at 10mph.Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
gazza285 said:
KaiserDahms said:
The police just said it was an accident, they never said anyone was specifically to blame.
Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
They obviously were not 50m away if one of them hit the vehicle, it takes over eleven seconds to travel 50m at 10mph.Cyclists were doing at most 5-10mph, and were downhill 50m away. No damage to the car or bike, essentially the bike tipped over. It was a group of 3 cyclists not 2, 2 went past with no issue.
To the above post she didn't overtake anyone, they were on a segregated cycle lane with a raised kerb.
It takes 2-3 seconds to complete the turn, if they were at the bus stop doing 5-10 mph how did they get anywhere near each other.
gazza285 said:
It isn't a side road, it is a dropped kerb in that screenshot.
I don't see how that'd make a difference regards to liability.My original question is in regards to what will happen rather than liability, I already said car would be responsible.
My key question is about what will happen, is it likely the cyclist will get some huge payout and my girlfriend is going to get ruined by high premiums or will the fact it happened months ago with no injuries at the time mean this gets thrown out etc.
shouldbworking said:
Op in taking girlfriend's perspective as an accurate representation of what happened shocker.
That's a crap bit of road design and a prime example of why cyclists sometimes prefer to ride on the road, but fundamentally it needs to go to the insurers.
Think folk are getting off topic, I was asking about claims 7 months later and what is likely to happen. That's a crap bit of road design and a prime example of why cyclists sometimes prefer to ride on the road, but fundamentally it needs to go to the insurers.
I am not debating what happened and who hit who, as mentioned already this is all from my girlfriend's perspective and not mine nor any witnesses.
Insurance company are handling this but are a bit confused as it was 7 months ago and the claim details given by the cyclist have all been wrong so far with incorrect date/time and that they called the police where as my girlfriend called them and has the incident reference number.
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 18:51
Medically it’s perfectly possible to suffer injuries that have a delayed symptom onset. Normal XR’s don’t mean there’s been no injury, rather that there were no broken bones (though fractures being missed in A&E only to be discovered days/weeks later happens more often than you’d like to imagine).
The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to believe the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to believe the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
DeWar said:
Medically it’s perfectly possible to suffer injuries that have a delayed symptom onset. Normal XR’s don’t mean there’s been no injury, rather that there were no broken bones (though fractures being missed in A&E only to be discovered days/weeks later happens more often than you’d like to imagine).
The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to imagine the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
Cheers, I take it that they'd check to see if injuries would be related and likely caused by this?. The classic example is the much maligned “whiplash” - which very, very commonly manifests as pain the day following the accident - which is only partly the result of cash hungry malingerers trying it on. Inflammation can take time to build up in response to the initial injury whilst adrenalin from the shock of the impact can mask initial pain. Whether any of that actually warrants compo in most cases is a different matter.
If a claim has been made then it seems almost certain that a doctor, either in A&E or the cyclist’s own GP will have documented some sort of injury. It’s hard to imagine the case could arise otherwise. Having said that, your description of events makes it hard to imagine that life changing injuries mandating a huge payout could have occurred. Then again, luck plays a part - break a bone in the wrist of an insurance salesman and it’s no biggie. Break the same bone belonging to a world renowned concert pianist and it’s a different story resulting in mucho compo.
KaiserDahms said:
Cheers, I take it that they'd check to see if injuries would be related and likely caused by this?.
You would hope so. First question you ask someone who’s had an injury is “how did it happen?” and the answer should be documented. Doctors generally know when they’re talking to a compo hunter and (should) document accordingly. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff