Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Wonder if the OP has seen the guy since, if hes doing that as a regular commute you would expect their paths to cross again, so to speak!

When I was a kid w found that sturdy sticks did a very good job of stopping cyclists peddling and turning them into exocet missiles ;)

OP should go out and wait in his drive when he sees the cyclist coming he should jump out right in front of him, and cause a collission ;)
Click to expand...

I had his bike in my garden for 6 weeks. I returned it at the weekend.

I did ring his bell but nobody was in, so I left it around the side of his house (as he asked) and took lots of photos of it to prove it was there and sent them to him.

Edit - He told me is was a cheap old bike that he just used to cycle to the station, so he can't be claiming anything there.

It was fine, ironically. About £3 worth of damage to a rubber handle seal...I rode it around my garden and it worked fine.

Yet it did £1250 worth of damage to my car.
 
Last edited:
To fast for that pavement though. If he had hit someone WALKING out of their drive it would be going very badly for him right now.
 
Yeah, Sorry my view is anyone on the pavement for whatever reason should go no faster than walking pace.

Cyclist, car driver (parking or totally illegally using the pavement to get round say a car turning right), invalid carriage, even runners (should be ready to drop to walking pace if needed)
 
VincentHanna said:
I had his bike in my garden for 6 weeks. I returned it at the weekend.

I did ring his bell but nobody was in, so I left it around the side of his house (as he asked) and took lots of photos of it to prove it was there and sent them to him.

Edit - He told me is was a cheap old bike that he just used to cycle to the station, so he can't be claiming anything there.

It was fine, ironically. About £3 worth of damage to a rubber handle seal...I rode it around my garden and it worked fine.

Yet it did £1250 worth of damage to my car.
Click to expand...

That will be part of his costs then, 6 weeks worth of taxis as he can't cycle ;)

Thing is cars are strong to significant damage, but weak to minor damage, so a cyclist will probably manage about maximum damage vs speed you can imagine.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Yeah, Sorry my view is anyone on the pavement for whatever reason should go no faster than walking pace.

Cyclist, car driver (parking or totally illegally using the pavement to get round say a car turning right), invalid carriage, even runners (should be ready to drop to walking pace if needed)
Click to expand...

But your view means nothing in law.

There are still people who in their view non whites are lower class!!!
 
mattyg said:
But your view means nothing in law.

There are still people who in their view non whites are lower class!!!
Click to expand...

I know, there is law and there is acting like a douche
Cyclists and cars have no place on the pavement, period
Invalid carriages, some are scary, they can do about 20mph, don't stop that quickly and lets face it the majority are hardly being driven by fully functioning individuals ;) I've seen some being driven downright dangerously on the pavements
I run on the pavement, I am always courteous to other pavement users. Yet I see some who again are aggressive on busy pavements.
 
VincentHanna said:
Basically that.

I've not got the time, nor money to hire a lawyer to fight this. Insurance companies have a seperate personal injury department and they already told me that if it went to court they would get 90%/10% liability.
Click to expand...
What you your motor legal cover (not sure if already covered in the previous 22 pages) - they would take it up on your behalf surely?
 
I don't think I mentioned, but I had a phone call from the Police in December. The cyclist had submitted his own police report and left out loads of key facts!

I'm glad the police called me, because he didn't have access to my report for some reason, and the cyclist claimed in his report that I "accepted responsibility" and that I told him that I "wasn't looking". He hadn't mentioned there was dash cam footage, nor the fact that he was cycling on the pavement! Clearly some sort of ruse to get favourable judgement from the insurers.

So I sent the footage to the officer whilst I spoke to him on the phone, he took one look at it and said I hadn't done anything wrong

I said - "I wish you would tell my insurer that"

Haven't heard anything since then.
 
I had an accident about 7 years ago where somebody pulled out onto a roundabout I was already on and utterly destroyed the rear left side of my car, it turned out the person who had driven into me was in her daughters car and therefore only had 3rd party insurance, which meant that if she was found liable she would receive nothing for the car she crashed. Anyway I had a police report which clearly stated that the other party was at fault as they had failed to obey a give way line. Whilst I had no dash cam I did have 2 witnesses who were police officers on their way to work!

Turns out a police report has zero influence on how insurance companies handle liability, they can only be used as evidence should the dispute come to court. My insurance claim went on for 5 years, the other party refused to admit liability because if they did they would get nothing, and whenever pressed on the matter just said that I had driven into them despite the evidence I presented to the contrary.

Anyway the claim eventually went to court, the police report came out and they lost the case instantly, I was found to be not at fault and had my no claims reinstated etc. etc.

Basically just refuse to admit liability and drag it out till it comes to court and see how the police report affects the outcome compared to letting the insurance company settle it, i suspect it would be more favourable.
 
VincentHanna said:
So I sent the footage to the officer whilst I spoke to him on the phone, he took one look at it and said I hadn't done anything wrong

I said - "I wish you would tell my insurer that"
Click to expand...

Maybe should have pressed that more. I'd imagine a letter or something from the police absolving you of blame would go a long way.
 
This is why the police aren't judge, Jury or executioners. Its not the police's job to decide what the insurance will do to limit their risk.


The best that the OP can hope for is that the insurance decide to take it to court. (something I don't think the OP can actually influence) When at court the OP gets a decent judge who puts most if not all blame on the cyclist.
 
MooMoo444 said:
Maybe should have pressed that more. I'd imagine a letter or something from the police absolving you of blame would go a long way.
Click to expand...

a Criminal conviction or comment doesn't have much of an impact on a civil matter. The reason why in court the police reports get used is that you can argue the balance of probability argument, e.g. if the police prosecuted the third party for dangerous driving then its likely that they were at fault or more at fault than the other party.
Whilst the police reports may help weigh an argument in your favour, it doesn't guarantee anything. pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists have an easier time in court.

I still struggle with the debate over "insurance companies pay out whenever they can...." there is no incentive for them to pay out for anything especially if they can avoid it. most people shop around these days so giving existing customers another reason to leave wouldn't make sense.

Im sure I will get a few conspiracy responses back :)
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure that a cyclist on the pavement is breaking the law. He will be travelling much faster than a pedestrian and it is unreasonable for you to anticipate a cyclist coming at you from the wrong direction on the pavement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom