Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice

Trig said:
Cyclist was a *******.

He was travelling at speed on the path, people have said what if it was a baby in a pram rather than a cyclist, well what if the cyclist had hit a pram coming out of the front of someone's property, he clearly wasn't paying attention as you were sat there long enough for him to see you and to gauge your intent and take the relevant action, unless of course he wanted to cause an accident and claim against you or someone else, he didn't have a camera did he?
Click to expand...

Baby in a pram? Maybe if Bolt was pushing it lol
 
Works in the city in IT, brilliant, I'm off to search the rest of the OCUK forums to see where the "Some tit in a BMW tried to run me over this morning" thread :D
 
Malevolence said:
Even if he was on the road, which he wasn't, then he was on the wrong side and going against traffic - he's still at fault.
Click to expand...

True, but as someone who's currently taking lessons, it's your responsibility as a driver to make sure the road is clear both ways, since cyclists do ride on the wrong side at times
 
I would say the cyclist is at fault for riding on the pavement and on watching the footage (assuming you were indicating) he should have seen you.

I hope it works out in your favour.
 
cyclist stupid yes, but he was visible for 2s, he looked at you as he was adjacent to your left wing (categorized you as not a danger?), and it was only after that he showed signs of shock as you pulled out;
does look as though you did not glance left and were concentrating on the gap. - joint negligence then ?
 
I think its unfair to say he didn't look left. Probably looked left, saw nowt, looked right, saw nowt, started the maneuver. One does not simply expect a cyclist at 20mph on the pavement.
 
Exactly what I did.

Plus you can see from that photo I can't see much up the pavement anyway. It was fine until that house started parking their black focus there a few years ago.
 
If you're submitting this as a claim on your insurance be prepared for increased premiums, even as non-fault. I'd be looking to recover costs from this incident, especially given it is explicitly illegal to cycle on the pavement. If you're worrying about the ethics of claiming off of him, just think to yourself: he could have cycled into a small child running out of a front garden, or a mother pushing a pram out of a gate.
mattyg said:
The OP was stationary when the cyclist started to pass. So in essence the OP drove into the cyclist
Click to expand...
Are you this obtuse when talking with friends in real life or do you save it for faceless conversations on the internet?
 
My insurer (admiral) just called to say they've reviewed the footage and understand he was on the pavement but that "in general" things like this go down as the motorists fault, because they [the insurer] are the ones having to pay out for damage!

I asked to speak to somebody in the personal injury department to discuss it further, as I'm not particularly happy with their attitude towards it and would like a professional to review the footage.
 
As I see it.

Cyclists was going to quick on the pavement when I would expect him to be on the road.

If you had looked left before pulling out, you would not have pulled out.

One of them things really.
 
Well yes I did look left, but why would I look left as the last thing before turning left to join the direction of incoming traffic though?

The last place you would look before moving is to the right,surely, where the traffic is coming from?
 
VincentHanna said:
My insurer (admiral) just called to say they've reviewed the footage and understand he was on the pavement but that "in general" things like this go down as the motorists fault, because they [the insurer] are the ones having to pay out for damage!

I asked to speak to somebody in the personal injury department to discuss it further, as I'm not particularly happy with their attitude towards it and would like a professional to review the footage.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised to be honest. I have dealt with insurance companies. Make sure you keep this thread updated really curious how this pans out.
 
It’s Admiral, they’re a terrible insurer - I’ve dealt with them in the past. You have to fight your side, stick in official complaints and really kick up a fuss.

The comment they have made on the phone could be sent to the financial ombudsman as they just told you that they make decisions in their own favour despite evidence.

Note the conversation down as close to verbatim as you can or ask for their recording of the call.

If you drop it now, you’ll easily get an at fault or 50/50 on your record.

Next time insure with a better company (I only found out too late and at the time, Admiral were the only ones affordable in my area for the cars I wanted to drive).
 
They will want to dump it on your because it's the easy way out for them. Then you'll have a record of running a cyclist over on your insurance, so they'll fleece you for even more money when you renew lol

You need to make a claim against him, he probably has no insurance so it will be expensive for him to defend himself.
 
Last edited:
crinkleshoes said:
It’s Admiral, they’re a terrible insurer - I’ve dealt with them in the past. You have to fight your side, stick in official complaints and really kick up a fuss.

The comment they have made on the phone could be sent to the financial ombudsman as they just told you that they make decisions in their own favour despite evidence.

Note the conversation down as close to verbatim as you can or ask for their recording of the call.

If you drop it now, you’ll easily get an at fault or 50/50 on your record.
Click to expand...

Good thinking, She definitely said that and also that the call was being recorded so I have asked for a copy of the recording, which I am sure I am well within my rights to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom