Causing an accident but no contact

Assuming of course it was voluntary and not as a result of the police being called or something because the biker claimed he was attempting to flee the scene etc.

In which case it again would be 'take me to court' and with no evidence it wouldn't happen.
 
In which case it again would be 'take me to court' and with no evidence it wouldn't happen.

I wouldn't feel entirely confident of my chances taking a situation like that to court, could easily see it going in favour of the biker :p
 
I wouldn't feel entirely confident of my chances taking a situation like that to court, could easily see it going in favour of the biker :p

How? In a legal court he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you caused an accident. He has no evidence whatsoever. The guy in question didn't even enter the road so witnesses would prove nothing. The accident was only a result of this guys belief.
 
He obviously had enough for the insurance company to deem it more economical to settle than to take it to court, which would imply it wasn't completely open and shut.

As much as they work on economics more than proof sometimes, they'd still take it further if it was as obviously unwinnable for the claimant as you suggest.
 
How? In a legal court he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you caused an accident. He has no evidence whatsoever. The guy in question didn't even enter the road so witnesses would prove nothing. The accident was only a result of this guys belief.

In a criminal court the burden of proof is set at proving things beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a civil court where insurance claims would be settled, they work on the lower burden of proof of "on the balance of probabilities".

And it wouldn't have been his choice if it went to court or not. It would be the insurance companies.
 
In a criminal court the burden of proof is set at proving things beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a civil court where insurance claims would be settled, they work on the lower burden of proof of "on the balance of probabilities".

And it wouldn't have been his choice if it went to court or not. It would be the insurance companies.

Everyone has the choice to decist with dealing with the results of an accident through their insurance. So it is his choice.
Whilst I agree they settle it on the balance of probabilities the fact is as stated all we have is a dude falling off his bike because he thought someone was going to do something they didn't do. That is without doubt their fault. If i drive in to a tree because I think someone may pull out of a junction, that's my fault.
The insurance company in this case has simply gone down the easiest route. The friend shouldn't have accepted this and ceased their input. The biker then would have had to take him to court, and as we've already discussed has no evidence of anything at all other than they've fallen off their bike.
 
Indeed, i cant see it being that easy, otherwise any time anyone ever had any kind of accident which didnt involve another vehicle, all they would need to do is pick a passing number plate at random and say "they forced me to take evasive action". Unless the other person has a dashcam, then how can they prove they did nothing wrong?
 
A friend of mine had a very similar accident in London to the one in the OP. Resulting in the driver being prosecuted and insurance siding with him (friend) - but only because he had helmet cam footage. The police said at the time, without it there would be no chance - as he could have simply crashed and picked a random number plate to blame.

It was the sole reason I got over my hate of helmet cams, and bought one myself.
 
A friend of mine had a very similar accident in London to the one in the OP. Resulting in the driver being prosecuted and insurance siding with him (friend) - but only because he had helmet cam footage. The police said at the time, without it there would be no chance - as he could have simply crashed and picked a random number plate to blame.

It was the sole reason I got over my hate of helmet cams, and bought one myself.



Likewise, friend dropped his bike owing to a minicab pulling across him in new cross, with the helmet cam footage the other driver settled his repair bill and gave him a crate of beer to say sorry for the broken big toe...
 
Indeed, i cant see it being that easy, otherwise any time anyone ever had any kind of accident which didnt involve another vehicle, all they would need to do is pick a passing number plate at random and say "they forced me to take evasive action". Unless the other person has a dashcam, then how can they prove they did nothing wrong?

Bang on Haggis.
 
Indeed, i cant see it being that easy, otherwise any time anyone ever had any kind of accident which didnt involve another vehicle, all they would need to do is pick a passing number plate at random and say "they forced me to take evasive action". Unless the other person has a dashcam, then how can they prove they did nothing wrong?

Same could apply to anyone that rams up the back end of a stationary vehicle. They could always say the stationary vehicle actually reversed up the road.

In my mates case. The police were called as my mate disputed the issue. They took all his details etc. And even though he told the insurance he was actually stationary, THEY decided to settle. Chances are it would have been cheaper to settle than fight. They are a business after all.

As its their risk can you even force your insurance to go to court to fight in your name but for their risk.
 
Same could apply to anyone that rams up the back end of a stationary vehicle. They could always say the stationary vehicle actually reversed up the road.

This is why you should always have your handbrake on or in gear when stationary, so that (assuming they hit you hard enough to move you) there will be skid marks on the road from your wheels.
 
Back
Top Bottom