Mishap with cyclist

jpaul said:
?

How much do you ever trust the drivers rendition anyway ? no one looks once, and puts their blinkers on ;
but, yes, daft to write that down in as real testament, maybe they do ?
I regularly (pause 15mins during weekly runs ) see a lot of car drivers at roundabouts contesting with their stop/start and auto gearbox getting frustrated who eventually go for it, against a car, relying on the other submitting.
Click to expand...

Ultimately depends on how much sense what they are saying makes, many drivers who believe they are not in the wrong will overembellish the story to make the other side seem more at fault than they were, though when they do you get discrepancies and you then quiz them on that until you get what seems more like the reality.

When we are dealing with split liabilities we always need to keep in mind how well that person will present their story in court as that can sometime make or break the case, especially if details change during examination
 
watercooledman said:
the OP should have been breathalyzed, i would have called the police the OP seems to have it all scripted and to me there is more going on.

OP what do you drive is it a pops and bangs AMG?
Click to expand...
I'm not usually a grammar nazi but I used to do this and no one ever pointed it out.

would have*
should have*
 
I'm not sure this adds up for me

1)"Traffic Island" - do you mean a roundabout?

2)If 1=roundabout, how far apart are the cyclist's entry point and your exit point?
If this is a full size roundabout, it must be an extremely short distance for the bicycle to be not visible when you pull away, but be ahead of you when you hit it.
 
jpaul said:
?
the witness is in the motorists favour - did we read the same thing




How much do you ever trust the drivers rendition anyway ? no one looks once, and puts their blinkers on ;
but, yes, daft to write that down in as real testament, maybe they do ?
I regularly (pause 15mins during weekly runs ) see a lot of car drivers at roundabouts contesting with their stop/start and auto gearbox getting frustrated who eventually go for it, against a car, relying on the other submitting.
Click to expand...

No idea why you are quoting me or trying to say.

I've stated multiple times that the witness is against the driver and for the cyclist
 
This thread :p

Can't stick that on the cyclist.

While back I scared the **** out of a cyclist on a roundabout by not seeing them going round it (dark, rain, other excuses, also went for rolling into roundabout rather than stopping to do a good check). Would have been 100% my fault.

Fortunately was able to stamp the brake hard enough when cyclist suddenly appeared in the headlights :eek:

Lady almost fell off seeing my murder attempt but wobbled off obviously spooked.
 
Scuzi said:
Priority warriors really are the scourge of the roads.
Click to expand...
It's a growing trend - priority drivers will hit the side or back of a car on a roundabout because they 'had priority'. Despite them not being in line of sight when the driver pulled out. YouTube dashcam videos are full of them.
 
Kenai said:
He was at breakneck speed which is what allowed him to be unseen by the driver and get across the front of his car despite supposedly entering the roundabout second but he was also braking enough that he had slowed sufficiently to only receive a bit of grazing and a bruised wrist when he was actually knocked off the bike.

He's possibly the UK fastest cyclist with the world's best brakes :p
Click to expand...


I have mentioned his back wheel got a bit of damaged but that could have occurred when he fell off, I've now got doubts that I actually touched him at all, there's not the slightest mark, scratch or anything on my car, he travelled on for about 7 Mtrs before he fell off.
 
Usher said:
I have mentioned his back wheel got a bit of damaged but that could have occurred when he fell off, I've now got doubts that I actually touched him at all, there's not the slightest mark, scratch or anything on my car, he travelled on for about 7 Mtrs before he fell off.
Click to expand...
So he just decided to fall off? Even if you cause a cyclist to fall off you could be liable. You don't have to actually hit the poor guy.
 
As per previous comments from the chap who was the loss adjuster.....He summed it up well.

Your comments about speed are irrelevant...You can not "prove" anything about what speed he was or was not travelling at. The witness "appears" to support the cyclist claim that you hit him.

You must know whether you hit him or not....Just cause there is no damage to your car doesn't mean you didn't hit him.

Who hit who? Who knows....You don't seem to be sure of much at this stage ....- Your insurance will take details from you and I would be prepared for them to shell out on fixing his bike, plus injury comp etc.

Just leave it to them.

I had a bump in a petrol station forecourt about 2 years ago - My insurance paid out over £8k in fixing my car, and compensation to the "victim" for whiplash.... 5/8 mph bump of another car and that was the payout. Was I bothered....Nope. Pathetic claim, totally ridiculous but what can you do....Nothing.

Left it to them to sort out, couldn't care less what was paid out, why fight it? Renewal came in £20 up from previous year despite payout.
 
Another day or two of posting and I reckon the OPs story will have evolved to the point of there being no cyclist, just a phantom bike with a bent wheel nearby.
 
Lethal` said:
So he just decided to fall off? Even if you cause a cyclist to fall off you could be liable. You don't have to actually hit the poor guy.
Click to expand...

If you don't touch him and he falls off on his own it's just some guy falling off a bike. Make sure he isn't dead and be on your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom