Mishap with cyclist
- Thread starter Usher
- Start date
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 475
@Usher i hope you have legal cover on your car insurance. If the cyclist sues you, your insurance will not cover you for this. You could easily be looking into thousands of pounds worth of damages including personal injury. Injury claims can be in excess of £10,000 so lube up if you don’t have legal cover.
I won't dissect the incident further as it's probably been pulled apart as much as it can be without actual footage of what happened or another bystanders account of what actually happened.
It is awkward being a cyclist though. I do so with it constantly in my mind that I'm a potential hold up on the roads so I'll always try and give way to cars so they can get on their way. That said you are either classed as a lunatic for riding too quickly (when drivers aren't stuck on your rear wheel) or too slowly (when they are). The reality is that most cyclists operate in a pretty narrow speed range, the limits of which are determined by their fitness and the terrain. Yesterday for instance I averaged 17.5 mph, maxed out (very briefly) around 27 mph down hill and dropped to about 12.5 mph on the steepest of climbs. "Breakneck" probably means, in reality, at or approaching the speed limit even if they are gunning it. So unless this was a massive gradient or something the term is probably a bit OTT to try and justify the incident.
More often than not if there is a closer than I'd like incident with a car it is because they have assumed I'm going slower than I am. Normally one of the usual suspects of getting pulled out on, someone not getting an overtake done before an on coming car/obstacle or the pointless 'left hook' as they don't even fully complete the pass before they are trying to pull into a junction/driveway.
I've been hit by a car whilst cycling... it isn't fun. Adrenalin and my 17 year old bones at the time meant I was on my feet before I even realised what had happened but that same collision today probably wouldn't have the same ending. What I found amazing was as I was dragging my now slightly bent bike off the deck, blood dripping off my elbow was the very first thing that came out of the drivers mouth was a justification of how it wasn't his fault. It was, I was pulling in to a junction and he simply didn't see me. "I thought you were going to the left" (which made no sense as he'd have hit the side/back of me instead) soon became "You weren't signalling". Which I wasn't at the time of the impact... because you kind of need two hands to steer a bike but I had been for quite some distance before hand. Anyway... bit of a digression but a degree of being thankful the incident didn't end up worse seems relevant, even if it has to go along side a slightly incomprehensible description of events to try and absolve any hint of accountability.
It is awkward being a cyclist though. I do so with it constantly in my mind that I'm a potential hold up on the roads so I'll always try and give way to cars so they can get on their way. That said you are either classed as a lunatic for riding too quickly (when drivers aren't stuck on your rear wheel) or too slowly (when they are). The reality is that most cyclists operate in a pretty narrow speed range, the limits of which are determined by their fitness and the terrain. Yesterday for instance I averaged 17.5 mph, maxed out (very briefly) around 27 mph down hill and dropped to about 12.5 mph on the steepest of climbs. "Breakneck" probably means, in reality, at or approaching the speed limit even if they are gunning it. So unless this was a massive gradient or something the term is probably a bit OTT to try and justify the incident.
More often than not if there is a closer than I'd like incident with a car it is because they have assumed I'm going slower than I am. Normally one of the usual suspects of getting pulled out on, someone not getting an overtake done before an on coming car/obstacle or the pointless 'left hook' as they don't even fully complete the pass before they are trying to pull into a junction/driveway.
I've been hit by a car whilst cycling... it isn't fun. Adrenalin and my 17 year old bones at the time meant I was on my feet before I even realised what had happened but that same collision today probably wouldn't have the same ending. What I found amazing was as I was dragging my now slightly bent bike off the deck, blood dripping off my elbow was the very first thing that came out of the drivers mouth was a justification of how it wasn't his fault. It was, I was pulling in to a junction and he simply didn't see me. "I thought you were going to the left" (which made no sense as he'd have hit the side/back of me instead) soon became "You weren't signalling". Which I wasn't at the time of the impact... because you kind of need two hands to steer a bike but I had been for quite some distance before hand. Anyway... bit of a digression but a degree of being thankful the incident didn't end up worse seems relevant, even if it has to go along side a slightly incomprehensible description of events to try and absolve any hint of accountability.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 1,064
- Location
- Fleet, Hampshire
Sorry but this is not correct. Legal cover on your car insurance covers you for the cost of legal fees to sue someone else. The third party section of your car insurance covers damages for property and injury you cause to other people. This is the legally required cover.
Doesn't sound good, especially with a 3rd party witness and the fact that your wife shouted to alert you implies you weren't fully aware of what the cyclist was doing. "Breakneck speed" just seems like a way of rationalising he situation, a bike has appeared that I wasn't expecting, therefore it must have been travelling very fast. Also consider that your wife would not have immediately alerted you, there was probably a good 0.5 - 1.5s pause between her seeing the cyclist and then calling out on the assumption that you would have seen it, she isn't going to call out everything she sees on the road (when my wife is driving, occasionally maybe once or twice a year I alert her to dangers, but only when it's got the point of me thinking she hasn't acknowledged it herself, not as soon as I spot it).
Interesting to know that. I always assumed it was in the event of somebody suing you? That's certainly what the motor insurers seem to promote it as but could be a trick on their part to make a few extra quid!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,013
Yep, since my cyclist incident I always opt for additional legal cover now.
I could probably have fought against it better.
that gave me one foot in the grave flashbacks!
need a dual control option, or car responds, to passenger cries - look out.
from a cyclist perspective
Cyclist knocked off on mini roundabout
That cyclists camera wasn't good enough to catch it, but looks like he had faith in the driver stopping and, maybe, a ninja suit.
couldn't see any examples ? I'm not convinced a dashcam would have wide enough angle anyway for victim of a 'right of way attack'
from a cyclist perspective
Cyclist knocked off on mini roundabout
That cyclists camera wasn't good enough to catch it, but looks like he had faith in the driver stopping and, maybe, a ninja suit.
That looks nothing like someone trying to force "right of way".
He's going round the roundabout minding his own business and the car which was barely on the screen a few seconds back goes straight into the roundabout oblivious to the cyclist being on it.
Given the angles involved its possible the drivers pillar was somewhat aligned with the cyclist at the time the driver might have been paying attention to the roundabout.
Not a valid excuse ofc.
He's going round the roundabout minding his own business and the car which was barely on the screen a few seconds back goes straight into the roundabout oblivious to the cyclist being on it.
Given the angles involved its possible the drivers pillar was somewhat aligned with the cyclist at the time the driver might have been paying attention to the roundabout.
Not a valid excuse ofc.
Sometimes it happens - my mum gave me a lift to pick up my vehicle from the dealer and there was a situation where there was so much else going on I had to alert her, moments before she noticed, to the fact the car in front had suddenly decided to brake and indicate at the same time at the last moment to take a turn. (Yet another instance where if the vehicle behind hadn't been acting erratically and tailgating it would have been better for everyone - dunno why there seems to be a big increase of it since the roads have started to get busy again).
I had the benefit of reading the situation automatically as a driver but without having to pay as much attention to specific aspects such as controlling the car, etc. as the actual driver had to.
And hope the defendent cooperates, otherwise it will go back to court again and again and you may eventually get £1 a month out of them after 10 years or so. Legal cover should always be included in the premium tbh. Cyclists using the roads should be required to have cover as well.
But it isn't, and they aren't... so kind of a moot point really.
Just wow.... what an attitude.
The risk of driving a car on the road. There are other types of road user out there, there is a chance you might be so inattentive that you might not see them and worst case kill them. If you are not ok with that don't do it. If you hit them because of your own inability to drive it's your own fault, there is no requirement for the vulnerable road user to feel sorry for your loss of license, mobility, income.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,599
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Master trolling, that's why I didn't bite.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 1,064
- Location
- Fleet, Hampshire
As I said to the original poster this is wrong - as in incorrect. Legal cover has nothing whatsoever to do with your liability to a third party. Your basic car insurance covers you for that. Legal expenses covers you if you want to sue someone else for the costs of doing so. So if you were the cyclist in this case and you wanted (rightly or wrongly) to sue the car driver for personal injury damages it would cover your legal fees to do so.
PS to those saying cyclists should have to have insurance. Not having insurance would not remove their liability of they were at fault for an incident....and furthermore anyone with a house insurance policy will normally include a public liability cover that covers you in such instances as long as the vehicle involved is not mechanised (i.e. a normal bike or scooter).
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 1,064
- Location
- Fleet, Hampshire
Which is a different sort of insurance again. This time a personal accident or other similar loss of earnings cover. A lot of car insurers will try and sell you various add on policies. Legal expenses, Personal Accident, Gap cover...they all cover different things. Whether they are worth it depends on your own circumstances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,392
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
There is no way you wont find a no win no fee solicitor as a cyclist hit by a car. No need for insurance in that regard
They will take on car cases as well where they see a good chance of a win