But seriously, even though you were lucky, it's not like bruising is a small thing. You can been in pain for weeks and have your lifestyle impacted, so hopefully he gets punished.
The result of the crash does not matter as far as I am concerned when it comes to punishing the guy. His lack of empathy for the victim and failure to check if he was seriously hurt should be treated the same whether op was bruised or had broken bones. It is the drivers attitude that needs to be fixed
The thoughts around cyclists insurance previously boiled down to any damage caused by a cyclist was usually well within the majority of car drivers existing insurance excess. Obviously now many things have changed, such as cars and repairs increasing in value, so it's not exactly a 'bad' idea. But bear in mind it would penalise those who use the bicycle with little money and very few other transport options. You do usually find those cyclists with more expensive bikes have always taken out their own insurance... Contrary to common belief - those 'lycra louts' you see out on the weekend club ride; the vast majority own more than one vehicle and probably pay more tax than you...
Hate to say it, but things like that really should be reported. For nothing more than 'logging' the fact it happened. I'm fairly sure local councils first port of call when looking at cycling infrastructure, is to look at the number of RTC's in a given area to determine if there is a problem which would be solved by adding infrastructure.
For example, you could have an accident 'blackspot' where lots of people have low speed incidents with few injuries (due to a badly designed junction with an overgrown hedge for instance), but if nobody reports it, the council won't know to do anything about it. All councils have a way to report potholes, pavements needing repair, road defects and the like, here's my local councils - https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/roads-and-pavements
To be honest, the Police need a similar reporting scheme for traffic offences, the majority of RTC's (I'm not talking cyclist:car) will have taken a number of hours to fill in a report for, then looked into by an officer and followed up. I know after being through the process I would not 'waste' my time with it again unless I felt the need. All the close calls and dangerous riding/driving I see goes unreported and 'unseen' (apart from me recording it on a camera & keeping the worst).
I believe the MET ran a trial where people can upload any footage of an incident through a web portal for them to look at. No idea of anyone who used it, the results, any other forces using it or even if it's still going.
Should have insurance as if you hit someone with a bike it can cause damage and any cyclist not wearing a helmet is stupid, I got my Bell for £15 brand new from Halfords and it might save my life at some point. NHS is under strain as it is doesn't need preventable injuries pulling it down more.
Should have insurance as if you hit someone with a bike it can cause damage and any cyclist not wearing a helmet is stupid, I got my Bell for £15 brand new from Halfords and it might save my life at some point. NHS is under strain as it is doesn't need preventable injuries pulling it down more.
Wow, so I just googled for instances of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian and the first one I brought up, from the viewpoint of the cyclist, was that the pedestrian they hit was at fault and should pay damages and compensation.
I'm pretty certain that in an accident that was my fault that I could afford to pay for any damage I could cause by hitting a car with my bike, unlike if I hit something with my car (p = F / A and all that). The only reason car mandatory insurance exists is because of the high costs of damage incurred in accidents, which isn't an issue with cyclists. You can still take the same approach for driving a car though if you think you can cover the cost of any accidents you might be liable for - you can "self insure" if you deposit £1m with Lloyds so you don't even need a "traditional" insurance policy for a car.
Bit of a mute point anyway seeing as I'm a member of British Cycling and most other cyclists would be covered by their home insurance.
That's me! I was put off wearing a helmet when I reviewed by camera footage and noticed the amount of closes passes increased substantially when I was wearing a helmet versus when I wasn't and the fact I've had two "motorist at fault" accidents while wearing a helmet versus none when not wearing a helmet. It appears wearing a helmet might actually put you in more danger on the road. You can call it confirmation bias, but my findings have been replicated in other studies. While the studies of helmet use are inconclusive, I'll exercise my personal choice not to wear one.
I do not know if it is still the case, but I am pretty sure that in the past, the costs of treating motor accidents in NHS hospitals was regarded as "Extraordinary" and therefore charged for. The insurance companies footed the bill as part of the claim.
There is a case for charging for "Extraordinary" injuries and expecting people to either pay up or cover themselves by taking out additional insurance (In the same way as you have to pay extra travel insurance if you intend to do especially risky things)
For many sports it is not a bad idea anyway. Serious long term injuries are rare, but mountain biking/Rugby accidents (for instance) can leave people paralysed and in the absence of finding somebody to blame and claim against, ones future is likely to be bleak.
Wow, so I just googled for instances of a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian and the first one I brought up, from the viewpoint of the cyclist, was that the pedestrian they hit was at fault and should pay damages and compensation.
Bit of a mute point anyway seeing as I'm a member of British Cycling and most other cyclists would be covered by their home insurance.
That's me! I was put off wearing a helmet when I reviewed by camera footage and noticed the amount of closes passes increased substantially when I was wearing a helmet versus when I wasn't and the fact I've had two "motorist at fault" accidents while wearing a helmet versus none when not wearing a helmet. It appears wearing a helmet might actually put you in more danger on the road. You can call it confirmation bias, but my findings have been replicated in other studies. While the studies of helmet use are inconclusive, I'll exercise my personal choice not to wear one.
I thought this for a while, and while the statistics might suggest it's sensible I'd urge you to reconsider. I don't know about your but I would much rather have several minor injuries wearing a helmet than one involving my head being smashed up. Your limbs, organs, etc. can usually be fixed, your brain is much more precious.
The other thing for me was two friends getting into accidents, neither their fault, one involving a car and one a HGV. In both cases their helmets probably saved their lives. While there's a chance they could have taken their helmets off and avoided the accidents that seems like an insane gamble to make.
The other thing for me was two friends getting into accidents, neither their fault, one involving a car and one a HGV. In both cases their helmets probably saved their lives. While there's a chance they could have taken their helmets off and avoided the accidents that seems like an insane gamble to make.
How is it an insane gamble if there's evidence to say that drivers are less cautious around cyclists wearing helmets, therefore decreasing your safety on a bicycle?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
