- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Dishonest driver....
Hello all. HELP!!!!!!
Two weeks ago I was hit off my bike on a Sunday morning riding towards home. The car did not slow down as he approached the roundabout and hit my rear wheel, sending me flying across the tarmac.
100% his fault. I have quite bad wounds to my left side and my rear wheel and frame are trashed.
He was around 70 and I trusted him to do the right thing.... Unfortunately he didn't and I have just found out that he reported the incident as non fault.
I felt sick to hear this and I am raging about it, but feel helpless.
The police refused to attend and I did not call for an ambulance because I did not want to take up NHS resources. I have made a report to the police and feel that he should be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. He admitted at the scene that he had not seen me. There was a pedestrian witness who was a marshall for the London to Southend bike event. I took her name and number just in case.
It looks like now I will have to go down the legal route with expenses and headaches that I should not be facing right now as the victim. Just goes to show that you cannot trust anyone in this country, even respectful looking pensioners!
Anyone got any ideas how I should approach this?
I really want him to get what he deserves, he had no concern for me as I was only a cyclist and shouldn't even be riding on the road.
Charlie.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- ROOTminus1 0 sec ago
What caught my eye about the leaderboard of Sa Calobra was #7; Sam Hill. Is that the Enduro and DH legend Sam Hill, Mr Flat-pedals-win-medals?
- MattKelland 5 min 54 sec ago
There will be an approximate 1.5 m wide strip of grass...
- bensynnock 24 min 29 sec ago
Taxis are the worst.
- bensynnock 29 min 36 sec ago
Quite. I was wondering where the cycling infrastructure is located that causes drivers to go 90 on the M3?
- I love my bike 58 min 49 sec ago
If one is prepared to pay £28 for a TPU tube, the butyl comparison should be Continental's Supersonic ~50g or Schwalbe at 70g. Both costing £8 - ...
- I love my bike 1 hour 10 min ago
Media needs to do their part, but the readr/consumer also needs to do theirs as well:...
- ubercurmudgeon 1 hour 46 min ago
Kona makes practical, affordable commuter bikes and goes bust. Colnago makes toys for the affluent and it is booming. Just goes to show that the...
- Mathemagician 3 hours 8 min ago
To answer your question, yes you can sometimes feel the difference. Built a set of wheels for a friend and he installed them with new lightweight...
- chrisonabike 10 hours 16 sec ago
Ah but taking pictures of things to defy the man (avoid a fine) is righteous. Taking pictures of people to grass on them to the cops (perhaps...
Add new comment
34 comments
Thank you all for your words of wisdom. I had let my British Cycling membership lapse some time back but I contacted them anyway. Got an email back very quickly saying that they could not directly help me but had passed my details to their legal partners Leigh Day?
So I got a call today and was offered a no win no fee deal and they would take on the case for me. I asked how much it will cost me and it would be £70 if I got less than £5k for my claim, £140 if more than 5k.
Right now that seems like a good deal. It is less about money and more about principle for me now.
No win - bit of a fee? Crack on and keep us posted.
We care and feel your pain as many of us have been in the same position. We understand that this is actually a big deal to you to get resolved not only for your financial loses but also the basic unfairness of allowing someone to lie their way out their responsibilities.
However, no-one else gives a crap. Not the Police, not the insurance clerk, certainly not the legal system and probably not your lawers from whatever source as in the grand scheme of things your claim is both trivial and unlikely to succeed.
If you have insurance details then go straight there. If not then there is a system for getting details if you have a reg number for a small fee. Detail your losses, don't take the piss and they may settle for a few £ hundred as it is cheaper than the admin costs of contesting. You will (well I would, as I am petty and small minded) also get the satisfaction of knowing that matey boy's insurance renewal just got more expensive.
Take home message is to invest in at least 1 camera. You won't get run over any less but it will be far easier to recover any losses with actual proof, not who has a version of events plausible enough to deny liability.
Best wishes for a full recovery to health and fitness, that is the main thing.
Ha ha you built me up and dropped me like a stone all in 2 paragraphs. Got to say that I agree with you, I keep resisting the camera option but it can save lots of stress.
Just be careful that lots of insurance and even Police reports treat incidents on Roundabouts as knock-for-knock simply because rules are vague for them (look at the 100 or so comments at a NMOTD last year for one). When I was taken out by a driver, the police were very "meh" until I mentioned they hadn't stopped at all, which was more actionable to them.
Having been in a car to car collision on a roundabout resulting in a claim I have to agree with you, particularly if there's no camera evidence. One question you'll get asked is whether you were established on the roundabout and whether you were changing lane. Priority and give way to the right doesn't come into it.
Wouldn't being "established on the roundabout" also mean that you'd be to the right of a vehicle joining it?
The trouble is if you look at the highway code for roundabouts, the only MUST is going around the painted area on a mini-roundabout, the rest are you should:-
So as there is no Giveway markings on most roundabouts, you in theory do not need to even stop to see if the way is clear.
Yes, but approaching from the right on a mini roundabout would not be "established on the roundbout" Effectively allowing an interpretation that leads to a game of chicken. If you can get onto the roadabout before the car coming from your right, you may not need to give way to them.
The rules aren't particularly clear with mini roundabouts - I prefer to reduce speed if I can't see what's approaching.
It's not really a game of chicken, it's ensuring that you give priority to the right to vehicles on the roundabout AND don't crash into any vehicles already ahead of you on the roundabout.
That effectively means you need to be prepared to deal with traffic coming from the right AND emerging from the left before you reach the roundabout. Which is what any competent driver would do.
The trouble is, the highway code doesn't emphasise this enough, 'look forward before moving off' sounds like you only need to look forward if you had stopped!
The Highway Code doesn't properly seem to cover the "Be alert for drivers who enter at the same time but ignore the dot in the middle, trying to cut across in front of you." - effectively going the wrong way round the roundabout.
two vehicles appraoching a mini roundabout, if the one coming from the left he can get there first and be "established" on the roundabout before the one from the right enters the roundabout 0.2s later. The driver from the left shoudl really be looking to their right and giving way., but the other driver isn't technically on the roundabout yet.
I find the road markings on roundabouts can be quite confusing. Often some arms of the roundabout will have Give Way markings on the road, while the remaining arms do not.
So are the rules different if the markings are different? The highway code says "check whether road markings allow you to enter the roundabout without giving way", which sounds positively dangerous if taken at face value.
There are some roundabouts where you can enter without giving way. It's not common, but some have give way markings for circulating traffic, such as this one... https://goo.gl/maps/m7hfcXFgoVGVYCZW6
On a mini-roundabout, the thick/short dashed lines and the double-dashed give way markings hold the same mandatory 'MUST' requirement to give way to traffic circulating on the roundabout. They mean exactly the same thing, but the 'give way' lines are sometimes chosen to make the junction more prominent; it lets them throw up a give way sign as well as a blue circle of arrows.
The white circle marking also has this mandatory requirement, so is effectively a give way too!
"no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] marking in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident"
Thanks, that makes sense. I'd pictured a standard roundabout with no give way markings at the entrances.
But this is mitigated by the potential for a vehicle to emerge in front. So there is a limit to how fast you can approach a roundabout, because you need to factor in vehicles coming from 2 directions.
It's certainly a game of chicken if you only consider that you have to give way to your right. If you can see that direction is clear, then the faster you approach the roundabout, the sooner you get 'priority' over vehicles emerging from the left.
All you roundabout rookies
Come to Milton Keynes for training
Slater & Gordon are likely your guys. I'm looking at my copy of Cycle magazine and the advert for the CUK incident line service is similar to what I describe below - provided by Fletchers solicitors of Southport. 0330 107 1789.
The evidence from the witness is vital.
I got a non-specialist no win, no fee firm through my house insurance legal helpline (what a sham, charging you for access to a referral service, but that's another story.)
When I was knocked off, I kept my broken bike for months in case it was needed in evidence. You may need to get yours valued for replacement purposes.
Keep a record of how you are inconvenienced, in pain and suffering loss as a result of his carelessness. I had an ankle sprain and was assessed by a private GP - maybe you should do similar? Take pictures of your bike and your wounds. Nothing broken or sprained? Keep it factual and evidenced.
I didn't get police at the scene, but an officer came and took a statement a few days later. I still remember his voicemail to arrange this, something about getting "my version" of what happened. So there was more than one version, was there? That is, the pack of lies the driver, in tears at the scene, told the police and the truth as told by me, my bike and - thankfully - another driver. So I feel your pain 15 years later that Gramps is trying to wiggle out of it.
It would be satisfying for this family to know about this, assuming they're not as bad as him. Forget about revenge and shaming - I'm sorry to say.
The haggling went on for several months - you're just in a rather scuzzy tussle with his insurance trying to deny and minimise, you trying to collect.
Your posted account isn't very clear what happened - write it down now, as though you were making a police statement. Good luck!
Good advice below but if you dont have legal cover anywhere you can do this work yourself.
I take it you have his insurance details. You can still make a claim against them. Visit a Dr, GP or A and E, and have your injuries examined/recorded. The insurer will want the witness details and much will depend on their account of the collision so it will be worth getting their account from them incase when they recieve the call from the pushy insurance guy they decide it's all too much hassle, you can find guidance online that will assist. Do your own homework and see if there is any CCTV, shops, houses, ring doorbell etc. At some point you will need your bike to be examined at a LBS for a repair/replacement quote.
Also non attendance by the police does not mean he cannot be prosecuted although does make it less likely. They should be recording and investigating the collision including statements from the witness. But any insurance claim is likely to be on hold until the police investigation cncludes.
Best of luck.
OP check your home insurance policy for cover.
Are you a Cycling UK or British Cycling member? If so, suggest you call them and get advice from their tame lawyers.
Sorry to be off topic but is the 'tame lawyers' comment a dig at how useful they are when you need them?
I've been thinking lately about joining one or the other for the personal accident insurance, third-party liability insurance and legal support.
As for the OP, if you aren't a Cycling UK or British Cycling member you could check if you have any legal assistance from your home insurance, employer, union etc.
Those things should come under a home insurance policy.
Also if you are in a union, you might get one of those or being able to pay a small fee for them.
I already have some cover from my union and home insurance but I was thinking CUK or BC might be more specialised and a lot more useful if I'm knocked off my bike or find myself in a similar situation to the cyclist charged with holding up a driver for 9 seconds.
Holding up white van man - grafter, "fella's got to earn a living" - for just 8 seconds is something society takes a dim view of in Liz Truss's Desperation Britain, it's tantamount to being anti-growth - you wouldn't want to be anti-growth, would you?
You're right, I should stop being so entitled. I now realise that drivers have important things to be getting on with and don't have time to worry about my safety.
CUK every time, and not just for the solicitors. They are far more likely to fight for you than your home insurance bods and are likely to have more experience of this specific type of litigation.
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/personal-injury-claim/road-traffic-accide...
S+G were CUK's solicitors for 20 years but CUK now use Cycle SOS - more about the change here:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/cycling-uk-incident-line-faqs
Thanks. I'm leaning towards CUK as I look more closely at both and read others comments on Road.cc.
I moved from BC to CUK when BC decided to defend drivers watching tv footage behind the wheel as long as it is part of a bike race.
Many cyclists complained, but the just doubled down with closed roads blah blah blah.
Pages