Had an accident last night, I was taking some blood samples from work to the local hospital on my way home.
Anyway...
I was filtering past standing traffic and went round a bus (on its right in the middle of the road) doing 10/15 mph, as I cleared the front a (bi)cyclist appeared to my left from between the bus and a car. There was another bus coming down the other side of the road and I didn't have the room to go round him. So I didn't hurt him I just about managed to glance off his side. I've lost the front end doing this and hit the deck. His cycle has hit the car we were next to.
The outcome is that the car has a crease in the wing from the cycle hitting it (I never touched the car), the cycle itself has a buckled front wheel and my bike has lost a load of paint of the fairing and snapped the infill panel on the right. Couple of marks here and there but nowt serious. Cyclist not hurt, I have bumps scrapes and a broken right wrist.
Both the other guys were dead on and cool with me, the police saw me in the hospital and said as far as they were concerned there was nothing that suggested driving without due care ect.
Now I guess my question is this -- If anything insurance wise comes out of this what could the possible outcomes?
Any ideas guys??
Cheers
You're (I think) obliged to notify your insurers of any road accident on your bike involving other parties, so give them a call and let them know. Also, get a copy of the police report and send that to them, and details of the other parties involved and any witnesses.
You'd be surprised at the number of times people change their minds after accidents, and misremember the accident. The police saying you weren't in the "driving without due care and attention" category doesn't mean your liability is absolved. The guy in the car would have a valid claim for damage to his car, definitely. The cyclist might also try and get his bike repaired on your account.
Head Focced
That's a tricky one - you were going too fast given that you could not stop in time (what if it had been a child running out?), the cyclist should have looked properly before pulling out, car drivers are selfish twats and deserve all they get.
There's that 1960s case (is it Moodeys?) where a car pulls out of a side street into the path of a filtering bike - the judge ruled it was the bike's fault as a twat in a car can not be expected to think (I'm paraphrasing). I guess this is a similar principle. It's also generally the case that the overtaker is liable for stuff that goes wrong.
Get mended soon 
Another aspect to this incident is, are you insured to carry goods, ie for work purposes. Although I realise you may have been doing your employers a favour. If you are only insured for SD& P plus commuting, your insurance company might look for a get out clause even though you would have been going down that route anyway. Just a thought.
You did not touch the car ( from your post). So the car will need to claim off the cyclist who will in turn need to claim off you. Be interesting to see if the cyclist has insurance or legal cover (I do when I cycle). Probably not, so the cyclist is going to have to get some legal advice and they'll probably get an ambulance chaser suggesting they claim for injuries and emotional banjnangles.
My take on it? 50-50 blame, you'll both claim off each other but the total claim will be quite high with your broken wrist and bike mechanicing, his bike and bruising, plus the grand or so to repair the poor innocent's car who had nothing to do with it.
Can the car driver claim off the MIB fund if the cyclist is uninsured?
Interesting scenario, be good to hear the outcome and everything i have said is from someone with no qualifications, experience or good looks.
(14-12-11, 10:27 AM)Farjo link Wrote: There's that 1960s case (is it Moodeys?) where a car pulls out of a side street into the path of a filtering bike - the judge ruled it was the bike's fault as a twat in a car can not be expected to think (I'm paraphrasing).
Actually (AIUI) Powell vs Moody basically said that such accidents were 50/50, but IIRC this has been superceded by Davis vs Schrogin which says (in short) that the party who is making the manoeuvre is responsible for making sure that it's safe to do so.
Here's the details from the old Yuku Foc-U boards
Powell vs Moody was 80 / 20 in favour of the car driver, and is not superseeded by DvS as that relates to a U turn.
"the poor innocent's car" - well if he wasn't taking up so much room all for himself then the cyclist and our biker wouldn't have had to be filtering. Sadly, the law does not take this into account >:
Just a quick update folks.
The car driver thinks I'm responsible for the damage to his car and has asked me for money.....
The cyclist has confirmed to me on the phone that he has no injuries and just wants his cycle repaired.
Called it into my insurer (Groupama), they've taken my telling of the tale, the other parties details and the police log number etc.
Just gotta leave it with them now I spose, not holding my breath for a favourable outcome though!
(15-12-11, 05:07 PM)Farjo link Wrote: Powell vs Moody was 80 / 20 in favour of the car driver, and is not superseeded by DvS as that relates to a U turn.
Surely, though, the point is that "the judge found first that the defendant was negligent in making his U-turn without looking properly, or indeed at all, to his right", ie it's not the particular manoeuvre that's relevant, but the fact that he didn't "look properly, or indeed at all"?
AFAICS he attempted to claim "contributory negligence" ie saying that it was (at least in some part) also the biker's fault for overtaking there, which the original Judge accepted, but the Appeal Court denied.
My only other concern here is where it says "That in different situations an overtaking driver may well be guilty of contributory negligence is something about which there can be no debate. But it does not follow that every such driver is" and "Everything depends in those cases and depends in this case on the point at which the overtaking driver was alerted or should have been alerted to the fact that there was any danger ahead."
So the questions are: should the cyclist have looked to see if something was coming before moving out between the bus and the car and should the biker have considered that someone or something might come out as he was filtering, but I can't really answer them.
This sounds like a horrible situation. I hope it gets resolved favourably for you, and you heal nicely.
From my experience as a cyclist, when I filtered, I would ALWAYS stop and look out for motorbikes, when over taking on the right. By taking the decision to filter, I would have to consider all the potential hazards that I might come across, motorbikes being an obvious one. Here the cyclist is accountable for not anticipating such a hazard.
As a biker, whilst filtering, depending on the type of road, and environment you would expect different things. If in a built up area, I would always be prepared to slow down and look out for pedestrians, cyclists etc etc who are likely to emerge from in front of a parked bus, and be prepared to stop.
On something like a motorway, or ring road, where you wouldn't normally find cyclists, or cyclists are not permitted, or you'd have to really have a death wish to cycle there, then it is an unlikely situation for you to have to expect a cyclist, or pedestrian from in front of a bus, BUT it of course depends on the situation and environment.
Car drivers have a responsibility to everyone around them to drive safely and to make the effort to look out for motorcyclists, cyclists etc ESPECIALLY in slow moving traffic.
It is a difficult situation.
I once hit a cyclist in my car. It was dark and I was indicating to turn right and waiting for a gap in the heavy traffic. Other cars where undertaking me, and a few selfish people behind me had full beams on.
I checked my mirrors, checked my blind spot and slowly started to turn whilst still looking out for people. Despite looking, with the full beams in my face, I didn't see the cyclist till the last minute. I just clipped him and he nearly came off. He was going at about 20mph.
I pulled over, checked he was OK, other people were stopping and writing down my number plate and not talking to me.
He admitted that by overtaking a car that had it's right indicator on, wasn't very intelligent, and I explained that, despite him having flashing lights and hi vis clothing, that I STILL couldn't see him, despite looking out for him, due to arseholes driving with fog lights on, and blinding me whilst trying to be vigilant.
Who would have been at fault though if the outcome was more serious??
It's very very difficult.
I hope things get sorted for you soon, with a favourable outcome for you.
Well guys the insurance dude phoned from rider assist about the incident (sounds ominous that way!) All he wanted to do was check a few details.
I did however ask him about the car driver trying to claim off me even though I didn't actually touch him.
He told me something I never knew, he said that if its found that I'm the cause then the car driver can claim off me for damages. He gave the example of a 3 car rear end shunt. He said that the car at the front would claim off the car that caused it not the one in the middle.
So, I'm now hoping that they see sense and the cyclist is found at fault. As these things go I bet its easier all round to point the finger at the guy who has in the insurance and I'll get screwed......
rehab
not sure about liability in a 3 car shunt. The fact they collided into each other suggests all were travelling too close/ too fast. The only 1 with immunity is the guy at the front..
all this sort of thing says to me is ...its feckin dangerous to filter ! I hate doing it, though I can remember filtering miles recently when coming down M6 from Liverpool.Its a real dilemma. You just cant trust anyone, or relax at any time.I think towns are particularly bad since it all seems too acceptable and easy to do, folk get complacent.
my opinion is the cyclist is to blame since he moved into a lane from the cover of the bus without checking its safe to do so. Lucky for him he got off so light.
My mother was once at the front of a three car shunt (oi, you at the back)
Her insurance had to claim of the person who hit her (car in the middle (who'd stopped)) who then claimed of the bloke at the back
This was about 10 years ago though, so may have changed since, but I know it caused a lot fo annoyance and stress for all involved...
But yeah, fooking push bike should look where he's going 
Sorry to be the bringer of bad news but I know someone who was involved in a very similar one but at higher speed coming from the A12 into London. We commuted on a pan for the summer that the firebrigade were calling short notice strikes. Loads of experience biking wise but mostily on tour so not too much commuting.
He got caught up in the fast filter culture of the A12 (easily done I was doing the same stupid 40+ mph stuff on the A406). A push bike wheel appeared from between two 4X4s and he had a major off wrecking the pan and the cars around him. He was held fully accountable because he was overtaking too fast to brake for what should have been an expected obstacle. In your case you were going much slower but if you couldn't stop - still too fast. The car drivers insurer will expect yours to pay - I appreciate the cyclist is at least partially to blame but with no insurance they will put it all down to you. - I'd expect the worst and if its different then celebrate.
maybe it stime to have compulsory insurance for cyclists ?
they always claim they R hard done by, they R full road users etc etc :z ......time they shared in being insured too...
(19-12-11, 08:37 AM)pitternator link Wrote: maybe it stime to have compulsory insurance for cyclists ?
Sure, and while we're at it, given the number of accidents caused by pedestrians doing stupid things like stepping out without looking, let's make *them* have compulsory insurance too! :rolleyes
and make sure all cars, bikes and lorries are insured too 
When I cycled I had 3rd party insurance. The thing about keeping safe when cycling are the exact same things about keeping safe when riding or driving. Expect the unexpected.
The problem is, quite a lot of cyclists don't bother arming themselves with information they need to navigate the roads safely, are rarely able to pre-empt hazards, and, due to ignorance, can't put themselves in the shoes of other road users.
Same with impatient car drivers getting pissy with bikers. If they had ever spent any time on a bike, then I am certain they would drive better, and understand what they criticise so much. People always attack what they don't understand.
With regard to cyclists, and I see this in London all time, their ignorance results in often tragic results. With headlines like 'Cyclist killed by lorry' makes you think that the lorry driver purposefully murdered the cyclist, although when reading on, you discover that the cyclist put himself in lorries blind spot and got caught.
I do feel significantly safer on a motorbike, than I did on a cycle.
Further update:-
I got the claim form through today......
Included a request for a diagram, ok did that.
But...
They had put down what the call centre chappie had written down from my conversation on the phone.
Well what a load of balls it was. a good 10 minute verbal explanation had seemingly been turned into a typo ridden baddddly spelllted 3 sodding lines! That went along the lines of - I was driving past some cars and hit a cyclist.... Needless to say I crossed it out (initialled it) and typed out the proper version. Made me a tad angry!
Doesn't fill me with confidence for the rest of it to come!
(19-12-11, 08:37 AM)pitternator link Wrote: maybe it stime to have compulsory insurance for cyclists ?
they always claim they R hard done by, they R full road users etc etc :z ......time they shared in being insured too...
do not feed the troll...
|
![[Image: 151860.png]](http://badges.fuelly.com/images/smallsig-uk/151860.png)
