Emergency Advice needed please (crash)

[Vorpal]

It's a little hard to tell what happened from what the OP has said, and that's obviously only one perspective, however, it sounds like vehicles were parked too close to the junction. If so, this is illegal, and would probably have contributed to the incident. Secondly, we don't know the status of the facility the OP was using.

Thirdly, a cyclist on the pavement should be visible above parked cars. Fourthly, from the OPs description they were out in the middle of the junction when hit, all of which lead me to believe that the driver could easily have avoided the crash.

When I am driving, I slow down, and stop, if necessary, when I see people approaching the road, as if they might cross, whether they are using facilities legally, or not. Every driver should do so. This driver was approaching a junction, exactly the sort of place that hazards are expected.

As for people dashing out from behind parked cars, there is normally some warning of their presence before such things occur. People on the pavement, children playing, etc. Where that is the case, speeds should be low, anyway. If they aren't, it is necessary to drive slowly. It is very poor infrastructure that mingles vulnerable people with speeds above 40 mph, and on residential or shopping streets, that should be 20 mph.

None of this should be controversial.

[mjr]

As a cyclist, driver and pedestrian, I think anyone crossing the road, particularly when obscured by parked cars has a responsibility to make sure the way is clear. To say that motorists should go slow enough to avoid anyone coming out from the side is crazy. Imagine if we insisted cyclists did this.

I do insist cyclists do that. Riding so as to protect the more vulnerable road user is NOT crazy. What's crazy is the situation we've let this country get into, where the law is so often ignored that if a motorist runs into a forseeable and common thing like someone crossing the road, then it's the person crossing who gets blamed for hindering the driver's right to blast past blind corners (because that's what parked vehicles often effectively create) at the maximum speed limit. It's crazy. Car-crazy.

One other thing - as it was 6am, I think this was in lighting up time, so did both parties have their lights on?

I doubt that's a consideration for the insurance claims in this case because neither party should hit unlit objects in the road.

It is defensible to use some footway...

..until it goes wrong, then you're up the proverbial creek without a means of propulsion.

As long as you don't hit a pedestrian or animal, I wouldn't go that far, but pavement cyclists are obviously open to accusations of contributory negligence and any damages being reduced as a result. I think even drunks who apparently walked out blind into traffic have been awarded some damages from the insurers of motorists who hit them, but vastly reduced.

[thirdcrank]

In civil cases, the English courts seem quite flexible about pavement cycling, depending on the circumstances. Kotula -v- EDF involved a pavement cyclist who fell into some unguarded roadworks and was badly injured. The utility company sought to refute any claim of negligence on the basis that the rider should not have been there in the first place. The judge took a different view.

In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling. In my judgment, although illegal and potentially negligent in any action vis a vis a pedestrian, it was not "blameworthy" in terms of negligence in contributory negligence.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/B11.html

IIRC, this case was first linked by thelawnet, but it's been discussed in several threads on here. None of this reduces the OP's need for an expert lawyer if they want to take this further.

[slowster]

from the OPs description they were out in the middle of the junction when hit, all of which lead me to believe that the driver could easily have avoided the crash.

I was riding across the road which is a side road, fit for only one car driving through that road at a time, so the pavement on both sides of the road are very close and less then 3 meters apart....
...I was positioned literally dead splat in front of her car when she hit me.

Without CCTV to examine and determine speeds and available reaction times, making judgements about who was at fault based on one party's description is of doubtful value. Given that that it was a narrow road, the fact that the OP was close to the middle of the road when the collision occurred does not necessarily mean that the driver had sufficient time to avoid hitting the OP.

If I take the OP's statement and deconstruct it/turn it around:

There were cars parked close to the edge obstructing her view.

And presumably also obstructing the OP's view, and yet the OP proceeded to ride into the road without checking properly to make sure it was safe to do so, something which he should especially have done since he did not have right of way.

I think some posters have a prejudice against drivers which inclines them to seek to see the driver as being at fault wherever possible. I wonder what those posters would say if the accident had involved another cyclist instead of a car, and the cyclist had hit the OP.

I had an accident where a teenager ran out from behind a parked van into my path when I was on a bike, and I had absolutely no warning and no time to brake. All I could do in the fraction of a second before impact was turn the handlebars just enough to avoid my front wheel hitting him dead on, with the result that he was largely unhurt but I was thrown off my bike as result of being unbalanced when I glanced off him.

When I read the OP's account, it reminded me of that incident, and I suspect the speed at which he cycled across the road was similar to that of a pedestrian running across the road.

[Lance Dopestrong]

.*.

The problem is no one means to hit a ped or an animal, or accidentally emerge in front of a car, but they do. The hospital and court rooms are littered with good intentions. We're very naive if we think it won't happen to us, or by simply being careful it'll be ok.

The only means by which we can be assured that we won't face unpleasant consequences is not to do it. Anything else is simply gambling, and we may well come up trumps for years, but you only need to be dealt a single bad hand to be in the doo.

The OP himself is demonstrating that actions have consequences.

It's a little hard to tell what happened from what the OP has said, and that's obviously only one perspective, however, it sounds like vehicles were parked too close to the junction. If so, this is illegal, and would probably have contributed to the incident.

All the more reason for a cyclist not to emerge at that point.

Thirdly, a cyclist on the pavement should be visible above parked cars.

And a car shoukd have been visoble to a cyclist, in exqctly the same manner.

Fourthly from the OPs description they were out in the middle of the junction when hit, all of which lead me to believe that the driver could easily have avoided the crash.

That applies equally to the cyclist, more so as the duty is on them to do so safely when emerging onto a new carriageway - if you can't do it safely, don't do it at all. However, our here suggested the car "came out of nowhere" - it clearly did not teleport in, leaving only two alternatives, that the cyclist was not looking, or he had emerged at a point where he had no view.

When I am driving, I slow down, and stop, if necessary, when I see people approaching the road, as if they might cross, whether they are using facilities legally, or not. Every driver should do so. This driver was approaching a junction, exactly the sort of place that hazards are expected.

Concur wholeheartedly. However, cyclists should do the same, particularly when mpenterjng a new traffic flow.

As for people dashing out from behind parked cars, there is normally some warning of their presence before such things occur. People on the pavement, children playing, etc. Where that is the case, speeds should be low, anyway. If they aren't, it is necessary to drive slowly. It is very poor infrastructure that mingles vulnerable people with speeds above 40 mph, and on residential or shopping streets, that should be 20 mph.

We have established that a cyclist has the same duty of care to both themselves and others. We have also establjshed that where a car drive 'ought' to be able to see a cyclist, then the cyclist has an identical, but reverse, line of sitpght to the car.

None of this should be controversial.

It isn't controversial, but not for the reasons you suggest.

In my original post I was quite careful not to pass judgement on the basis of a single, uncorroborated account. However, seeing as everyone is, then in my past experience as an AI, and 9 years as a professional cycle trainer (including advanced road skills), the OP is at least equally to blame. Thats not a game I'm comfortable playing, but seeing as everyone else is then Hell, why not join in?

.*. Some sort of quotation error that I cannot be bothered to sort out. Mr Dopestrong might care to correct using EDIT.

[mjr]

The only means by which we can be assured that we won't face unpleasant consequences is not to do it. Anything else is simply gambling, and we may well come up trumps for years, but you only need to be dealt a single bad hand to be in the doo.

Well, even not doing it is gambling. Everything is gambling. You gamble every time you put on clothes - have you seen how many clothing-related injuries there are?

By some measures, those disobeying some traffic laws may have better odds than the majority - so-called "risky cycling" is rarely a factor in collisions and while I disagree with the higher estimates of how many there are, I wouldn't call such cyclists rare.

None of this really helps the OP because they've hit the floor so I'll stop this here.

[Vorpal]

I am not suggesting that it's a good idea to ride out without looking, nor blaming the driver. I was mostly responding to posts which a) suggested that the OP was entirely at fault, and b) posts that implied drivers have no obligation to slow down on the basis that someone could come out from between parked cars.

Obviously, if someone dashes out with no warning, a crash may be unavoidable, but such things seldom occur with no warning whatsoever.

I expect that the cyclist has learned a lesson from this, even if they prove not to be at fault.

[Kiri]

Ok so maybe I seem to have explained a few things poorly.
Firstly yes I slowed down and looked right, the road isn't entirely straight, it curves right.
So after I had checked and turned my head forward the next thing I notice is a bonnet appear next to me.
The cars were obstructing however, regardless of whether I'm in the wrong for not keeping my head facing that road until i got to the other side of the road, she texted me saying she was looking right and that I came from the left, she already admitted that she didn't look right, adding to the point that she was not interested in the fact cars were obstructing, the road she is driving on is coming to an end so time to slow down, stop, look both ways, then drive off ...the point of where she hit me is at a point where she should have gone from slow, stop the then take off....she was slowing down past the point of where she should have stopped, she was practically ready to join the connecting road ahead of her.

Please understand one thing about message, I don't think drivers are always the blame, I think everyone is an idiot in this day and age who is 30years and under. And she was under 30 easily and behind the wheel admitting to only be looking right, driving too fast past a point where she is to have already stopped.

I would like to express this is my alias on here, I could say most things here and no one would know who I am unless it was clearly something the police needed notifying of like a person admitting to plan a murder or something, I have nothing to lie about in this post while having power of being anonymous.

When I say she came out of no where yes, obviously she existed in the planes of existence....what I mean is from the time it took me to look right, begin crossing, she had been driving fast enough to reach my point of awareness through peripheral vision only.
In lament terms, she was driving too fast.
I actually asked my friend today at work to drive slowly and take off til I saw the speed at which she was coming at also while pushing me forward 2-3 meters
I have no clue how fast she was driving before I noticed her but once I noticed she was driving at roughly 8-10 mph.
Now to me, that doesn't sound like slowing down in time for the point you are supposed to when coming to the end of a road, being she had already past that point and was still in motion even if it was 1/2 mph, she was still moving forward with no sight of entertaining the idea of actually stopping before joining that new road...
Also where do I stand at the fact on collision she wasn't aware for at least what felt realistically as 1-2 seconds....don't think 1-2 seconds is nothing when driving at 8-10mph and pushing someone a further few meters...
The women only noticed after my 2nd of 3rd wow...woww.....wooooooow!!! Whilst hanging onto the front trying not to go under her car.
Also if she had been looking surely she would of had time to reduce the danger levels a bit and just clip me....I was full on dead splat in the middle of her vehicle.

As for not nothing to look I want to say again, I fear for reckless drivers that feel they own the road, so I always look, I may not slow down depending on the road type, if I have a 360 view knowing there is no way in hell a car could come out of no where, this road however curves so yes I did slow down and look and so I accelerated and journeyed forward to my demise.

I have no reason to lie remember this, you people I am asking for help from have nothing against me, know me, or have any impact on my life here on after in person ( apart from the advice bit)...i treat you lot like my unofficial solicitors with only the power to give opinions and advise...lying to you lot making myself out to be the victim 100% will not get the effect results I seek.

Which is why I admitted to being on the pavement even without a helmet, I don't know all the rules or even many, which is why I thought it best to add every honest detail to better my gain.

I understand that riding on the pavement is illegal, I don't know if that pavement is a cyclist ok part, but i do indeed steer clear of any road that has a roundabout close by which this does.
They are ruthless for young people at night and early morning to zoom around as they presume no one is around which I myself have seen all the time.

I will ask for her insurance details upon the following few responses, I'm not sure to seek solicitors first or ask for her insurance.
I'm not sure if she is trying to pull a fast one and scare me off to foot the bill.
But at the same time I don't want to give her time to cover her tracks by notifying her I'm going to make a claim ...
Like I said I asked if her bumper and bonnet were ok only out of politeness not to sound like a person that doesn't care for their well being either, I know her bonnet was fine as I didn't go over her...I was slowly going UNDER her, the only thing that may be on her bonnet is a sweat stain from my hands trying to cling on as I'm pushed forward and underneath her ...
This is what made me think she's pulling a fast one.
Had I not said bumper bonnet I'm wondering if she would of even said that in response...

So please once again, what should my first action be.
I have house insurance so I should be covered
Do I ask for her details or contact a solicitor first
I called local shops and no one has a camera aimed where it happened, the police said there are no CCTV there either....so we now stand at the fact there is no footage...just her word against mine....to which my only proof is her somewhat admitting to pay for my damages but then later changing her mind...leading the the idea she believed at the time she had been in the wrong...

[Spinners]

Chasing the motorist for 'compo' sounds risky to me. So, putting aside any potential permanent injury you feel you might have, then it broadly sounds like the financial costs of repairs are about the same to you and the motorist so my advice would be to chalk it up to experience and get on with your life. Even writing up your posts here and reading some of the comments must be stressful for you so do you really want to put yourself through the hassle in a less than clear-cut case?

[Vorpal]

I'd say it depends upon what you want to accomplish, and if your insurance covers it.

The simplest thing is to notify your insurance company & let the insurance companies sort it out.

If that is not satisfactory, or you do not have insurance, I suggest that it would do no harm to speak with a solicitor. Many will offer a first consultation for free.

[100%JR]

All above points are valid but I would go with this personally:-

Chasing the motorist for 'compo' sounds risky to me. So, putting aside any potential permanent injury you feel you might have, then it broadly sounds like the financial costs of repairs are about the same to you and the motorist so my advice would be to chalk it up to experience and get on with your life. Even writing up your posts here and reading some of the comments must be stressful for you so do you really want to put yourself through the hassle in a less than clear-cut case?

The OP has said no CCTV,no witnesses and only has his word against the driver that she initially agreed to pay for repairs.I can't see a Solicitor wanting to touch it.

[thirdcrank]

We know that the OP has suffered personal injury and damage to their bike and they are looking for some recompense. Informal negotiation has failed so they are seeking advice. I think the only advice we can give is that to use legal channels they need professional advice from a lawyer specialising in personal injury claims after traffic accidents. If there is anybody posting on here with that sort of expertise, I'd be very surprised if they gave detailed advice on here.

There are plenty of lawyers advertising this sort of service who will only take on winnable cases and to decide what's winnable, they will undertake a free initial assessment. Recent changes have affected this form of access to the legal system but that's the way it is.

[mattsccm]

Have we not reached the point where the OP must surely be aware that he needs to seek professional advice that can proceed with any claim if seen fit?
That being the case, the continuation of this thread, with its opposing views which solve nothing, is pointless unless conflict is desired. No one contributing is going to solve the issue and so why continue. Surely conversations about cake or something have far more value?

[eileithyia]

Would it be possible to see a map link to the junction and where you crossed as I still cannot visualise what happened.

[Kiri]

I called a no win no fee cyclists solicitor, they said there is a good potential for a claim.
Thank you guys for all the advice.

My initial idea of posting here was to figure out if I should call and ask for her details before contacting a solicitor.
But I learned quite a bit here and really appreciate it...

Being she's lying about the car damages I don't want her to cover her tracks so didn't want to ask her straight out and give her the heads up that "yeh [moderated], let's rock n roll"
I got the quote back today from repair shop....wheel was badly damaged and needed replacing.
Gears replaced and brakes repairs and retuned .
£80
If I didn't claim against her all she would have to do is pay £80....I'm pretty sure her premium is going up more then that...foolish person...this is called karma.