Please look at the video of a Lorry knocking me off.

[thirdcrank]

Bearing in mind the well-publicised space invader stuff, which presumably has been circulated as widely in the haulage industry as it has on cycling forums, it seems strange that the driver should offer an explanation which, by it's nature, includes agreeing that he saw the cyclist, if he didn't.



==========================================================
PS A valuable element of instructing a solicitor is that in their negotiations, they will explore what evidence is in the possession of the other side - the purpose being to curtail the wangling and to reach an out-of-court settlement, rather than wasting court time. I believe it's now increasingly common for commercial vehicles to be fitted with fixed cameras in the cab. Perhaps this lorry had one. I see the OP has not been back so we may never know any more.

[Mick F]

Going back to what I said on page one:

The lorry driver hadn't seen you approaching - it was self evident. Also, later as he overtook (and hit) you, he hadn't seen you then either. How far behind you was he after you undertook him? I wonder if he was even aware of the incident or presence. What happened next? Did he stop? Who picked you up? Were there any witnesses?

IMO, he was driving without due care and attention, but TBH, you didn't help yourself by riding like that.

Some questions haven't been answered.

Here's some more:

Where is the OP? It was obviously an "off" caused by the lorry, but why not come back and answer our questions?

How do we know the lorry driver saw him? Perhaps he thinks he should have seen him (when he didn't) and then made an excuse that he did see him but the cyclist wobbled! Pack of lies IMHO.

When and where did all this happen?

[Edwards]

Where is the OP? It was obviously an "off" caused by the lorry, but why not come back and answer our questions?

Having been condemned for nearly 5 pages I am not surprised.

If the truck driver did not see him how did he know he swerved?

I would write a letter* to the insurance company thanking them for admitting liability as they have clearly shown that the driver did not obey Highway code Rule 213.

*Using a solicitor

[hexhome]

We don't know for sure (and never will) whether the truck driver saw the cyclist, we do know that he should have. If the driver had made correct observations, he would have seen the cyclist. If I was driving that truck in that position I would certainly have seen the cyclist. There are 'blind spots' but they are covered by mirrors and the cyclist wasn't in that position all the time.The suggestion of a swerve was made by the insurer. That would probably have been as a result of a statement by the driver, but again, we don't know this.

There is a very separate issue concerning cycle lanes and whilst such discussion is useful, it is not particularly helpful to the OP in this regard. It may be that some cyclists would ignore the cycle lane and hold back, but in my experience, not many!

We don't know the motivation of the OP other than his indignation at what has happened to him. He has only asked for our opinions which have been freely given.

[hexhome]

PS A valuable element of instructing a solicitor is that in their negotiations, they will explore what evidence is in the possession of the other side - the purpose being to curtail the wangling and to reach an out-of-court settlement, rather than wasting court time. I believe it's now increasingly common for commercial vehicles to be fitted with fixed cameras in the cab. Perhaps this lorry had one. I see the OP has not been back so we may never know any more.

An extremely valuable point about disclosure, which reinforces the need for a solicitor.

Regarding cameras, not that common unfortunately, but worth a solicitor finding out.

[thirdcrank]

(Others have posted since I began this. It's mainly posted in response to MickF)

I'm always suspicious of one-post controversies but the footage looks pretty genuine to me. The red carriageway lines presumably mean it's somewhere in the Transport for London area.

In any discussion like this, we only have the account of one, interested party. In this case, that party has put up the vid without any self-justifying explanations.

Now, they have reported what the insurers have alleged. We've not seen their letter, of course, and the OP's version of it may be an inaccurate one, Having said all that, from what we have been told, the insurance company's defence is that the collision was only caused when the rider swerved to avoid the grate. (At this point, we might say that that would be irrational of the cyclist since he had room to swerve the other way but that's irrelevant and pointless.) To make their allegation with any credibilty, the insurers must have the evidence of a witness - presumably the lorry driver. (I'd have to say I'm making the assumption that when negotiating in a civil claim like this, the parties are required to be truthful about the evidence in their possession.)

In a criminal case, a witness who changes their evidence about a substantial matter is a lame duck. (It shows that either they have a poor memory and carelessly allege things that they are unsure of, or that they change their account to suit the emerging evidence.) I can't imagine this is any different in a civil case. So, I presume the cyclist swerving version is the one that would be used to defend the case.

[stewartpratt]

However there is no other reason for having that white line on the road if it isnt for the purpose of showing that cycles can use it to overtake cars who are the other side of it.

Personally I think the reasons for it are these and only these:

1. by preventing vehicles from entering it or parking in it, it keeps the lane clear for when the main lane is properly congested, which appeases those cyclists who have to always be at the front of a queue of traffic
2. by defining a fixed dividing line it places a clear boundary between the two flows, which mainly has the effect of allowing the motorised traffic to proceed in almost total ignorance of the cyclists (since they have their own space, and as long as you're not in it you're fine), which appeases those motorists who don't really care how they get past a cyclist as long as they don't subsequently have to get involved in some irksome paperwork or splash out on a tin of T-Cut

(FWIW I have a deep loathing of on-road cycle lanes. This may be self-evident.)

If the truck driver did not see him how did he know he swerved?

You're making assumptions. Isn't it quite possible that the insurers have seen the video, noted the drain, and clutched at that straw as an opportunity to deny liability?

[Edwards]

The claim made by the truck driver that the cyclist swerved also shows that he saw the cyclist. It is not possible to also claim he did not see him, as how else would he know that he swerved.

The OP asked for help and got "Expert Witness for the Prosecution". Another thread was started to discuss the ins and outs. This one has generally not helped other than to provide help to the truck drivers insurance and any other driver "who wants to get away with it" in the future.

I feel that I would not be asking for help on here again if this is what happens.

[thirdcrank]

...You're making assumptions. Isn't it quite possible that the insurers have seen the video, noted the drain, and clutched at that straw as an opportunity to deny liability?

Anything is possible, but it's hard to believe they reject claims out-of-hand based on supposition (as opposed to denying liabilty) without reference to the insured driver's account. If the lorry driver had been taken unawares by a space invader, it seems incredible to me that they did not put that forward, for the reasons I've already posted.

[Guy951]

I'm always suspicious of one-post controversies but the footage looks pretty genuine to me. The red carriageway lines presumably mean it's somewhere in the Transport for London area.

In any discussion like this, we only have the account of one, interested party. In this case, that party has put up the vid without any self-justifying explanations.

Cynical as I am, I can't help wondering if this vid was posted by the insurance company specifically to garner the sort of comments which would help them in their quest not to pay out, as in "we put it on a cycling forum and experienced cyclists agree that the claimant was in the wrong" sort of thing.

There are no lows that insurance companies will not stoop to if it means not having to hand over money.

[meic]

(Others have posted since I began this. It's mainly posted in response to MickF)

I'm always suspicious of one-post controversies but the footage looks pretty genuine to me. The red carriageway lines presumably mean it's somewhere in the Transport for London area.

In any discussion like this, we only have the account of one, interested party. In this case, that party has put up the vid without any self-justifying explanations.

Now, they have reported what the insurers have alleged. We've not seen their letter, of course, and the OP's version of it may be an inaccurate one, Having said all that, from what we have been told, the insurance company's defence is that the collision was only caused when the rider swerved to avoid the grate. (At this point, we might say that that would be irrational of the cyclist since he had room to swerve the other way but that's irrelevant and pointless.) To make their allegation with any credibilty, the insurers must have the evidence of a witness - presumably the lorry driver. (I'd have to say I'm making the assumption that when negotiating in a civil claim like this, the parties are required to be truthful about the evidence in their possession.)

In a criminal case, a witness who changes their evidence about a substantial matter is a lame duck. (It shows that either they have a poor memory and carelessly allege things that they are unsure of, or that they change their account to suit the emerging evidence.) I can't imagine this is any different in a civil case. So, I presume the cyclist swerving version is the one that would be used to defend the case.

Keeping on the irrelevant and pointless, there is a small paving edge between the lay-by and the road.
Most of us (who ride with narrow tyres especially) have learnt not to cross them at very low angles, it is ever so slightly possible that the crash was caused by the lorry intimidating him into doing exactly that rather than an actual knock.
Regardless of whether you have mirrors or not you dont have a truck that close without knowing all about it.

[Edwards]

I have recent experience of this type of insurance company thing explained to me by the solicitor from RJW that is dealing with my wife's claim in relation to a letter written by an insurance company to my wife.

If they make a claim like this they are doing so on behalf of the driver and his statement to them. If the driver is claiming not to see the cyclist they are also stating other admissions.
In this case if they state the cyclist swerved and there was a collision, then they are stating in writing that the driver did not obey rule 213.

This is the reason why some very wise people (other than I) have always said "Get a Solicitor".

Remember anything you say will be used against you.

[horizon]

When and where did all this happen?

In Burlington Lane in Chiswick just past the second entrance to Chiswick House on the A316.

I don't know how to get the Streetview link but I have seen it on Streetview.

I don't know when it happened.

[The Mechanic]

It could be that the insurance company have also got the footage and are using it in support of their claim that the rider swerved.

[Edwards]

It could be that the insurance company have also got the footage and are using it in support of their claim that the rider swerved.

Even if that is the case Rule 213 still applies.