psvrichard
Your case seems to illustrate the value of good legal advice. You will hear all sorts of people coming out with homespun theories but if you are a CTC member, it is available from a firm of solicitors with a proper brass plate on the door. (Why keep a dog and bark yourself?)
As I mentioned earlier, a 'due care' prosecution after a road accident, when there are no independent witnesses is very difficult. I would add that sometimes police officers anticipate that result and so make it inevitable - if you never look for witnesses you are unlikely to find any.
On the other hand, drivers switching places to avoid points / disqualification / wife finding they were out with the girlfriend etc., etc., is a serious matter and should be investigated. Try contacting your CTC solicitor and asking them to put the allegation to the police. That would be less likely to be ignored. (In fact, if the driver is in any way dodgy, they are less likely to resist the compensation claim, to avoid anybody having to give evidence.)
Been flattened but driver denies anything - what should I do
-
RoadToSomewhere
psvrichard
You seem to be in the same position as i am - accident happens, other party admit liability, and offer to pay for damage, doc says i'll be back on bike in 6 weeks, i ask solicitor to write to him as i'm not confident he'll pay me, other party gives changed account of events to his insurance co, including claiming the person he was with is unknown to him.
Anyway 6months later and i'm only just back on the bike and seen his statement, initially i felt so dejected as we'd (solicitor and i) expected the discussions to be over legal matters not how the accident happened. But having thought about his account of the incident there are many things that just make no sense at all.
Guess the insurance companies people need their exciting days out the office in court rather than just sitting behind a desk accepting liability and cases like mine that are not your average every day type of claim (ie i was not on a road, no vehicle was involved and the police were not involved) gives them even more excitement.
Anyway hope your case goes smoothly and just keep remebering no matter what happens legally you know what actually happened, it won't help pay to rectify the damage but you'll still be out there riding.
You seem to be in the same position as i am - accident happens, other party admit liability, and offer to pay for damage, doc says i'll be back on bike in 6 weeks, i ask solicitor to write to him as i'm not confident he'll pay me, other party gives changed account of events to his insurance co, including claiming the person he was with is unknown to him.
Anyway 6months later and i'm only just back on the bike and seen his statement, initially i felt so dejected as we'd (solicitor and i) expected the discussions to be over legal matters not how the accident happened. But having thought about his account of the incident there are many things that just make no sense at all.
Guess the insurance companies people need their exciting days out the office in court rather than just sitting behind a desk accepting liability and cases like mine that are not your average every day type of claim (ie i was not on a road, no vehicle was involved and the police were not involved) gives them even more excitement.
Anyway hope your case goes smoothly and just keep remebering no matter what happens legally you know what actually happened, it won't help pay to rectify the damage but you'll still be out there riding.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
This is one area where it is hard to blame insurance companies - something I am not normally slow to do. Infirst instance, they can only go by what they are told and if their insured tells porky pies, either because he is out with somebody else's wife or for some other reason, they may not find it easy to get to the bottom of it.
The point about the sort of 3rd party insurance which most drivers are required to have, is that even if there is some sort of dispute between the first and second parties (driver and the company) any compensation is still payable to the third party (injured person) and even if the insurance company may be able to recover from the insured. If the driver is never traced or uninsured, the there is the motor insurers bureau safety net but that is only for death and injury, not damage.
As I said above, where the insured is being dodgy/untruthful/elusive it is generally harder for the company to dispute a third party claim because they are basing their case on the evidence of poor witnesses.
The point about the sort of 3rd party insurance which most drivers are required to have, is that even if there is some sort of dispute between the first and second parties (driver and the company) any compensation is still payable to the third party (injured person) and even if the insurance company may be able to recover from the insured. If the driver is never traced or uninsured, the there is the motor insurers bureau safety net but that is only for death and injury, not damage.
As I said above, where the insured is being dodgy/untruthful/elusive it is generally harder for the company to dispute a third party claim because they are basing their case on the evidence of poor witnesses.
-
psvrichard
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 6:12pm
- Location: Wakefield
Further update
Been advised by RJW that the driver's cover only started on the afternoon of my accident which was in the morning. They are assessing whether the driver was covered in the morning by somebody else but my gut feeling is that the driver has made the schoolboy assumption that insurance can be taken out after an accident and not before!!
I've been advised that for any criminal charges to be made this has to be done within 6 months of the incident and all the messing about to date has wasted 4 months.
Be warned that the police 7 day checks for drivers spoken to under caution seem quite easy to circumvent.
I've been advised that for any criminal charges to be made this has to be done within 6 months of the incident and all the messing about to date has wasted 4 months.
Be warned that the police 7 day checks for drivers spoken to under caution seem quite easy to circumvent.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
psvrichard
Unless there has been a fundamental change, 'no insurance' is one of the offences where the clock for statute barred (information must be laid within 6 months) only begins to run when the offence is detected, not when it is committed.
I do not understand what you mean in the final sentence.
If it does turn out that the driver was uninsured, the Motor Insurers Bureau does provide some compensation for personal injury, but not damage to property. Have a look at:-
http://www.mib.org.uk/Default.htm
Unless there has been a fundamental change, 'no insurance' is one of the offences where the clock for statute barred (information must be laid within 6 months) only begins to run when the offence is detected, not when it is committed.
I do not understand what you mean in the final sentence.
If it does turn out that the driver was uninsured, the Motor Insurers Bureau does provide some compensation for personal injury, but not damage to property. Have a look at:-
http://www.mib.org.uk/Default.htm
-
psvrichard
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 6:12pm
- Location: Wakefield
Further investigations
Hi,
It's been a while but I've been doing some investigating myself and what I've found concerns me greatly.
My comments re 7 days is that when a driver is interviewed under caution they have 7 days to produce their licence and insurance docs at a police station.
I relied on this control to establish whether or not the driver is genuine and the police told me that it was their problem and not mine to worry about. I've since found out that the driver only turned up with docs after 14 days, well outside the stipulated 7 and this was not followed up or addressed.
He also arranged cover starting on the day of the accident and nobody at the police has noticed the fact that cover started after the accident took place so the driver was in fact uninsured.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to discover these facts and yet the file is closed and I have to get the defendants insurance co to prove that they were not insured before the police will take any action.
I see this as very serious as the driver was able to deceive the police so easily. Granted, it's hardly CID stuff but the controls are there to make people fear the consequences and buy insurance, not think they can arrange cover following the accident.
Thanks for advice on MIB, it looks like they will be my next port of call in the absence of a willing insurer!!
It's been a while but I've been doing some investigating myself and what I've found concerns me greatly.
My comments re 7 days is that when a driver is interviewed under caution they have 7 days to produce their licence and insurance docs at a police station.
I relied on this control to establish whether or not the driver is genuine and the police told me that it was their problem and not mine to worry about. I've since found out that the driver only turned up with docs after 14 days, well outside the stipulated 7 and this was not followed up or addressed.
He also arranged cover starting on the day of the accident and nobody at the police has noticed the fact that cover started after the accident took place so the driver was in fact uninsured.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to discover these facts and yet the file is closed and I have to get the defendants insurance co to prove that they were not insured before the police will take any action.
I see this as very serious as the driver was able to deceive the police so easily. Granted, it's hardly CID stuff but the controls are there to make people fear the consequences and buy insurance, not think they can arrange cover following the accident.
Thanks for advice on MIB, it looks like they will be my next port of call in the absence of a willing insurer!!
-
wellingtonrock
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 22 May 2007, 2:14pm
- Location: worthing, west sussex
I was being harrassed on my commute - on the bikepath - so bought one of those little battery video cameras and fitted it to my helmet. I haven't had any problems with that dogwalker since, but was nearly run down by a maniac reversing from a drive, then smoking his tyres straight at me when I called him a rude word. As I got it all on video, the police were quite interested! I don't go out without it now. There can't be any arguments if it's on video. That's why the police are wearing them now too. Surveillence society? Mebbe, but as one of those with nothing to conceal I am glad I can hit back at liars and lawbreakers on the road.
Psvrichard
Amazed that police have closed the file based on your post regarding documents. Write to your MP and complain about the police and send a copy of your letter to the police. Might get them to wake up. If no satisfaction from MP then arrange an appointment at their surgery or get the local press involved. Pity such measures are required, but they often get results (or so I have discovered).
Amazed that police have closed the file based on your post regarding documents. Write to your MP and complain about the police and send a copy of your letter to the police. Might get them to wake up. If no satisfaction from MP then arrange an appointment at their surgery or get the local press involved. Pity such measures are required, but they often get results (or so I have discovered).
-
wellingtonrock
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 22 May 2007, 2:14pm
- Location: worthing, west sussex
yaxu
They are a bit expensive I guess. I paid £75 + £18 shipping from the USA for mine on ebay and thought it was pretty good value 'til I got hit with the VAT bill (and that was after I'd given the positive feedback!) They cost around the same total amount from UK distributors.
And the picture quality is pretty good - 640 X 480 at 30 FPS and one hour of recording on a 2 GByte card. There are other resolutions and frame rates to get longer recordings but that lowers the quality.
They are a bit expensive I guess. I paid £75 + £18 shipping from the USA for mine on ebay and thought it was pretty good value 'til I got hit with the VAT bill (and that was after I'd given the positive feedback!) They cost around the same total amount from UK distributors.
And the picture quality is pretty good - 640 X 480 at 30 FPS and one hour of recording on a 2 GByte card. There are other resolutions and frame rates to get longer recordings but that lowers the quality.
-
riveralex
You have my sympathy, hugely. I'm sure you have everyone's!
Unfortunately the truth is that some drivers are extrordinarily unthinking and some even sadistic (White van man) when it comes to cyclists.
Yesterday while testing a new bike - i had just come out of Edinburgh Co-op, which must be Edinburgh's busiest cycle shop, always teeming with bikes and cyclists - and riding perfectly correctly on the lh side of the carriageway, a driver passed me on the right, accellerating as he did so, and turned left, straight in front of me.
This time I didn't go over his bonnet - but i was in shock. A lovely driver witnessed the incident and called out to me "Unbelievable!!".
Which it was.
Unfortunately the truth is that some drivers are extrordinarily unthinking and some even sadistic (White van man) when it comes to cyclists.
Yesterday while testing a new bike - i had just come out of Edinburgh Co-op, which must be Edinburgh's busiest cycle shop, always teeming with bikes and cyclists - and riding perfectly correctly on the lh side of the carriageway, a driver passed me on the right, accellerating as he did so, and turned left, straight in front of me.
This time I didn't go over his bonnet - but i was in shock. A lovely driver witnessed the incident and called out to me "Unbelievable!!".
Which it was.
-
wellingtonrock
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 22 May 2007, 2:14pm
- Location: worthing, west sussex
Well, I joined Youtube and posted it. Let's see if it works...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQwNG_Jjk8
Yep, it worked! Very short sequence, and face/number plate no longer readable, as resolution has been reduced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQwNG_Jjk8
Yep, it worked! Very short sequence, and face/number plate no longer readable, as resolution has been reduced.
-
LaStradaGiusta
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 15 Aug 2007, 12:57pm
- Location: Briton Ferry, Neath
Re: Further investigations
psvrichard wrote:Thanks for advice on MIB, it looks like they will be my next port of call in the absence of a willing insurer!!
Hopefully, my experience is not typical, but ...
I was knocked off my bike in November 2003 in a very clear cut case. The driver, who failed to stop, had fog lamps on (on a clear night) so his/her reg number was not readable. Hence my claim was to MIB. 3½ years later, I am still waiting for an offer.
I'm very disillusioned with MIB's conduct of the case; they have acted exactly as loss adjustors behave, endeavouring to play down the extent of my injuries as much as possible. For example, the doctor they nominated only saw me for 10 minutes, ignored everything I said and stated that any ongoing injury I have was caused by something other than that collision. They have refused me permission to get a second opinion, even after I offered to pay for it.
And of course, they only consider claims for injury (and rehabilitation costs, time off work, etc), not property.
Hopefully, you will have more luck with MIB, but I would consider suing the driver instead.
- matt
-
psvrichard
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 6:12pm
- Location: Wakefield
Just to update readers. The police did eventually charge the driver for having no insurance and he got 6 points and £100 fine. The MIB have interviewed me and thought he should have been done for perverting the course of justice as well but one thing at a time. My claim is now ongoing but it could be some time before a conclusion is reached. I'm enjoying riding to work again on my city bike.