Been flattened but driver denies anything - what should I do

Ben Lovejoy · Post by **Ben Lovejoy** » 21 Dec 2007, 8:15pm

Glad to see a good interim result, though I agree he should have been prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The good news about his conviction is it means he now has extremely low credibility as a witness, so in any civil case of your word against his, you ought to prevail.

Ben

drossall · Post by **drossall** » 21 Dec 2007, 8:34pm

wellingtonrock wrote:As I got it all on video, the police were quite interested!

Are you saying that you have posted on a public site evidence that may be used in proceedings? Is that wise?

mankymitts · Post by **mankymitts** » 22 Dec 2007, 10:40am

Glad to hear positive things are starting to happen.

The fine is laughable, why pay £250 to insure your car as I do, when you can ride around without insurance (probably for years) and when you are caught it only costs £100. Now he has points on his licence there will be even less incentive for him to get insurance.

MM

psvrichard · Post by **psvrichard** » 27 Feb 2008, 1:39pm

Just been for an independent medical assessment. Not quite sure of the process as not really claiming that I've been traumatised by the accident or anything like that. Memory was a massive problem for about 12 months but seems to have returned to normal now but external physical injuries took about a month to clear up.

Does anyone know how quickly the MIB tend to progress once the assessment has been done? I've had a statement taken and my feeling is that everything is now in place for the MIB to make a decision.

If anything does come of it I'll be able to get a replacement bike which would be some compensation.

thirdcrank · Post by **thirdcrank** » 27 Feb 2008, 3:27pm

mankymitts wrote:The fine is laughable, why pay £250 to insure your car as I do, when you can ride around without insurance (probably for years) and when you are caught it only costs £100. Now he has points on his licence there will be even less incentive for him to get insurance.

One ray of hope here is that it is now possible for the police to seize uninsured vehicles and dispose of them by sale or crushing if valid insurance is not produced PDQ. This is facilitated by the computerised insurance database and camera numberplate recognition. The number of uninsured cars is quite startling, said to be in the region of 25% in places like Huddersfield, rising to 65% in parts of Bradford. (I got the info from a regional news programme.)

I tend to be sceptical of these police promotional videos intended to impress law abiding people that something is being done, but the numbers of vehicles being seized and disposed of seems to be substatntial.

psvrichard · Post by **psvrichard** » 13 May 2008, 10:02am

Hello everyone. Thanks for your advice. After not too long a period I've been made an offer by the MIB. I need some more advice though. The award is in my favour but they are asking me to accept 40% contributory negligence. My solicitor thinks this is way too high for simply being crashed into and so do I.

I do wish to bring some closure to the matter though. Does anyone know or have experience of what contributary negligence means?

My understanding that by just being on the road there is something attached to the cyclist but 40% suggests that I'm some sort of lycra lout to me. Also by acccepting 40% do I leave myself open to counter claim?

My solicitor will answer in time but I just thought I'd throw that question to the floor in the meantime.

To me the cash side of it isn't important, the cost of the bike is covered by the award and more but the 40% issue is eating at me.

Ben Lovejoy · Post by **Ben Lovejoy** » 13 May 2008, 10:13am

Have they explained the nature of the contributory negligence they allege?

It seems to me this is based on accepting the driver's version of events, ie. that he was turning right. In that case, he should have made sure his path was clear, and you should have either waited or gone to his nearside. Since the party making the manouevre ultimately holds more responsibility, a 60/40 split would seem reasonable.

However, this isn't what happened. The question, then, is whether you want to try to argue the case, without witnesses, or take the money and have done with it.

If it were me, I'd argue the case, because you now have an agreed fallback position, which is if the driver's version is accepted, he is 60% liable. If your version is accepted, then he is nearly 100% liable (it could still be argued maybe 90/10, as you could have predicted his move and stopped).

I can't see that you can lose out, but it may take a lot longer to receive the money.

Ben

stoobs · Post by **stoobs** » 13 May 2008, 10:30am

This is far too high. When you're right, stick by your guns! Your adversaries will take whatever they can in this situation. If you are in the right, you shouldn't even accept 10%.

A motorist's insurance company (Direct Line) tried this with me when a car turned across my path.

They went along the lines of
"You were on the wrong side of the road"
"You were going too fast"
"You didn't take sufficient avoiding action"

They then tried to apportion some percentage of contributory negligence. I was able to refute all of these, eventually, with some of the evidence in photos. You might like to try this in your case.

IMHO, they've already admitted liability - forwards or in reverse, someone drove their tank carelessly with no regard for you. For all cyclists who might come across this dreadful driver, please do not let them drive away with any blame attached to you, as they will use it to negate their action.

Ben Lovejoy · Post by **Ben Lovejoy** » 13 May 2008, 10:35am

(Post superceded - see below)

psvrichard · Post by **psvrichard** » 13 May 2008, 10:38am

The alleged contributory negligence surround the failure of myself to anticipate the actions of the driver following his 3 point turn. I find this interesting as initially the driver claimed I overtook him as he turned right.

Ben Lovejoy · Post by **Ben Lovejoy** » 13 May 2008, 10:43am

In that case, 40% is definitely way too high.

I don't think 0% is realistic: if someone reverses into a drive, it is predictable that they are doing a U-turn, and as people often do so without looking properly, it would have been prudent to play it safe by stopping. However, I would absolutely not accept more than 5-10% liability for failing to do so.

Ben

rower40 · Post by **rower40** » 13 May 2008, 11:47am

(Jaw drops to floor...)
Contributory negligence?? They're having a laugh, and trying to use the same "Might is right" arguments around the legal table as the motorist uses on the road. There is no way that you were in any way negligent.

Once he has reversed into a side road, you are on the major road, you have right of way, and the car coming out again MUST give way. End of story.

I realise it's been a long time since the incident, and that you want it all to be done-and-dusted, but if you give in and agree to contributory negligence, then:
1) the motorist claims to his mates down the pub: "Idiot on bike ran in to me"
2) the insurance companies continue to consider cyclists as a soft touch

I urge you to remember this basic fact:
You Did Nothing Wrong.

AlanD · Post by **AlanD** » 13 May 2008, 11:56am

This is not the driver trying to avoid his responsibility by blaming you. This is the insurance company trying to limit how deep into it's coffers it has to dig. Stand your ground and don't give an inch! Accept nothing less than the full 100%

stoobs · Post by **stoobs** » 13 May 2008, 12:00pm

Based on your OP, I don't quite see that someone reversing into a drive should be considered as doing a 3-point turn. He made 3 separate moves:
stop, reverse, out again.

If he reversed into the drive, he was presumably signalling to do so? And reversing, he gave way to any vehicles coming up behind him? He then signalled to come out of the drive? Assuming answers favourable (to you) to those, I would not settle for any less than 90%.

This of course makes loads of assumptions, because I wasn't the one to whom it happened (thankfully), and while appreciating the reality of Mr Lovejoy's comments in general, I don't agree that reversing into a drive is a predictable u-turn. Perhaps someone else can comment, but is this not the preferred method of entering a driveway (I don't mean the driver's preference!)

The u-turn was only known after the event, and while it's sensible to cover your brakes, we can't stop every time we see someone turn into a drive.

I am of course largely arguing this from your point of view against insurers, not from your self-preservation point of view, for which there are always any number of views about how defensive you "should" be.

Ben Lovejoy · Post by **Ben Lovejoy** » 13 May 2008, 12:01pm

rower40 wrote:Once he has reversed into a side road, you are on the major road, you have right of way, and the car coming out again MUST give way. End of story.

Not quite the end: there is one small but important postscript in law. Even when you have clear right of way, all road users have a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid a collision.

Clearly if someone does something totally bizarre and unpredictable, there is nothing we can do to. However, in the situation described, it would be reasonable to conclude that as someone is halfway through a U-turn, it would be reasonable to think 'Uh-oh, they may carry on' and thus be prepared to stop.

Failing to take this precaution absolutely doesn't add up to 40% negligence, but 5-10% would not be unreasonable IMV.

Ben