Cycling UK Forum

... just something we were discussing t'other day, in light of having 2 recently (accidents that is).

At no stage has the other side's insurance asked to assess the bike's roadworthiness, ie is it fitted properly with working brakes etc.
Considering insurance companies like to wriggle out of claims as much as possible I would have thought any circumstances where they can find a way of doing this would be paramount in their minds.
ie poor working brakes could be used as contributory negligence........

Shh ... don't tell them, or they'll start testing our bikes ...

As I understand it, for "contributory negligence" to stand, the negligence (naff brakes or lights or whatever) would have to contribute to the accident or its severity. I have heard of police establishing whether lights were on at the time of a fatal collision. In a less serious case, where the bike isn't impounded by the police, it would be harder for the insurance company to prove a fault. For example, I don't think they have a legal right to demand access to the bike.

I suspect but I don't know for sure, it's a matter of the insurance companies relying on the initial police investigation in most low value (to an insurer) cases. If the police attend a collision, I think there would normally be a pretty summary assessment of what had happened, unless it was a potential fatal. If it was alleged that there was a mechanical defect,it would be investigated and IME most reporting officers make a fairly basic check of the vehicles. For a relatively small claim, therefore, no insurance company is going to spend £££ sending independent vehicle examiners on a wild goose chase.

Where there are serious injuries, then the vehicles are much more likely to be examined properly by a professionally qualified examiner, which will again suit the insurance companies. I understand that following the Great Heck rail disaster, the driver's insurer paid for the police to undertake a really detailed vehicle examination, including rebuilding everything.

Although the chief constable has to authorise motor vehicle examiners, any constable is authorised under the Road Traffic Act to test the brakes on a pedal cycle.

Having nearly taken out a child who had no brakes (but was wearing a helmet) I would not object to checks

I know of an accident that resulted in very serious injuries (potentially fatal) and despite that the cyclist clearly had priority, and the driver was prosecuted, both vehicles (car & bicycle) were impounded and examined by police. My understanding is (by third-hand information) that reports of the condition of both vehicles as determined by examination were submitted during the prosecution. I don't know what that entailed.

When I've been involved in accidents as the driver of a motor vehicle, I've not had insurance companies question the road-worthiness of the cars, either. I think they are unlikely to, unless given a reason to do so.

Vorpal wrote:I know of an accident that resulted in very serious injuries ...

My earlier post was in answer to the OP. "Potential fatals" (even when a casualty is obviously dead, they are normally only officially dead when certified by a doctor, usually in A & E.) and so the specialist investigators attend and the location is treated as a crime scene. (This has caused some controversy when traffic has been delayed for extended periods.) After an initial examination at the scene, all vehicles are normally removed by low-loader or whetever and examined more thoroughly under cover.

All this is done to find and secure evidence for a criminal prosecution and / or a Coroner's Inquest. There will be some collisions which don't get this treatment eg if the extent of injuries is not initially apparent.

Following a collision, there's no reason why more than one person involved should not be prosecuted eg one driver for being over the drink limit, the other for having a defective vehicle: this all depends initially on the evidence.

Insurance comapnies are able to buy police accident reports and although they are not cheap, they are a bargain and form the basis of negotiations and proceedings for compo. I suspect that the reduction in the number of collisions investigated by the police has been inversely proportional to the increase in knock-for-knock insurance payouts.

(Bearing in mind the number of separate police forces, there will be local differences, especially of terminology and detail.)

Poor working brakes could be used as an argument for contributory negligence if it can be shown that, had the brakes been in good working order and used correctly, the accident could have been avoided.
The other side's insurers would be entitled to examine the cycle if they wished to. If they have chosen not to, they probably don't propose to argue contributory negligence, on any brakes issue at least.

snibgo wrote:I have heard of police establishing whether lights were on at the time of a fatal collision.

This used to be straightforward with incandescent bulbs in a high-speed impact; being hot, the filament would rupture and then deform in a unique way. I wonder whether it is possible to know whether LED lights were on at the time of impact?

Nettled Shin wrote:

snibgo wrote:I have heard of police establishing whether lights were on at the time of a fatal collision.

This used to be straightforward with incandescent bulbs in a high-speed impact; being hot, the filament would rupture and then deform in a unique way. I wonder whether it is possible to know whether LED lights were on at the time of impact?

They'd probably still be on afterwards...

thirdcrank wrote:

Vorpal wrote:I know of an accident that resulted in very serious injuries ...

My earlier post was in answer to the OP. "Potential fatals" (even when a casualty is obviously dead, they are normally only officially dead when certified by a doctor, usually in A & E.) and so the specialist investigators attend and the location is treated as a crime scene. (This has caused some controversy when traffic has been delayed for extended periods.) After an initial examination at the scene, all vehicles are normally removed by low-loader or whetever and examined more thoroughly under cover.

All this is done to find and secure evidence for a criminal prosecution and / or a Coroner's Inquest. There will be some collisions which don't get this treatment eg if the extent of injuries is not initially apparent.

In the accident about which I posted, it wasn't known initially if the cyclist had survived or would survive the collision.

I think there may be crossed wires here.

What I've been trying to get across is that while the last 30 or so years have seen a pretty general reduction in road traffic enforcement and collisions which would once have inevitably ended up in the magistrates' courts often do not now even get police attendance, the physical investigation of collisions involving life-threatening injury (ie probably the majority of collisions between motor vehicles and pedal cyclists) is now carried out to a higher standard.

In the far off days when I used to investigate collisions on a daily basis, if there was a suggestion that the brakes etc were dodgy, I'd have sent for a brake mechanic* ie one of the pc's in Road Traffic who had experience as a motor mechanic in an earlier job. Nowadays, nobody investigates most collisions but when they do, the specialist officers involved are professionally qualified.

There muist be cases where the level of injury is initially unrecognised. I'm also well-aware that there have been collisions where people have felt that the wider investigation has been inadequate. I'm talking about checking the physical condition of the vehicles. I'd reiterate I'm only taking about investigations into possible criminal matters and on behalf of the coroner in fatal collisions, but I fancy that in the majority of cases, any subsequent civil action would pay a lot of attention to any police examination of the vehicles.

* I think this expression was unique to Leeds City Police.

I don't think there are any crossed wires. I was just clarifying my previous post. (I hope )

thirdcrank wrote:
There must be cases where the level of injury is initially unrecognised.

Where there are you are lucky if you chance upon a good experienced copper. I was knocked off a motor cycle at a French motorway peage by a truck driver who decided to reverse down the queue. The Gendarmes present insisted I went in an ambulance though I felt fine. Actually my knee was dislocated, but I was so shocked I couldn't feel the pain.

Our local yoofs ride around on BMX bikes without any brakes or lights fitted. If they are involved in an accident I'd fully expect the insurance company and police may want to take that into account. Certainly if I ever am unlucky enough to hit one when I'm on the road either riding or driving I'd be taking photos of the bike.

In my younger years [1982ish] i was pulled into a lay-by by a traffic cop who was stopping
cyclists to check their bikes ! I was asked were are my front and rear reflectors
i told him its a racing bike and i don't have any ! He said its a legal requirement
for these reflectors but pedal and wheel reflectors are optional, he then began
to inspect the rest of my bike and then hight-lighted that my tyres had no tread
which resulted in me getting a fine of about £7ish, can't remember the correct full
amount but a remember having to fit the reflectors and buying treaded tyres and
going to my local 'bobby shop' to show i had made the bike safe.

Lately some members on CTC say the bobby was wrong but who cares it was years ago
and i soon removed the reflectors and treaded tyres because of the jip i got from my mates.

ebo'