Chicane accident liability, Expensive six weeks |
Chicane accident liability, Expensive six weeks |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Just a quick check to make sure I'm not going mad.
I managed to come off my bike here today, nice wrist fracture which will probably involve an operation on Monday to fix. Six weeks of freelance work cancelled. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6413784,-1....3312!8i6656 The whole thing was caught on CCTV so little dispute about what happened. I was travelling in the direction of the camera e.g had priority. Two vehicles approached the chicane from the other direction. Vehicle one decides to chance it and floor it through so I ease off. Car two hesitates so I commit to go through. At the last moment they decide to try and floor it through too. I slam on the brakes but too late and miss their offside wing by a few inches alongside the last driveway on the left by the wooden fence. The CCTV shows would 100% of collided with the car if I hadn't braked and come off. Car two driver says that there was no impact so I fell off my bike independently. Promptly scarpers before the police arrive. Will post CCTV when I get it. In a situation of either cancelling lots of work for six weeks (expensive) or getting taxis everywhere (expensive, I work on four different sites 30 miles apart plus would be significantly inhibited with a cast anyway). Would welcome thoughts as to whether insurance is likely to be simple or if they will also drag their heels due to no actual impact. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:18 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 09:35
Post
#301
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Excellent result.......way too long but well done for your perseverance.
Too much to hope that the other driver has now been done for dangerous driving and abuse of position? |
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 11:16
Post
#302
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 4 Aug 2014 From: In the beautiful Chilterns Member No.: 72,309 |
………. What happens to the errant driver? Sacked? Disciplinary? Prosecution? And those who would have had to turn a blind eye to his interference? If it’s Cressida Dick, promotion! -------------------- Speed does not kill. It's more to do with how you stop.
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 11:38
Post
#303
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 684 Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Member No.: 93,086 |
In terms of liability I got an offer for a sizeable interim payment from the insurance company today so hopefully they've irreversibly rolled over. Just to update this after god knows how long, the insurers for the driver admitted liability and the settlement was ~£30k + legal costs. Glad it's sorted. Seems a ridiculous time to resolve this, when liability was conceded back in 2018. the driver was travelling at >40mph in a 20mph limit I'm curious about this. The driver held back behind van at the give way lines. And got to 40mph in 10 yards? What was he driving? A Caterham? |
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 14:19
Post
#304
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The driver held back behind van at the give way lines. And got to 40mph in 10 yards? What was he driving? A Caterham? He had floored it trying to overtake the vehicle. Remember, the fish eye lens doesn't show distances properly, there is quite a gap between the chicane and impact. What happens to the errant driver? Sacked? Disciplinary? Prosecution? And those who would have had to turn a blind eye to his interference? Nothing as far as I know. Had a really good civilian investigator who had put all sorts together and then suddenly the case was taken away from them by an officer and effectively pushed down the back of the filing cabinet. |
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 19:22
Post
#305
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 15 Jan 2014 From: Liverpool Member No.: 67,981 |
Just to update this after god knows how long, the insurers for the driver admitted liability and the settlement was ~£30k + legal costs. The driver was found to work for a different police force and had interfered with the investigation. This included forgetting about a version of the video with lines on the video to correct for the distortion from the fish eye lens, which showed the driver was travelling at >40mph in a 20mph limit and I was travelling at <15mph (0mph on impact). Turns out it's not only the Met Police with a few bad apples. Many thanks to the poster who PMed the details of some really good solictors. Excellent news. Common sense has finally prevailed. All this 50:50 blame nonsense was just that, nonsense. Usually coming from non-cyclists who really do not understand cycling. Pity it has taken so long but hey ho, what can you do. -------------------- ''Iustitia et Aequitas''
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Feb 2022 - 23:55
Post
#306
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Excellent news. Common sense has finally prevailed. All this 50:50 blame nonsense was just that, nonsense. Usually coming from non-cyclists who really do not understand cycling. Pity it has taken so long but hey ho, what can you do. It was very fortunate that there was CCTV, and insurance companies/solicitors capable of compensating for the fish eye lens. Otherwise the driver would have got away with it. To be fair on the insurance company they made a four figure interim payment within a few months. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 10:38 |