Head butting a windscreen

Leedsblue

Set of to work on my bike this morning came to a set of lights about 500 yds from home. Slowed down until they changed to green and went through. No cars anywhere (or so I thought). 6:50am. Made a right turn, heard a car and saw it coming straight at me. The car hit me and my bike I flew off and hit the windscreen with my head and shoulder.

I just lay on the floor thinking that I feel just about OK. Woman got out and I heard here saying "are you all right" and I was thinking "what a stupid question".

Someone else called an ambulance and the paramedic got there very quickly. I was stunned and have a very sore shoulder and a few grazes and bumps. My leg /calf is sore and slightly swollen. They took my bp and said it was normal and then said that I must be quite healthy anyway. I did not want to go the hospital and my wife drove up with DN2. DN2 passed out when she saw the smashed windscreen of the car. There was a big dent where my head had hit. My helmet definitely saved me from more serious damage to my head.

At home now. Police have been around to say that a witness saw us both going through the lights on green so no further police involvement.

What amazes me is how much trouble it is to get your feet out of the cleats at lights etc but they both came out OK with the impact.

Front wheel buckled but I don't think there is any other damage. Pity I had no insurance

gabriel959

Nah, your helmet didn't save you of anything so stop lying, if you hadn't been wearing a helmet you even wouldn't had that accident.

On a more serious note, same about the wheel (good excuse for an upgrade) and really glad to hear you are OK.

biondino

Hey Leedsblue, would you mind going to the helmet thread on this board and letting us know the state of your helmet post-accident, how fast you/the car were going, and any other useful info which will help us figure out how much of a blessing it was you were wearing it?

Leedsblue

Will check out the helmet thead and put in my info when I have had chance to check the bike and helmet out.

Without a shadow of doubt I would have had head damage, possibly a fractured skull if I had been helmetless. There was a lump/dent in the windscreen where my head hit. The screen was completely mashed up but still in one piece as it took the wight of my shoulder and body

Just dreading the claim now as I am uninsured

biondino

If you didn't see the dude is it possible he was speeding? That might help. And if the police aren't taking an interest does that mean there's no blame? In which case his own insurance would pay, no?

dafruk

yeah you should be scot free, can't see how anyone could pin blame when the police have said as much.

And hope the heal time is minimal.

boybiker

Was this deliberately staged to rebut the arguments of the anti-helmet twisty brain brigade ?
If so I applaud your dedication.

Nick6891

thats why you should always where a helmet, good that your ok and only need a new front weel

nwallace

Leedsblue wrote:

There was a lump/dent in the windscreen where my head hit. The screen was completely mashed up but still in one piece as it took the wight of my shoulder and body

All you have told us there is that the windscreen was a Laminated one and therefore you hit/were hit by a car built after the mid 1970s.

Had it been a toughened windscreen it wqoudl have split into thousands of little balls (as a laminate one does) but due to not haveing the laminate in the middle it would have collapsed into the car and you woudl ahve gone with it.

Had it been even older and not Toughened it would be like a smashed house window, plus lots of blood around.

The breaking point of a laminated windscreen it probably a lot less than that of your skull.

always_tyred

If you hadn't have been wearing your helmet, more people would be regular cyclists, the motorist would be more used to cyclists and would have most likely seen you and the collision would not have ocurred.

Your own selfish helmet use has precipiated this incident.

---

On a lserious note, glad you bounced and didn't shatter. I was once quite impressively doored, to the extent of bending the door back and performing a spectacular forward sumersault with pike. Nowhere near as bad as your experience....but....

I distinctly recall peeling myself off the road and locking eyes with two school kids who saw the whole thing. One said, "Are you alright?" I said, "No, the front forks are totally screwed"
He said, "No, dude, are YOU alright"

Adrenalin is great. Treat yourself gently in the days to come, however.

giltkid

dafruk wrote:

yeah you should be scot free, can't see how anyone could pin blame when the police have said as much.

I'm afraid to me it sounds like he turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle which had right of way....

secretsam

Glad - first and foremost - that you are OK

Sounds like a no fault accident, although query over driver's speed - if Mister Plod has said no-one's to blame, the insurance company will view it the same - driver's insurers will pay for damage, driver takes a hit on NCB, etc...

Again, you're OK, bent bikes and cars can be fixed.

Take it easy.

giltkid

If you read the post it says that there is no further police involvement, not that there's no fault. They are far more likely to prosecute a motorist than a cyclist. As they are not it seems that they have no case against the car driver. Also, if speed was an issue leedsblue's injuries would in all likelihood be much more severe. The fact that leedsblue is 'dreading the claim as not insured' sounds to me like an admission of fault.

Leedsblue

I don't dispute that the accident was my fault. It was unlikely she was exceeding the speed limit and the witness in the car behind her would have told the police if that was the case.

I looked ahead and I thought it was clear but the road is tree-lined and in shadow and she had a black car with no lights on. I was lucky that she hit my front wheel as I must have just been starting to turn right.

My only saving grace is that was it was V reg Fiat Punto not a Merc 500 (which would have been much heavier as well)

secretsam

Ah

However - no lights at that time of day? Hmmmmm, not so clever

spursn17

Leedsblue wrote:

My only saving grace is that was it was V reg Fiat Punto not a Merc 500 (which would have been much heavier as well)

So the total claim against you will be no more than £8.37p

Leedsblue

Hopefully not too much. I was thinking about either CTC or BCF insurance before this. Deffo will be investing now

Nick6891

surely the cars insurance company has to pay out if hit by a cyclist, its normally the cars fault anyway, i mean why would any cyclist in the right mind chose to take a risk which could make them crash into a car

Kieran_Burns

When I was learning to drive an old fart on this ancient cast iron bedstead of a bike swung out from a side road right in front of me. I managed the best emergency stop I ever did and managed to avoid piling over him.

Unfortunately the guy behind me didn't do so well... crunch.

Well, this old guy took one look at the carnage and 'shot' off - straight through a red light at a MASSIVE junction and turned right across on-coming traffic. How there were no more accidents I'll never know... anyway I cut the corner and caught up with him (young and fit in those days) and while 'explaining' things to him a Police car came past.

I waved him down and the very helpful Policeman explained that even if a cyclist caused a fatal accident they would not have to stop and did not need to give details.

So, I can't actually see how you would in any way be paying out for anything apart from your own damage.

Leedsblue

Sounds re-assuring but I cannot afford to fight any legal battles

beegee

Hi Leedsblue,

How are you today ? A bit sorer than yesterday I’ll bet.

I was wondering if your household insurance policy covers you against personal claims. It wouldn’t hurt to check it out.

I sense that you’re worried about a claim against you. I hope you’ll be okay and that they won’t claim. I think you’re sensible to be concerned because, in these litigatious times, you never know how people will react.

Just making a general point, I would think that there are few motorists who having had damage done to their car through no fault of their own would forgive and forget because it was only a bicycle that did it. The idea that the motorist should man up and claim on their own policy only works if they are comprehensively insured. And even then it would cost them the excess and the increased premiums for the next 2 years. With third party, fire and theft insurance they can’t claim. They have to pay for it all.

cee

leedsblue.....

The driver (or their insurance company) will most likely make a claim to the Motor Insurer's Bureau Untraced/Uninsured scheme. Not come after you directly.

Depending on the circumstances, if it comes to it, it may be worth pursuing the no-lights thing.

Glad you are OK....

graeme_s-2

Kieran_Burns wrote:

When I was learning to drive an old fart on this ancient cast iron bedstead of a bike swung out from a side road right in front of me. I managed the best emergency stop I ever did and managed to avoid piling over him.

Unfortunately the guy behind me didn't do so well... crunch.

Well, this old guy took one look at the carnage and 'shot' off - straight through a red light at a MASSIVE junction and turned right across on-coming traffic. How there were no more accidents I'll never know... anyway I cut the corner and caught up with him (young and fit in those days) and while 'explaining' things to him a Police car came past.

I waved him down and the very helpful Policeman explained that even if a cyclist caused a fatal accident they would not have to stop and did not need to give details.

So, I can't actually see how you would in any way be paying out for anything apart from your own damage.

I'm not entirely sure that's true about a cyclist not having to stop under any circumstances, but in the accident you described above, it doesn't sound like the cyclist did cause it. Although the cyclist was no doubt riding recklessly, from your description it sounds like the car that rear ended you was at fault for either tailgating you or not paying attention to what was happening. If the car in front pulls an emergency stop you should have enough room to also come to a stop without hitting them.

Kieran_Burns

I agree in that case - the cyclist was a contributory factor only, but the policeman did specifically say that a cyclist does not need to stop if they cause an accident. He was very clear about it and my memory of the conversation is vivid

squired

Leedsblue wrote:

I looked ahead and I thought it was clear but the road is tree-lined and in shadow and she had a black car with no lights on. I was lucky that she hit my front wheel as I must have just been starting to turn right.

Reading that makes me think about car drivers who moan because all cyclists don't wear high-viz luminous yellow jackets, to which the response is, "I'll do that when you start driving round in a luminous yellow car so that I can see you".

Glad to hear that you and your bike weren't seriously hurt.

graeme_s-2

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I agree in that case - the cyclist was a contributory factor only, but the policeman did specifically say that a cyclist does not need to stop if they cause an accident. He was very clear about it and my memory of the conversation is vivid

Sorry, I wasn't questioning your honesty/memory. More not sure the police officer was right (or maybe things have changed since then). I think a cyclist can probably be guilty of leaving the scene of an accident just like a car driver can be. Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

agnello

remind me not to engage Giltkid when I need some reassurance :roll:

get well soon Leedsblue.

Nick6891

i think of they put up a claim against you a state loyer would be able to get all the blame put on the driver and they would proberbly end up paying your llegal fee's

Littigator

I think I'm right in saying that a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore is bound by the same rules on RTAs as cars ie it is a criminal offence to leave the scene of an accident without exchanging details with the other parties.

As for the copper and his view as stated above, just becuase he was a policeman you needn't assume he's correct about the law.

Nick6891

doesnt it have to have an engine to be a "vehicle" and that officer must have been wrong cos you cant run someone over then drive off cos the person isnt a vehicle, you can leave the scene of any accident, the copper just probably couldn't be bothered reviewing that case as chances of finding the driver are slim

boybiker

I have seen the case where someone rode his bike into a car in an accident he openly admitted was his fault but happily the driver of the car was so shaken and worried about the cyclist that he just said he wasn't interested in making a claim for damage to the car and in fact he drove the cyclist home for him. So its not all bastard motorists out there.