Head butting a windscreen

STEFANOS4784

If witness says both light were green could this not be the fault of the council??!? Just throwing it out there, glad ur ok BTW

Littigator

Nick6891 wrote:

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

See sections 28 & 29 of the RTA 1988 it is an offence to ride recklessly etc, if you cause an accident then it is probably good evidence that you were riding recklessly wouldn't you say.

Juju_uk_68

Hmm.. lots of potentially misleading advice here. Leedsblue, I see your post and congratualte you on your honesty, not always easy to accept fault - pride ect. But just to correct any misunderstandings of earier posters -

Firstly, despite the lights being on green for both parties you are turning across their path. Cannot easilly see how it was the drivers fault. If your going to allege speed, what evidence do you have? Any long skidmarks? I suspect not. If you didnt see her before you turned, its a bit rich to allege she must have been speeding.

Secondly the police view and interest is really only in relation to any offences alleged or noted in criminal law. Its actually not a criminal offence to have an accident, unless some element of driving dangerously is involved. You can still be at fault for the accident if the police are not interested.

This does mean the insurers for her damage may try to pursue a civil claim under the tort of negligence against you.

I work as an injury handler for a large insuer - I try not to chase cyclists for recovery of policyholders damage - as courts can look favourably on cyclists, especially kids, and theres almost always an injury with a cyclist clam. But in there circs, especially if say, you had a halfway decent bike implying you were good for the cost of the repairs to the vehicle, and a witness, might take an example like this further.

Leedsblue

Totally agree with what you have said Juju. I am not claiming excessive speed on her part, I really don't know but given the damage to both me and my bike I think it unlikely.

As I say I am thankful it was a cheap car which rather limits what she can claim from me (please don't disillusion me on that one)

karl j

Leedsblue wrote:

Set of to work on my bike this morning ...

Honestly, the things some people will do to get a new bike

doog442

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

correct- failing to stop after an accident only applies to the driver of 'mechanically propelled vehicles-' and that doesnt include a pedal cycle.

a pedal cycle is however a vehicle and a goat is a goat ...so if you hit and injure a goat with your car you must 'stop' but not if you hit a cat..... Hit the goat on your bike just carry on...its confusing ..just the tip of the iceberg

Hope the OP is okay

Mithras

Littigator wrote:

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.

I totally agree, generally I make things up as i go along, well what's the point if you can't abuse the power!! :twisted:

Dear Chief Constable I'm joking honest!!!