Bike Crash

newpot

I live in Jersey and I had a crash about a month ago, a car pulled out of a junction as I was passing and t boned me, very little damage to the bike as he clipped the back wheel, I went over the bars and landed on my head, luckily I was wearing a helmet, the helmet did an amazing job. Ended up with cuts to my face and a black eye. The whole incident was recorded on my Garmin 705.

As I was dazed after the crash I didn’t think to call the police, I asked the driver to call an ambulance but he offered to take me I declined and made my own way to hospital. So police were not called. The hospital told me that if I hadn’t have been wearing a helmet it would have meant possible brain damage and I wouldn’t have walked into the hospital
I went to the police about a week later after getting advice from friends. The police took about three weeks to visit the driver. After the visit they told me that although he admits that it was his fault as he pulled out and hit me and that as he caused the accident he should have contacted the police that they had told him what he had done wrong but they were not taking it any further.

I have now joined the British Cycling and have the insurance although I did not have cover at the time of the accident. I haven’t done lots of damage to the bike or my clothing I am just really annoyed that this is as far as the police think it should go. The driver of the car wasn’t a horrible person and he was very nice to me but he still could have seriously hurt me and that isn’t right

Has anyone got any advice and I wonder if a garmin has been used in a court case?

Fixxxer87

Hi

In the UK, drivers can generally be charged with driving without due care and attention or reckless driving. Given that as you say, the driver was nice to you (and probably shaken up), he probably wasn't driving recklessly (driving with wanton disregard for the rules of the road).

My advice would not be to start seeking to start court proceedings yourself, I doubt you would get very far (the UK isn't the litigation capital of the world yet). My advice would be to ask the police why they aren't charging him with driving without due care and attention. If they don't feel they should charge him (and they should give a reason, give that you have the video) they need to be able to justify that to you. If you're not satisfied, you could try talking to the Independent Police Complaints Comission (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/). They should be able to take a complaint or tell you what to do if you're not happy with the way the police acted. You could also ask the officer you spoke to and say you're not happy with their decision.

If you genuienly felt too shaken up for the week after to call the police, you may want to mention that as it would give you reason for not having called the police.

Driving without due care and attention carries a penalty of 3 - 9 penalty points and a fine of up to £5,000. I haven't seen the video, naturally, so I'd only recommend pursuing this if you feel he deserves the penalty (trying to be impartial, naturally!)

I don't know what others think, but if you're comfortable with it you could contact the driver and say you feel a bit out of pocket due to damage to your bike etc. and ask for his insurance details (probably better than trying to get him charged as this wouldn't really reimburse you for the damage to your bike) rather than asking the police to charge him.

spen666

Fixxxer87 wrote:

Hi

In the UK, drivers can generally be charged with driving without due care and attention or reckless driving. Given that as you say, the driver was nice to you (and probably shaken up), he probably wasn't driving recklessly (driving with wanton disregard for the rules of the road).

Unless the incident was before the early 1990's, the driver cannot be charged with driving recklessly as there is no longer such an offence!!!!!!!

It was abolished and replaced with the offence of dangerous driving. For the offence of dangerous driving, the driver has to be shown to be driving FAR below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

My advice would not be to start seeking to start court proceedings yourself, I doubt you would get very far (the UK isn't the litigation capital of the world yet). My advice would be to ask the police why they aren't charging him with driving without due care and attention. If they don't feel they should charge him (and they should give a reason, give that you have the video) they need to be able to justify that to you. If you're not satisfied, you could try talking to the Independent Police Complaints Comission (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/). They should be able to take a complaint or tell you what to do if you're not happy with the way the police acted. You could also ask the officer you spoke to and say you're not happy with their decision.

If you genuienly felt too shaken up for the week after to call the police, you may want to mention that as it would give you reason for not having called the police.

Driving without due care and attention carries a penalty of 3 - 9 penalty points and a fine of up to £5,000. I haven't seen the video, naturally, so I'd only recommend pursuing this if you feel he deserves the penalty (trying to be impartial, naturally!)

I don't know what others think, but if you're comfortable with it you could contact the driver and say you feel a bit out of pocket due to damage to your bike etc. and ask for his insurance details (probably better than trying to get him charged as this wouldn't really reimburse you for the damage to your bike) rather than asking the police to charge him.

Fixxxer87

spen666 wrote:

Unless the incident was before the early 1990's, the driver cannot be charged with driving recklessly as there is no longer such an offence!!!!!!!

It was abolished and replaced with the offence of dangerous driving. For the offence of dangerous driving, the driver has to be shown to be driving FAR below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Whoops! I did wonder as I was typing it...should have googled it. :oops:

spen666

Fixxxer87 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Unless the incident was before the early 1990's, the driver cannot be charged with driving recklessly as there is no longer such an offence!!!!!!!

It was abolished and replaced with the offence of dangerous driving. For the offence of dangerous driving, the driver has to be shown to be driving FAR below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Whoops! I did wonder as I was typing it...should have googled it. :oops:

Very common mistake, but offence was changed to make it easier to get convictions

Squarepants

The avenue to pursue for compensation is not the police (as the damage to the bike/your clothing/personal injury is what you've mentioned) but his insurance company. All insurers will cover damage to third parties including; well, anything... a biker, a sheep, a wall etc..

If you're not sure who his insurers are you can hire a no win no fee type ambulance chaser to follow this up for you, and they will tell you if the claim will likely end in your favour.

spen666

Squarepants wrote:

The avenue to pursue for compensation is not the police (as the damage to the bike/your clothing/personal injury is what you've mentioned) but his insurance company. All insurers will cover damage to third parties including; well, anything... a biker, a sheep, a wall etc..

If you're not sure who his insurers are you can hire a no win no fee type ambulance chaser to follow this up for you, and they will tell you if the claim will likely end in your favour.

If there is personal injury involved, then anyone who tries to pursue a claim themselves is almost certain to be underselling themselves.

plowmar

Sorry but a number of you seem to think that a Garmin 705 is a camera, it isn't its a highly sophisticated bike computer and the O P will only be able to get time, date and position from it of the accident.

Unless garmin have greatly uprated the 705 since I got mine last year.

Lesson over, and glad you weren't hurt but if you feel like it definitely go via third party solicitor for damages both actual and mental - perhaps ctc will take it up for you especially as it seems so clear cut.

The Rookie

There is dangerous driving and careless driving, careless ("Driving without due care and attention") would seem to fit this case.

If the Police don't agree to prosecute you have to make a formal complaint to the force concerned, the IPCC will NOT be interested in a case where the Police have decided to excercise there discretion and not seek a prosecution.

You can make a claim against the driver for your losses, damges to bike and clothing, loss of earnings etc etc

Simon

always_tyred

Accidents happen, and the guy has fessed up, was fairly mortified-good about things at the time and has since had a visit from the plod.

As far as rectifying THAT driver's future behaviour, I think its job done.

As far as your own situation - yes you are entitled to claim damages. But how much time do you have on your hands? Why don't you contact the driver and point out the expenses you've incurred and see if he'd be reasonable about paying for a new helmet, etc.

Other than monetary loss, what do you want to get out of this? We have a trade mark attorney where I work and her general advice regarding litigation (the world of tm's being quite litigious) is that someone should go down that route if they have to, not because they want to get back at someone, because its seldom worth the effort.

I have a hunch it applies in this context also.

Hope it hasn't put you off cycling though. It can rock your confidence to hit the deck.

londonbairn

I would try and go directly to their insurance. I just done for an incident where I was hit where the driver was 100% to blame. It's been pretty painless and going well, but then she admitted blame straight away, with police and public witnesses.

nwallace

All very well talking about English Criminal Law; but he's in Jersey so presumably the crash happened there.

http://www.jerseylaw.je/ doesn't seem to have an equivilent Road Traffic Act
But http://www.cab.org.je/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=50
Shows that it's the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 Offence

That's bloody Ancient!

spen666

nwallace wrote:

All very well talking about English Criminal Law; but he's in Jersey so presumably the crash happened there.

http://www.jerseylaw.je/ doesn't seem to have an equivilent Road Traffic Act
But http://www.cab.org.je/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=50
Shows that it's the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 Offence

That's bloody Ancient!

Ancient? You reckon?

Most assault cases in England and Wales ( eg ABH, GBH, GBH with intent) are charged under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1872!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm aware of lots of other offences similarily old

Ancient? Maybe, but if it ain't broke, then there is no need to fix it

andrewc3142

Based on my recent crash, I would get details of the driver's insurance company and talk to them. They will cover damage to the bike, cost of checking the frame is true, damage to clothing, etc.

As for damage to you, I should get checked out properly, including by your dentist. The insurance company will generally give about £200 up front to cover these kinds of costs and you may get offered a subsequent settlement, depending on the circumstances. Any physio and the like will also be covered.

Unless it gets more tricky, little point in getting a lawyer involved and I expect you'll find the insurance company much easier to deal with and more sympathetic than you may suppose.

My take is that an accident that's not your fault shouldn't leave you out of pocket and if you've suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience then some modest compensation seems fair enough.

As for the driving offence, I should leave that to the police.

spen666

andrewc3142 wrote:

Based on my recent crash, I would get details of the driver's insurance company and talk to them. They will cover damage to the bike, cost of checking the frame is true, damage to clothing, etc.

As for damage to you, I should get checked out properly, including by your dentist. The insurance company will generally give about £200 up front to cover these kinds of costs and you may get offered a subsequent settlement, depending on the circumstances. Any physio and the like will also be covered.

Unless it gets more tricky, little point in getting a lawyer involved and I expect you'll find the insurance company much easier to deal with and more sympathetic than you may suppose.

My take is that an accident that's not your fault shouldn't leave you out of pocket and if you've suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience then some modest compensation seems fair enough.

As for the driving offence, I should leave that to the police.

If there is personal injury involved, I could not disagree more.

you as an individual are not trained to know how much such injuries are worth. Also, you are often too emotionally involved to exercise objective judgement.

There is a saying that the person who represent himself has a fool for a client - it is generally very true.

W1

spen666 wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

Based on my recent crash, I would get details of the driver's insurance company and talk to them. They will cover damage to the bike, cost of checking the frame is true, damage to clothing, etc.

As for damage to you, I should get checked out properly, including by your dentist. The insurance company will generally give about £200 up front to cover these kinds of costs and you may get offered a subsequent settlement, depending on the circumstances. Any physio and the like will also be covered.

Unless it gets more tricky, little point in getting a lawyer involved and I expect you'll find the insurance company much easier to deal with and more sympathetic than you may suppose.

My take is that an accident that's not your fault shouldn't leave you out of pocket and if you've suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience then some modest compensation seems fair enough.

As for the driving offence, I should leave that to the police.

If there is personal injury involved, I could not disagree more.

you as an individual are not trained to know how much such injuries are worth. Also, you are often too emotionally involved to exercise objective judgement.

There is a saying that the person who represent himself has a fool for a client - it is generally very true.

Also that there's nothing as expensive as cheap legal advice - make sure you get someone who knows their stuff.

cee

I don't really understand what it is you would want the outcome of any 'court case' or claim to be...

You say not much damage to you or clothing...if you had to put a figure on it...how much?

Do you want him to cover that amount? or is it just that you feel he should have had more than the talking to that the police gave him and feel he should be punished more than he has?

andrewc3142

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

Based on my recent crash, I would get details of the driver's insurance company and talk to them. They will cover damage to the bike, cost of checking the frame is true, damage to clothing, etc.

As for damage to you, I should get checked out properly, including by your dentist. The insurance company will generally give about £200 up front to cover these kinds of costs and you may get offered a subsequent settlement, depending on the circumstances. Any physio and the like will also be covered.

Unless it gets more tricky, little point in getting a lawyer involved and I expect you'll find the insurance company much easier to deal with and more sympathetic than you may suppose.

My take is that an accident that's not your fault shouldn't leave you out of pocket and if you've suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience then some modest compensation seems fair enough.

As for the driving offence, I should leave that to the police.

If there is personal injury involved, I could not disagree more.

you as an individual are not trained to know how much such injuries are worth. Also, you are often too emotionally involved to exercise objective judgement.

There is a saying that the person who represent himself has a fool for a client - it is generally very true.

Also that there's nothing as expensive as cheap legal advice - make sure you get someone who knows their stuff.

Well, we seem to be talking about fairly minor injuries, which, like mine, will heal over. If, as a result of the proper medical check up I suggested, there turn out to be more complications or the possibility of longer term effects, then of course the situation changes.

I may not (or may, since you don't know me or what I do for a living) know the "market value" of the injuries I received, but I am perfectly capable of making a judgement as to what I regard as reasonable. I don't need an ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer to add his/her 2 cents. As I said above, though, a different issue if more serious issues involved, in which case I would go through the CTC legal people.

I'm just looking for damage and medical costs to be covered, receive some reasonable compensation and move on. I'm not looking to make money out of it.

This is the first time I've had an accident, but I know a number of people who have had an entirely satisfactory outcome based on the offer from the insurance company, without involving lawyers and without the hassle of taking legal action, etc.

Maybe you have had a different experience.

spen666

cee wrote:

I don't really understand what it is you would want the outcome of any 'court case' or claim to be...

You say not much damage to you or clothing...if you had to put a figure on it...how much?

Do you want him to cover that amount? or is it just that you feel he should have had more than the talking to that the police gave him and feel he should be punished more than he has?

Cee , you seem to be confusing/ merging two different things here

1. CRIMINAL ACTION - this is the matter that is normally investigated by the police and prosecuted in Mags Court. The outcome of this is a punishment for the guilty driver (assuming he is proven to be guilty)

2. CIVIL ACTION - this is brought by the injured party and the aim is to seek compenssation for the loss and injury suffered.


The aim of criminal action is NOT to compensate the injured party.

The aim of civil action is not to punish the injured party.


no matter how bad or dangerous the driving is, if the only damage is a broken bell on the bike, then this is the only sum that can be recovered.

Mark Elvin

newpot wrote:

I live in Jersey and I had a crash about a month ago, a car pulled out of a junction as I was passing and t boned me, very little damage to the bike as he clipped the back wheel, I went over the bars and landed on my head, luckily I was wearing a helmet, the helmet did an amazing job.

That'll start the "helmets don't do a thing" crwd off again.

Glas you OK on the whole though.

spen666

andrewc3142 wrote:

W1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

Based on my recent crash, I would get details of the driver's insurance company and talk to them. They will cover damage to the bike, cost of checking the frame is true, damage to clothing, etc.

As for damage to you, I should get checked out properly, including by your dentist. The insurance company will generally give about £200 up front to cover these kinds of costs and you may get offered a subsequent settlement, depending on the circumstances. Any physio and the like will also be covered.

Unless it gets more tricky, little point in getting a lawyer involved and I expect you'll find the insurance company much easier to deal with and more sympathetic than you may suppose.

My take is that an accident that's not your fault shouldn't leave you out of pocket and if you've suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience then some modest compensation seems fair enough.

As for the driving offence, I should leave that to the police.

If there is personal injury involved, I could not disagree more.

you as an individual are not trained to know how much such injuries are worth. Also, you are often too emotionally involved to exercise objective judgement.

There is a saying that the person who represent himself has a fool for a client - it is generally very true.

Also that there's nothing as expensive as cheap legal advice - make sure you get someone who knows their stuff.

Well, we seem to be talking about fairly minor injuries, which, like mine, will heal over. If, as a result of the proper medical check up I suggested, there turn out to be more complications or the possibility of longer term effects, then of course the situation changes.

I may not (or may, since you don't know me or what I do for a living) know the "market value" of the injuries I received, but I am perfectly capable of making a judgement as to what I regard as reasonable. I don't need an ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer to add his/her 2 cents. As I said above, though, a different issue if more serious issues involved, in which case I would go through the CTC legal people.

I'm just looking for damage and medical costs to be covered, receive some reasonable compensation and move on. I'm not looking to make money out of it.

This is the first time I've had an accident, but I know a number of people who have had an entirely satisfactory outcome based on the offer from the insurance company, without involving lawyers and without the hassle of taking legal action, etc.

Maybe you have had a different experience.

oh Andrew, your ignorant rants make you look a fool.

"The CTC Legal People" are in fact Russel Jones and Walker - a fir of lawyers totally independent of the CTC. RJW simply pay the CTC a referral fee for each case the CTC direct to them.

RJW are in your words a firm of "ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer(s)".

So you would use a firm of "ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer(s)". but instead would use a firm of "ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer(s)".

How are you going to value yourr injuries when by your own admission you do not know what they are worth?

do you advise treating yourself when you have cancer or other medical injuries?

Do you advise people to build their own house rather than using the experts?

A lawyer is someone who is trained to do the job in the same way that a doctor is trained to provide medical care. Where you have a damage only accident and can easily quantify the loss, then I agree no lawyer is needed.

Your logic in effectively accepting your opponents valuation of your injuries is grossly stupid. The insurance company want to pay out as little as possible andf it is in their interests to offer as little as possible.

andrewc3142

oh Andrew, your ignorant rants make you look a fool ... Your logic in effectively accepting your opponents valuation of your injuries is grossly stupid

What a charming person you seem to be. Are you like that in real life to people you don't know or is it the effect of an internet board?

My post wasn't a rant. And I disagree it was ignorant.

I am fully aware of who CTC uses as lawyers, thank you. One difference, as with many sources of advice, is whether you contact them and set the scope of what you need or whether they call you.

You seem to think dealing with fairly basic issues or undertaking perfectly feasible challenges to be the preserve of specially trained experts.

Based on my own professional training and experience, I actually do feel confident enough in my ability to judge whether an offer is reasonable or not. It's not exactly rocket science and extremely easy to bench-mark. Certainly no more difficult than judgement calls I make every day in my working life.

Your example of treating myself if I had cancer is clearly absurd. However, like a number of people I know, I feel quite confident in my ability to build a house (or renovate a wreck), without or with limited use of experts. Not my natural area, but it's really not as difficult as you may think.

spen666

andrewc3142 wrote:

oh Andrew, your ignorant rants make you look a fool ... Your logic in effectively accepting your opponents valuation of your injuries is grossly stupid

What a charming person you seem to be. Are you like that in real life to people you don't know or is it the effect of an internet board?

My post wasn't a rant. And I disagree it was ignorant.

I am fully aware of who CTC uses as lawyers, thank you. One difference, as with many sources of advice, is whether you contact them and set the scope of what you need or whether they call you.

......

Oh come on now Andrew, stop making this easy - that is another clearly ignorant rant

If you had the slightest bit on knowledge of what you are going on about.

Firstly you have failed to deal with the fact that your so called option to avoid the "ambulance-chasing, no-win-no-fee bottom-feeding lawyer(s)" are in fact just such a firm. In fact , even worse they pay others to refer cases to them

Perhaps you could also exoplain your answer regarding cold calling in light of Rule 7.03 of the Solicitor's Code of Conduct which states

7.03 Unsolicited approaches in person or by telephone
(1)
You must not publicise your firm or practice by making unsolicited approaches in person or by telephone to a member of the public.

A matter the SRA take very seriously and will often involve the striking off of solicitors for breach of the same

I think you will find your ignorant rant should be directed at the so called claims management firms who are not firms of solicitors ( and in effect the CTC is acting as one).

however, don't let your blinkered approach get in the way of the truth.

No doubt you will refuse medical treatment for cancer because of the actions of a few unscrupulous alternative medical practicioners. Same issue really applies.

andrewc3142

Sorry for making this so easy for you (do you regard this as some kind of strange battle?)

An analogy perhaps from my own work. If a small business has cash flow problems, it may well be able to sort them out without professional help, or with limited advice. My involvement in that wouldn't be needed, at least not to any great extent.

A complex mutil-national, dealing with 50 or so banks and several hundred million of debt, running out of cash, is a different thing altogether. It's unlikely the board can cope on its own; it will need additional resource and professional advice, ideally someone who has the respect of the bankers. That's what I do and that's where I can add something to the process, getting the situation sorted out.

Now, if we were discussing complex injuries, requiring long-term, expensive care, or loss of earnings, say, of a sole trader requiring consequential loss estimates, then, as I made clear, this is obviously a different issue.

But we're not. We are, as I said, discussing minor injuries, following a full medical check-up.

I must admit I don't understand your repeated comparison with cancer treatment, but I suppose I'm just too stupid.

If you feel you would need legal advice to deal with this, going through a lawyer with PII, then that's fine. Your choice and far be it for me to insult you as a result.

Just because I make a different choice doesn't make me ignorant or grossly stupid.

spen666

The comments I make are nothing to do with your choice to represent yourself

The comments are down to your gross stupidity and ignorance in apparently not being able to understand the difference between a claimns handling firm ( eg CTC) and a reputable firm of lawyers

You then go on to state you would go to a claims handling firm to have them refer you to a firm that pays for that introduction

you accuse lawyers of doing that which is done by clqims handling firms - eg cold calling

Your lack of knowledge of basic knowledge is why I make the comments I do.

andrewc3142

Well, thank you for putting me right on all this, and in such a pleasant and helpful manner.

Your logic in effectively accepting your opponents valuation of your injuries is grossly stupid

Having read this again, I do understand that your comments had nothing to do with my choosing to deal with this myself. For which I apologise profusely.

I am indeed a foolish, ignorant person, fully deserving of the wrath of a fine, informed, wise and knowledgable keyboard warrior such as yourself.

Now. Back to get a life ...