I was Hit By A Van This Morning, Help Need !

jimmypippa

No advice from me, except for not riding that bike for the reasons above...

I guess you are feeling pretty shaken up as well.

Good luck

Jim

spen666

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

you could hit him with the equivalent of car hire costs.

You could not claim car hire costs if the vehicle damaged is a bike

You have a duty to mitigate your losses and that is not mitigating your losses

EQUIVALENT - read the post before going off the deep end!

And why quote the whole post not the relevant part anyway?

Simon

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

If the driver has been hit with driving without due care and attention then he is at fault. .......

You are putting the cart before the horse.


He may have been charged with an offence, it doesn't automatically follow he is guilty of that allegation.

spasypaddy

i hope you get better soon mate. i went to a solicitors when i got hit.

londonbairn

Headhuunter wrote:

londonbairn wrote:

I'd still pipe for going directly to the insurance company, and as someone said, minimise the chain, plus everyone I know who has went through a solictiors ended up waiting up a while. I've went to insurance companies twice in the past and all resolved rapidly. There's a few elements here....

A) punishment to driver -> police's responsibility
damage to your bike -> the insurance's responsibility
C) compensation/clothing damage -> the insurance's responsibility

If the insurance don't play game, then I would go to a laywer...

When I had my crash I was recommended to go through the sol as the process is quite time consuming and the sol can take care of all the administration. Certainly RJW have been very good, they have dealt with everything, sorted out the interim payment for bike and bits pending final payment, sorted out for me to get photos taken of the big, permanent scar on my leg and have arranged for funding for injections for my hip injury through a private clinic. I wouldn't have known where to start with sorting it all out. Far easier to go through a sol who has a lot of experience in this sort of thing...

I found the process quite straight forward to be honest, it did help a lot the driver's insurance were great and understanding. Just a few forms, pictures and an estimate...

gb155

Evening everyone, I am feeling a million times worse right now, so not sticking around, just wanted to say thanks for all your messages of support and informaton, for those that want to know what happened

http://theamazing39stonecyclist.wordpre ... -enclosed/

I wanted to get it all down, before I forgot anything, for now im off to bed, hopfully I can add some proper comments to this topic tomorrow.

Thanks Again

Gaz

UndercoverElephant

Hope you feel better soon.

The Rookie

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

you could hit him with the equivalent of car hire costs.

You could not claim car hire costs if the vehicle damaged is a bike

You have a duty to mitigate your losses and that is not mitigating your losses

EQUIVALENT - read the post before going off the deep end!

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

Are you being an 4r5e on purpose, if he'd had a car taken off the road by being hit, he'd be entitled to a hire car, as its a bike he's been deprived off entitled to the EQUIVALENT right, aka a hire bike or some other similar means of providing a bike (never tried to hire one for longer a day, can you get one, I don't know hence my use of the word EQUIVALENT, was it to hard for you to undertand FGS!

Simon

benno68

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

you could hit him with the equivalent of car hire costs.

You could not claim car hire costs if the vehicle damaged is a bike

You have a duty to mitigate your losses and that is not mitigating your losses

EQUIVALENT - read the post before going off the deep end!

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

Are you being an 4r5e on purpose, if he'd had a car taken off the road by being hit, he'd be entitled to a hire car, as its a bike he's been deprived off entitled to the EQUIVALENT right, aka a hire bike or some other similar means of providing a bike (never tried to hire one for longer a day, can you get one, I don't know hence my use of the word EQUIVALENT, was it to hard for you to undertand FGS!

Simon

If Gaz is injured and can drive but not cycle, isn't it reasonable for him to hire a car to get about? Assuming Gaz has a driving licence of course.

Just wondering

He'd surely be entitled to loss of use and enjoyment of his bike plus reasonable travel costs in any event.

thelawnet

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

you could hit him with the equivalent of car hire costs.

You could not claim car hire costs if the vehicle damaged is a bike

You have a duty to mitigate your losses and that is not mitigating your losses

EQUIVALENT - read the post before going off the deep end!

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

Are you being an 4r5e on purpose, if he'd had a car taken off the road by being hit, he'd be entitled to a hire car, as its a bike he's been deprived off entitled to the EQUIVALENT right, aka a hire bike or some other similar means of providing a bike (never tried to hire one for longer a day, can you get one, I don't know hence my use of the word EQUIVALENT, was it to hard for you to undertand FGS!

Simon

Well if the injury rendered him incapable of riding a bike, then he *would* need a hire car to get around. If I hit someone in my car and they're not able to work, then my insurers will have to pay out for loss of earnings; if I render them incapable of using their normal mode of transport, the insurers have to pay out for an alternative one.

LazyBoycp

gb155 wrote:

Evening everyone, I am feeling a million times worse right now, so not sticking around, just wanted to say thanks for all your messages of support and informaton, for those that want to know what happened

http://theamazing39stonecyclist.wordpre ... -enclosed/

I wanted to get it all down, before I forgot anything, for now im off to bed, hopfully I can add some proper comments to this topic tomorrow.

Thanks Again

Gaz

Ah, so that was you was it? Was just about to post a question on the SCR thread. I saw someone on the ground when I was going along the Curry Mile this morning. I would have stopped but there was a paramedic already helping you (stabilising your head/neck, by the looks of things) and I thought I'd just get in the way. Hope you recover quickly.

You've given me inspiration to go and do a 1st Aid course!

El Diego

Get well soon R kid.

el_presidente

Gaz - as you're in the area, why not commission AndyManc to dish out some vigilante justice?

spen666

thelawnet wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

you could hit him with the equivalent of car hire costs.

You could not claim car hire costs if the vehicle damaged is a bike

You have a duty to mitigate your losses and that is not mitigating your losses

EQUIVALENT - read the post before going off the deep end!

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

Are you being an 4r5e on purpose, if he'd had a car taken off the road by being hit, he'd be entitled to a hire car, as its a bike he's been deprived off entitled to the EQUIVALENT right, aka a hire bike or some other similar means of providing a bike (never tried to hire one for longer a day, can you get one, I don't know hence my use of the word EQUIVALENT, was it to hard for you to undertand FGS!

Simon

Simon,


He could claim the equivalent of bike hire, not the equivalent of car hire.

He never had a car before the incident and therefore he can't claim the equivalent of it.


If he was unable to ride a bike, then he could claim the cost of car hire - if he could drive (although I think a court would take some convincing that he could drive but not ride a bike).

It is likely to be the case that the cost of taxi fares would be more appropriate.

However, this is not the equivalent of car hire.


Compensation following an accident is to put you in the position you would have been in if the accident had not occurred.

Before the accident the OP was not using a car, but using a bike. He is entitledto be put in the position of being able to use a bike, not a car. Therefore the compensation claimable, (which may well be the cost of hiring a care if necessary and relevant) is the equivalent of bike hire

cee

TailWindHome wrote:

Brilliant, just Brilliant

Fella gets on his bike and loses 20 odd stone.

On the cusp of acheiving his goal he gets hit by a van.

You tell him to have a cake

Genius

no mention of weight loss in this thread...I tend not to remember all the user names on here....

twas hardly malicious....an overreaction on your part?

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

A man lives in the country, 5 miles from the nearest bus stop and 10 miles from work. He cycles to work, gets knocked off at the fault of a driver, putting the bicycle beyond use and causing an injury to his left knee preventing the man from cycling.

Is he entitled to rent a car with automatic transmission to drive to work?

As a lawyer, Spen, are you actually any good?

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

A man lives in the country, 5 miles from the nearest bus stop and 10 miles from work. He cycles to work, gets knocked off at the fault of a driver, putting the bicycle beyond use and causing an injury to his left knee preventing the man from cycling.

Is he entitled to rent a car with automatic transmission to drive to work?

As a lawyer, Spen, are you actually any good?

i'm a damn sight better than you because I can understand English

In your example the person is not claiming the equivalent of car hire

You as others are using the wrong comparator.

As I have said he may be able to claim the equivalent of bike hire- which may be the cost of car hire. That is not the same as claiming the equivalent of car hire.

Ask your self- what you are trying to recover.

In your example you are trying to recover car hire - not the equivalent of car hire

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Equivalent of car hire is not claimable.

You did not have the use of a car before, so why should you be entitled to recover the equivalent of car hire?

A man lives in the country, 5 miles from the nearest bus stop and 10 miles from work. He cycles to work, gets knocked off at the fault of a driver, putting the bicycle beyond use and causing an injury to his left knee preventing the man from cycling.

Is he entitled to rent a car with automatic transmission to drive to work?

As a lawyer, Spen, are you actually any good?

Oh and if you need to resort to personal insults to get your point home, it says a lot about the strength of your point.

always_tyred

It depends whether or not you construe the term "equivalent of car hire" to mean "the monetary equivalent of car which had been hired" or whether a reasonable person would instead regard the statement to mean "the monetary equivalent of a car which had not in fact been hired".

I would propose the former interpretation to be more reasonable. Indeed, the latter interpretation appears inconsistent with the comparators.

Would you say that, if such costs were not actually incurred, it would be possible to recover the EQUIVALENT of any such expense?

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Oh and if you need to resort to personal insults to get your point home, it says a lot about the strength of your point.

SPEN RESPONSE: I was not insulting you personally, I was merely gathering factual information. The perceived tenor of my question has no relevance to the strength of my argument.

A.T. RESPONSE: Who cares.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

It depends whether or not you construe the term "equivalent of car hire" to mean "the monetary equivalent of car which had been hired" or whether a reasonable person would instead regard the statement to mean "the monetary equivalent of a car which had not in fact been hired".

I would propose the former interpretation to be more reasonable. Indeed, the latter interpretation appears inconsistent with the comparators.

Would you say that, if such costs were not actually incurred, it would be possible to recover the EQUIVALENT of any such expense?

no matter how you try to spin it, you are simply supporting the fact that you cannot recover the equivalent of car hire if you did not have a car before.

You would be certain to lose on that head of damages in a court.

UndercoverElephant

I love it when lawyers start arguing because when you read the words they are all obviously simple English, yet when you read the sentence it makes no sense whatsoever.

Kieran_Burns

Valued member of forum sent somersaulting off bike by careless driver, ends up in A&E with his brand new bike ruined.

Two high post count members of same forum argue legal frippery in thread posted to let people know what is happening.

Glad to see some people have their priorities right.




Gaz - I hope everything is okay this morning and there were no complications apparent overnight.

tailwindhome

Welcome to the internet!

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

no matter how you try to spin it, you are simply supporting the fact that you cannot recover the equivalent of car hire if you did not have a car before.

You would be certain to lose on that head of damages in a court.

Oh, so you've backtracked on the interpretation of the term "equivalent of" and you are now contending that the mode of transport is the determining factor, and that the end result is irrelevant.

I've proposed a scenario, not far fetched, in which the only replacement mode of transport which placed the claimant in a similar position during their recovery, is car rental. A taxi is more expensive and a bus in unavailable. You are therefore arguing that as a result of the injuries sustained, preventing costs of the equivalent transport from placing them in the position they would have been (i.e. the claimant can't cycle to work and has to take another form of transport to work) they are, in fact, not entitled to claim anything. I am of course assuming that the claimant would not be able to recover costs for a bicycle that had not been rented. This would be inequitable and would suggest, for example, that if you are going to knock someone off their bicycle, you would be best to injure them slightly while you are at it, so as to reduce damages.

You are just being are just being stubborn.

always_tyred

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Valued member of forum sent somersaulting off bike by careless driver, ends up in A&E with his brand new bike ruined.

Two high post count members of same forum argue legal frippery in thread posted to let people know what is happening.

Glad to see some people have their priorities right.




Gaz - I hope everything is okay this morning and there were no complications apparent overnight.

God, yes, think of the children, think of the starving children.

Its so British to be vicariously offended, isn't it?

The Rookie

spen666 wrote:

He could claim the equivalent of bike hire, not the equivalent of car hire.

He never had a car before the incident and therefore he can't claim the equivalent of it.


If he was unable to ride a bike, then he could claim the cost of car hire - if he could drive (although I think a court would take some convincing that he could drive but not ride a bike).

It is likely to be the case that the cost of taxi fares would be more appropriate.

However, this is not the equivalent of car hire.

So are you being an arse on purpose I NEVER SAID HE COULD CLAIM THE CAR HIRE DID I, I SAID THE F'ING EQUIVALENT. Read what I said.

Simon

suzyb

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I love it when lawyers start arguing because when you read the words they are all obviously simple English, yet when you read the sentence it makes no sense whatsoever.

+1

always_tyred

suzyb wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I love it when lawyers start arguing because when you read the words they are all obviously simple English, yet when you read the sentence it makes no sense whatsoever.

+1

How dare you call me a lawyer.

El Diego

Your debate is getting really really boring.