accident, starting to doubt myself

tomb353

minor prang this morning. I'm heading up hill towards a queue of traffic, as I near the queue a car overtakes me, pulling left in front of me, I swerve right to try and avoid but hit the centre of their bumper a glancing blow (but quite bad scratches, ice spike tyres).

To some extent just one of those things, the car assumed that I would be staying to the left of them so braked and stopped leaving room to the left. I don't over take on the left so instinctively moved right to avoid them.

In my mind at the time and since I take the view that since the overtake caused the crash they are at fault. However a bit concerned by the aggressive tone of the police officer registered keeper of the car on the phone tonight, plus the standard insurance company line that a rear end is always the fault of the vehicle behind.

Surely if you are overtaking and the result is a crash like this you must be to blame, or am I being optimistic? Have done all the right things I think and reported to the police myself, talking to insurance company tomorrow.

The drivers husband, claiming to be policeman was adamant that he thought my fault, and also claimed that the highway code says bikes must be 60cm from the kerb!!! Unfortunately they seem convinced enough that they are in the right that I'm going to have to kick off an insurance claim but concerned about losing my (home ins with 3rd party cover) no claims.

kurako

Firstly, bad luck.

the highway code says bikes must be 60cm from the kerb

Secondly, that ^ is complete bollocks.

redvee

Get in contact with Alison France or RJW the CTC solicitors, they should be able to offer advise as will other forum members.

tomb353

yep, difficulty is dealing with someone convinced of this

tomb353

i've got legal fees insurance so if it goes that far will probably end up with a panel solicitor. Hoping it doesn't and just not looking forward to losing sleep over this in the meantime.

kurako

Was there any damage to you or your bike? If not tough sh!t on them for a stupid overtake. Definitely get legal advice if they push it. At the very most it sounds 50/50.

tomb353

no, no damage to me or bike, even stayed upright as more of a glancing blow. Difficulty is that 50/50 can still be expensive when it comes to car bodywork. I'd agree with tough luck for them but what doesn't look good for me is that the damage is on their rear bumper.

Drysuitdiver

insurance company will likely go knock for knock. make sure your insurance company or theirs are aware of the aggressive tone .

i had a idiot try this and their insurance company soon dropped the claim.

the highway code alsom gives some advice on overtaking

162
Before overtaking you should make sure

•the road is sufficiently clear ahead
•road users are not beginning to overtake you
•there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

neither of which the driver seems to have done to you

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should


•move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in.


safe to overtake coming up on queuing traffic ??


213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.


[/b]

kurako

Ha ha, drysuit beat me to it. If they want to quote something which they think is in the Highway Code but isn't the very least you can do is counter with stuff which *IS*

dodgy

If It was me, I'd be discussing the policeman's habit (with his boss) of abusing his police status in civil cases. The fact he's a policeman is completely irrelevant, to top it all, he wasn't even driving!

I'm sure that when the facts are established it will become clear that this is one of those cases where the following vehicle isn't to blame there are a few exceptions to the rule.

tomb353

thanks for that, the highway code points were what I tried to quote to this guy on the phone, but not the easiest person to deal with....

I think "do not cut in" sums this one up really. Could I have avoided hitting the car if I'd responded differently, who knows, but you shouldn't have to put up with this and then having people try and extract damages from you isn't nice

dilemna

Impersonating a cop is a serious offence. Ask for his collar number. If he refuses then tell him if he doesn't do one you'll report him for it. As for the 60cm rule that is total crap. Sounds like the guy is trying to bully you. Do you have a pic of him? I would definitely check out his story that he is a cop. If so report him for bullying you and unbecoming conduct.

Are there any witnesses? If not it is your word against his/hers/theirs.

Did you get a good look at the damage you are supposedly to have caused? Pics? Do they know you had studded tyres? If not then say damage/scratches are not down to you as a rubber tyre would not cause those marks.

Wrt the overtake. A moton has to overtake with reasonable care and skill - safely.

Your account is a bit muddled/not that clear, but you do give the impression of riding into the back of the car. Was this because they braked sharply having over taken you?The HC quoted above is very helpful.

Get your bike fully checked out as a "cracked" or "twisted" frame/forks could be very handy if this incident got anywhere near a court and a 50/50 judgement were reached. Each side would pay for their own damage and expenses. Also any case would be heard in the Small Claims Court as I don't imagine for one second that the value of any claim would exceed £5k in this incident and there is no personal injury element. Solicitors are generally not permitted in Small Claims Courts. In the SCC legal costs cannot be recovered and the very rare case they can it is up to an absolute maximum of £80 so lawyers tend not to represent claimants in low value cases. I think it highly unlikely or fair that any court would make you pay for all the damage to the car and there seems to be a dispute of what damage was actually caused.

You seem a bit confused. Why would you lose your NCD unless you would volunteer your home insurance for them to claim against which has 3rd party liability and legal expenses?

Finally you don't sue some one who doesn't have any money or assets. So plead poverty.

unixnerd

If It was me, I'd be discussing the policeman's habit (with his boss) of abusing his police status in civil cases.

The chief constable of Northern Constabulary got a really hard time about this sort of thing last year. He went in uniform to sort out a dispute involving his son and another boy over a rugby game or something like that. A word with his inspector will maybe see a change of attitude.

tomb353

they stopped dead having overtaken me, hence my hitting the rear bumper. Difficult bit to explain is that both car and bike were at an angle when hit so more of a glancing blow, I was moving right to avoid, and they had stopped at an angle as there wasn't room for them to straighten up as they'd reached the back of the queue. I don't know if they clocked the studded tyres, without them there would not have been any damage.

They are after my insurance details to claim against. I told their insurer I was insured when contacted this morning, but am slightly unsure on whether I'm obliged to pass my insurance details on to them directly when asked.

Difficult to tell if the guy is really a copper or not, the 60cm comment says not, but then again your average beat bobby doesn't always know a lot of traffic law.

I didn't go looking for witnesses at the time as I didn't think it likely anyone would have seen the whole think from start to finish. Unfortunately headcam is on the blink so no footage...

dilemna

tomb353 wrote:

they stopped dead having overtaken me, hence my hitting the rear bumper. Difficult bit to explain is that both car and bike were at an angle when hit so more of a glancing blow, I was moving right to avoid, and they had stopped at an angle as there wasn't room for them to straighten up as they'd reached the back of the queue. I don't know if they clocked the studded tyres, without them there would not have been any damage.

They are after my insurance details to claim against. I told their insurer I was insured when contacted this morning, but am slightly unsure on whether I'm obliged to pass my insurance details on to them directly when asked.

Difficult to tell if the guy is really a copper or not, the 60cm comment says not, but then again your average beat bobby doesn't always know a lot of traffic law.

I didn't go looking for witnesses at the time as I didn't think it likely anyone would have seen the whole think from start to finish. Unfortunately headcam is on the blink so no footage...

They are after any insurance details you might have so they can claim against you knowing they WILL get paid as insurance companies have money. Their insurer will be a b*stard trying to get money out of you. Tell them you were mistaken, you do not have insurance as it is NOT a requirement for cyclists to have insurance. Then see what they say. Tell them you have 7 kids by 4 mothers, live in a housing association property, are unemployed and already £17k in debt.

Do you have 3rd party insurance as an add on of your house contents insurance? If you do rely on this policy then your house inssurance premiums will rocket. Witnesses - for both sides. Do THEY have any witnesses. If not tell them to sling their hook. Do not admit to studded tyres if you have not already as it sounds like they will have difficulty proving that you or your bike caused the damage they say you did. Make a counter claim - tell the insurer your bike is not riding right, you suspect a damaged fork frame and that you HOLD the driver responsible for a dangerous overtake then slamming their brakes on which caused you to collide with their car.

They are just trying it on. If the chap is a copper you must call up the local constabulary and check this out. I would. If he is lying then he's committed an offence of impersonating a copper, if not and he is, make a complaint of bullying against him. You might want to use this against them which might get them off your back. I have had coppers in the past thinking they can through their weight around - money grabbing barstewards as well.

Are you a member of BC, LCC or CTC? If so, you need to call their solicitors for some initial advice.

badwolf

tomb353 wrote:

... concerned by the aggressive tone of the police officer registered keeper of the car...

Oh geez, isn't it funny how everyone is suddenly a police officer :roll: Would take that with a pinch of salt

tomb353

neither side have witnesses. Am tempted to let the insurance company tell them to sling their hook as long as theres no risk of them paying out. Figuring they are more likely to accept this from the insurer than from a "cyclist". As someone said above the danger is that this makes it more likely they see me as someone worth suing, but they already have a business card so guess i've already opened myself up to that.

Perhaps lesson here is to get separate cycle insurance.

dodgy

dilemna wrote:

tomb353 wrote:

they stopped dead having overtaken me, hence my hitting the rear bumper. Difficult bit to explain is that both car and bike were at an angle when hit so more of a glancing blow, I was moving right to avoid, and they had stopped at an angle as there wasn't room for them to straighten up as they'd reached the back of the queue. I don't know if they clocked the studded tyres, without them there would not have been any damage.

They are after my insurance details to claim against. I told their insurer I was insured when contacted this morning, but am slightly unsure on whether I'm obliged to pass my insurance details on to them directly when asked.

Difficult to tell if the guy is really a copper or not, the 60cm comment says not, but then again your average beat bobby doesn't always know a lot of traffic law.

I didn't go looking for witnesses at the time as I didn't think it likely anyone would have seen the whole think from start to finish. Unfortunately headcam is on the blink so no footage...

They are after any insurance details you might have so they can claim against you knowing they WILL get paid as insurance companies have money. Their insurer will be a b*stard trying to get money out of you. Tell them you were mistaken, you do not have insurance as it is NOT a requirement for cyclists to have insurance. Then see what they say. Tell them you have 7 kids by 4 mothers, live in a housing association property, are unemployed and already £17k in debt.

Do you have 3rd party insurance as an add on of your house contents insurance? If you do rely on this policy then your house inssurance premiums will rocket. Witnesses - for both sides. Do THEY have any witnesses. If not tell them to sling their hook. Do not admit to studded tyres if you have not already as it sounds like they will have difficulty proving that you or your bike caused the damage they say you did. Make a counter claim - tell the insurer your bike is not riding right, you suspect a damaged fork frame and that you HOLD the driver responsible for a dangerous overtake then slamming their brakes on which caused you to collide with their car.

They are just trying it on. If the chap is a copper you must call up the local constabulary and check this out. I would. If he is lying then he's committed an offence of impersonating a copper, if not and he is, make a complaint of bullying against him. You might want to use this against them which might get them off your back. I have had coppers in the past thinking they can through their weight around - money grabbing barstewards as well.

Are you a member of BC, LCC or CTC? If so, you need to call their solicitors for some initial advice.

I don't think you're helping, further up the thread you say the OP should deny he had studded tures. Now you're telling him to lie about his social status. Stop it, yoiu're just confusing the issue.

All the OP has to do is outline the FACTS, and he will be clear.

The Rookie

I think the fact you say the car appears to have left you enough room to stay to its left and you then chose to go to the right will count against you somewhat, if it wasn't the case he left room to his left then you would have a very good case.

However worst I can see is a 'knock for knock' still leaving him with his repair bill and you with none.

Certainly do not tell lies, they have a habit of coming back to haunt you as proving one lie means everything else you say loses credability.

Simon

snailracer

tomb353 wrote:

...They are after my insurance details to claim against. I told their insurer I was insured when contacted this morning, but am slightly unsure on whether I'm obliged to pass my insurance details on to them directly when asked...

AFAIK a cyclist is not required to supply details to the other party or even report an accident to the police if the motorist's vehicle is the only one damaged in an accident (i.e. not deliberately). This odd principle applies to cyclists, pedestrians, etc. because they are not required to carry third party insurance, whereas motor vehicles are.

If I were you, I would not answer their phone calls and ignore them. Hopefully you have not already let the cat out of the bag when their insurance company phoned you.

If you have a stiff neck from the collision <cough cough>, I would tell their insurance company that, or find an "ambulance chaser" to harass them.

tomb353

I'd assumed that you did need to stop and provide details if you have a crash, even if nobody injured. I guess one thought for next time would just be to ride off but wouldn't feel right to me, even if not at fault.

pshore

It seems fairly simple the way you tell it. They cut in front not leaving you enough time or distance to brake normally. You were surprised and had to take evasive action.

If those are the facts, just tell them straight and then they will have to prove otherwise, surely.

They might try to argue that you just went into the back of them but it seems highly unlikely that a cyclist would do that on purpose and the only other way is not paying attention but then you would have damaged the left of the car if just pootling along.

I would record and cost up your time spent on this and then suggest they pay for it. They might back off then.

If you have house insurance you might have legal cover included. It won't be a bike specific one though.

motdoc

Sounds like the others guys fault.
I would also say it sounds like you have problems concentrating and are suffering emotional distress as a result of their careless driving.
If your stress levels go up you may develop back or neck pain as a result of this in combination with your whiplash injury (you have had one, whiplash is a mechanism not a specific injury), this must be avoided at all costs (usually takes a couple of days to develop)! I would suggest you offer to sue them if your neck is starting to hurt.

Peasoup

+1 what pshore said

snailracer

tomb353 wrote:

I'd assumed that you did need to stop and provide details if you have a crash, even if nobody injured. I guess one thought for next time would just be to ride off but wouldn't feel right to me, even if not at fault.

What's legal and what's moral is not necessarily the same. I am not suggesting you just “ride off”. You stuck around and made sure everyone was uninjured, good for you - I would have done the same. The motorist had a chance to call the police but chose not to (probably because they knew it was their fault). If they had summoned the police, they would probably have taken no action as it is your word against theirs, nothing can be proven unless both sides tell the truth and it is obvious one side was in the wrong. The policeman's stock answer to the motorist would be to claim off their own insurance (and hints to stop wasting police time with such a trivial matter), which should have been your stock answer to the motorist at the time of the incident. If they ask for details, just refuse and offer to stick around if they wish to summon the police.

This all assumes no-one is injured and only the car is damaged. On the other hand, if the car had damaged your bike, or you, you are entitled to get their details - a bit one-sided, but that’s because cars and bikes are different – cars are recognized as massive liabilities and therefore require insurance and the means for third parties to claim against it.

The “hit from behind” presumption doesn’t work on bikes – probably because they are assumed to be riding slowly in the gutter. I also suspect that presumption is only observed between insurance companies for convenience, it does not necessarily hold up in court.

Car insurers also prohibit policyholders from admitting fault – even if they know they are wrong. Not moral or decent, but still legal.

tomb353

finally got hold of someone at the halifax who confirmed that I am covered, not easy trying to communicate with home insurance bods who have never heard of this before. I guess sensible thing now is to not take any more calls from the driver and see what happens.

dilemna

dodgy wrote:

dilemna wrote:

tomb353 wrote:

they stopped dead having overtaken me, hence my hitting the rear bumper. Difficult bit to explain is that both car and bike were at an angle when hit so more of a glancing blow, I was moving right to avoid, and they had stopped at an angle as there wasn't room for them to straighten up as they'd reached the back of the queue. I don't know if they clocked the studded tyres, without them there would not have been any damage.

They are after my insurance details to claim against. I told their insurer I was insured when contacted this morning, but am slightly unsure on whether I'm obliged to pass my insurance details on to them directly when asked.

Difficult to tell if the guy is really a copper or not, the 60cm comment says not, but then again your average beat bobby doesn't always know a lot of traffic law.

I didn't go looking for witnesses at the time as I didn't think it likely anyone would have seen the whole think from start to finish. Unfortunately headcam is on the blink so no footage...

They are after any insurance details you might have so they can claim against you knowing they WILL get paid as insurance companies have money. Their insurer will be a b*stard trying to get money out of you. Tell them you were mistaken, you do not have insurance as it is NOT a requirement for cyclists to have insurance. Then see what they say. Tell them you have 7 kids by 4 mothers, live in a housing association property, are unemployed and already £17k in debt.

Do you have 3rd party insurance as an add on of your house contents insurance? If you do rely on this policy then your house inssurance premiums will rocket. Witnesses - for both sides. Do THEY have any witnesses. If not tell them to sling their hook. Do not admit to studded tyres if you have not already as it sounds like they will have difficulty proving that you or your bike caused the damage they say you did. Make a counter claim - tell the insurer your bike is not riding right, you suspect a damaged fork frame and that you HOLD the driver responsible for a dangerous overtake then slamming their brakes on which caused you to collide with their car.

They are just trying it on. If the chap is a copper you must call up the local constabulary and check this out. I would. If he is lying then he's committed an offence of impersonating a copper, if not and he is, make a complaint of bullying against him. You might want to use this against them which might get them off your back. I have had coppers in the past thinking they can through their weight around - money grabbing barstewards as well.

Are you a member of BC, LCC or CTC? If so, you need to call their solicitors for some initial advice.

I don't think you're helping, further up the thread you say the OP should deny he had studded tures. Now you're telling him to lie about his social status. Stop it, yoiu're just confusing the issue.

All the OP has to do is outline the FACTS, and he will be clear.

Eh ...... ? Didn't you propose that the OP contact the bosses (police force) of the other party for abusing his position as a police officer, if indeed, he was a police officer? Tell me how does this help the OP wrt to the collision :roll: ? Are you saying that the OP should mention facts that would clearly show he was liable for the damage to the other party's vehicle? Surely the other party has the burden to prove that the OP was negligent to establish liability? How can the facts be established as you put it if 2 parties have different versions of what took place and there are no witnesses? A court or some one will have to make a decision as to what most likely happened and then apportion liability accordingly.

dodgy

The poiliceman is operating outside of his area. I didn't suggest the OP tells lies and distort the truth - like you did.