How much is my ankle worth?

Ben6899

Rolf F wrote:

Besides, this is a forum - I think everyone who posts expects fairly lay answers. Yours isn't the only profession that people ask relevant questions about. It would be pretty tedious if everytime someone asked a non-cycling related question that someone else with professional knowledge smugly posted about how ignorant the question was.

This^^^.

And to the OP, I wish you a good recovery and outcome to the whole event.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

W1 wrote:

How much do you want for it?

How much would make you feel better?

(A1): I'm not really bothered, because its not going to change my life, and
(A2): not a whole hell of a lot would make me feel better other than ripping the pedals off climbing a hill on my bike next summer.

I have a lot of time on my hands.

Evidently!

This is a very interesting topic.

Surely the best answer to your question is - what is it worth to me? Bearing in mind no figure (£1 or £1m) will remove the injury or reduce it's long term impact on your life. So then it's down to personal satisfaction - so what's your price?

BTW you'll be pleased to know that Spen is about to disagree with me.

And I hope you recover fully and swiftly.

gtvlusso

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Oh yeah, hope you feel better soon.

On the Peppa Pig front, who are the hot children's TV presenters at the moment?

I'm sure the hotties on kids TV are to keep the dads happy. Who was the presenter on Blue Peter who was told to dress like an old maid as she was getting some rather provocative 'fan mail'?

I am afraid that I don't get to see the faces of the Zingzillas, but I think that Panzee may have the best legs....

As for shock factor - I was amazed and very pleased to see Floella Benjamin still on kids TV doing the bedtime story.

Jeez, she looks exactly the same as when I was watching playschool 30 odd years ago - rock on Floella!!

gtvlusso

Rolf F wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There is no way of valuing your claim without more details and if you don't want the people who have an idea what a claim is worth, then why ask what the claim is worth?

If you stopped to think for a minute and read what you are asking, you are asking people to value a claim with no information and you are specifically excluding those who have the skills to value a claim from answering

You are effectively asking the drunks in the pub to give you a figure and then say you are going to use this figure to help you evaluate how good your solicitor is

Madness and stupidity spring to mind

I'm sure that what you say is technically correct. However, if you actually want to influence people and therefore be helpful, maybe you shouldn't be so condescending and pompous in the way you write your posts. Ultimately, you are just devaluing your knowledge by being a tit.

Besides, this is a forum - I think everyone who posts expects fairly lay answers. Yours isn't the only profession that people ask relevant questions about. It would be pretty tedious if everytime someone asked a non-cycling related question that someone else with professional knowledge smugly posted about how ignorant the question was.

I suspect that Spen is really a bin man from Cullercoats.....just likes to troll on forums shouting about how he thinks he is a solicitor and by being completely belligerent to anyone that questions his authority......

First.Aspect

spen666 wrote:

Its worth a £1 million

its worth £0.01

Its worth £10,000

You are effectively asking the drunks in the pub to give you a figure and then say you are going to use this figure to help you evaluate how good your solicitor is

Madness and stupidity spring to mind

Well, at least its clear that you don't know much either. There is enough information to get to within about 30% I think. There is always a finite possibility that if pursued to a civil trial, some number well above or well below this amount could be generated, but this isn't going to happen. Its a straightforward case of acknowledged liability which will be fought out on the basis of actuarial tables. I already know that I don't want this to be ruling my life for the duration of actual proceedings on the offchance of a few grand more. If I dedicate the energy to my job, I'll earn more than its worth to do that anyway.

Asking random people at a pub is precisely what I am doing. Fortunately, its not a double blind experiment, and I am aware that I am asking random people at a pub. But I have been given a few useful tips based on personal experience, and there is some consolation that I'm not the only one to have got caught out.

I'm not as stupid as I think you are.



PS: Peppa Pig was boring. However, Maria Sharapova is tolerable, providing the TV is on mute, and Marion Bartoli has a certain something. And I am up to season 2 of the Wire.

davis

Rolf F wrote:

Besides, this is a forum - I think everyone who posts expects fairly lay answers. Yours isn't the only profession that people ask relevant questions about. It would be pretty tedious if everytime someone asked a non-cycling related question that someone else with professional knowledge smugly posted about how ignorant the question was.

This.

I believe the OP is after an "order of magnitude" estimate. We all know that individual circumstances are different, that the details needed to make an accurate estimate aren't available, that any estimate will be wrong, etc, etc. And we don't care, 'cos we're just trying to be helpful.

To the OP: When I had my proper crash (pothole; broken vertebra, with associated and continuing non-fun) I asked the solicitor for a rough guess of the outcome if successful. The total guess figures were between 10 and 50 kGBP I think (I was pretty mashed up on painkillers at the time). As it happens, it didn't go anywhere.
Best of luck with your recovery.

First.Aspect

gtvlusso wrote:

As for shock factor - I was amazed and very pleased to see Floella Benjamin still on kids TV doing the bedtime story.

Jeez, she looks exactly the same as when I was watching playschool 30 odd years ago - rock on Floella!!

Are you serious?

Is she suspended in formaldehyde, like Lenin? Oh, hang on, she's only 61. That doesn't add up. She must have spent several years (of our time) orbitting the sun at extremely high velocity, or something.

And thanks to everyone for the sentiments. I had a week where the prognosis was not good - delayed surgery, CAT scans, talk of not reconstructing the ankle, etc. and let me tell you, a year of recovery is a doddle in comparison, providing that I know that I am aiming for almost a full recovery. Hiking is dull anyway, so its not a disaster that I won't be an Edmund Hillary after all.

EKE_38BPM

The Wire should relieve some boredom.

I know I was addicted to it for the few months it took me to watch the entire thing. You know you are addicted when you stay up late watching it, wake up early to watch an episode before work and then rush home to watch the next one.

I had it BAAAAD!
Very good programme.

dhope

First Aspect wrote:

And I am up to season 2 of the Wire.

Some good has come of the accident at least. West Wing and Sopranos next, Deadwood. John Adams I'm currently working my way through.

Seriously though, heal up soon, sounds nasty.

davis

dhope wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

And I am up to season 2 of the Wire.

Some good has come of the accident at least. West Wing and Sopranos next, Deadwood. John Adams I'm currently working my way through.

West Wing actually any good? Caught a few peeks at it, never really gave a monkey's.

waddlie

Good to see Spen666 is continuing in his role as BikeRadar's resident asshat. Saves anyone else applying for the job, I suppose.

...and he wonders why his Mrs left him...

Anyway - First Aspect, when I was laid up I watched the first 6 series of Spooks back-to-back. It's a load of nonsense, but thoroughly entertaining if you don't take it too seriously.

If that does't work, Spen666's youtube channel includes some classic videos of.. er.. chips on a pavement.

EKE_38BPM

+1 for The West Wing.

For a bit of light titillation, check out Sugar Rush on 4OD.


That comment should really have gone in the Lesbians thread!

First.Aspect

The West Wing is seriously good. You have to like politics though and get a sense of the characters from the earliest episodes.

What amazes me is that a US network made something so partisan and that it was a popular as it was. Joseph McCarthy would have wanted to interview the entire production team.

spen666

First Aspect wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Oh & advice regarding mitigation and magistrates decisions really show the stupidity of asking such questions

Magistrates decide criminal cases, a personal injury case is a civil case and has no connection directly with the decision in a criminal case. The law is different and the standard of proff is different

Also mitigation is irrelevant as it is again a criminal term.

no amount of mitigation will affect the amount of compensation in a PI case. ~Whether the driver is someone who deliberately drove over you 20 times or accidentaly knocked you off, stopped, took you to hospital etc- none of that affects the compensation which is decided according to the injuries and out of pocket expenses you suffered

Terminology aside, whether or not the driver attempts to argue partial liability as a result of the circumstances is a factor in determining compensation, isn't it?
e.g. if an accident is at night and the front light on the bike was dim, the driver could argue that this was contributory negligence, no? So lets just assume that words used on an anonymous internet forum are used colloquially, shall we?

I didn't mention magistrates. The driver's criminal case, if there is one at all, is not my concern. Think of this as an out of court insurance claim. I doubt that it will get beyond that. From what I can tell, arguments over the compensation will be plus or minus 30% or so, not an order of magnitude. There are some concrete facts that will limit the range, i.e. there is a crush injury resulting in a multiple multiple fracture. There will be permanent scarring, loss of joint motion and stability, and arthritis. A new break later will not necessitate amputation, but could result in a worse prognosis than would otherwise have been the case. I guess that an adjuster would plug that lot in, and the adjuster the on the other side would plug that in, and their computers would spit outthe same numbers and the arguments would commence.

Finally, Tourettes666, do you think you could resist the urge to call me stupid? I like to think I've a tolerable IQ - somewhere in the top 5% I think, so technically I'm not stupid - and I'm perfectly cognizant of the limitations of my question. As most everyone else will have figured out for themselves, I really just want to chat anonymously to pass the time, and I might just learn something in the process. Nothing written here will have the remotest influence on the outcome of events, whether it is accurate advice or science fiction. So don't worry yourself about that.

Do you live next to s stream, under a bridge?

Erm Firstly, I have not called you stupid

secondly I have not said that you did mention magistrates - others purporting to give you advice are advising you regarding the magistrates decision and compensation.

thirdly, you may have a fixation with abuse and insults. It would probably would help if you understood what tourette's is before you bandy abuse around

The term mitigation is something completely different from liability or contributory negligence. It is not a matter of terminology, the issue of liability is a million miles away from mitigation. Mitigation as I have said does not have any bearing on compensation at all. Indeed it is irrelevant in a civil case.

From what I can tell, arguments over the compensation will be plus or minus 30% or so, not an order of magnitude. There are some concrete facts that will limit the range, i.e. there is a crush injury resulting in a multiple multiple fracture. There will be permanent scarring, loss of joint motion and stability, and arthritis. A new break later will not necessitate amputation, but could result in a worse prognosis than would otherwise have been the case

The talk of plus or minus 30% suggests a range of contributory negligence being alleged. IF so, then the extent of the injuries is not relevant to the amount in 5 terms of the contributory negligence contributory negligence.

dhope

davis wrote:

dhope wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

And I am up to season 2 of the Wire.

Some good has come of the accident at least. West Wing and Sopranos next, Deadwood. John Adams I'm currently working my way through.

West Wing actually any good? Caught a few peeks at it, never really gave a monkey's.

Its not one to dip in and out of, the characters and plotlines develop so it's better to start at the beginning.

Oh, and Mad Men if you're not already watching it.

gtvlusso

First Aspect wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

As for shock factor - I was amazed and very pleased to see Floella Benjamin still on kids TV doing the bedtime story.

Jeez, she looks exactly the same as when I was watching playschool 30 odd years ago - rock on Floella!!

Are you serious?

Is she suspended in formaldehyde, like Lenin? Oh, hang on, she's only 61. That doesn't add up. She must have spent several years (of our time) orbitting the sun at extremely high velocity, or something.

And thanks to everyone for the sentiments. I had a week where the prognosis was not good - delayed surgery, CAT scans, talk of not reconstructing the ankle, etc. and let me tell you, a year of recovery is a doddle in comparison, providing that I know that I am aiming for almost a full recovery. Hiking is dull anyway, so its not a disaster that I won't be an Edmund Hillary after all.

The Wire is frickin' mint!!!!! Love that show....re-watching the entire series at the moment.

Pick up a guitar and learn that - you may not be Edmund Hillary, but you may be Kurt Cobain.....

Good luck old bean!

EKE_38BPM

Buy in some hubs, spokes and rims. You could set yourself up as a wheel builder whilst you're off the bike.

+1 to Mad Men too. I've haven't watched it from beginning to end, but what I have seen is brilliant.

W1

Shall we start a bidding war, e-bay style, for the ankle?

optimisticbiker

For the record, my son was knocked off his bike by a left-hooker about 3y ago. Nothing too serious, fortunately, but a lot of lacerations and severe bruising, two cracked ribs and a nasty cut on his cheek that left a scar. He claimed against the driver, who admitted liability and was offered £500. He was represented by his 'legal services' cover under his house insurance - they refused this offer on his behalf and the other side came back with £5000 which he accepted. Took about 9mo IIRC for the case to be dealt with.

veronese68

But, would we get to it's true value? It could be bid up to an artificially high price by friends of the person listing said ankle.

davis

Would it come with the foot?

bearfraser

make sure you keep up the physio as much as you can tolerate the pain and see if your solicitor can fcuk the driver good time (and suggest the driver goes to "Specsavers" must be a blind barsteward , typical SMIDSY

Good luck !!

EKE_38BPM

Is it a left or right? I need a right because I have two left feet!
Not really, I'm a former professional dancer!

First.Aspect

spen666 wrote:

Erm Firstly, I have not called you stupid

secondly I have not said that you did mention magistrates - others purporting to give you advice are advising you regarding the magistrates decision and compensation.

thirdly, you may have a fixation with abuse and insults. It would probably would help if you understood what tourette's is before you bandy abuse around

The term mitigation is something completely different from liability or contributory negligence. It is not a matter of terminology, the issue of liability is a million miles away from mitigation. Mitigation as I have said does not have any bearing on compensation at all. Indeed it is irrelevant in a civil case.

From what I can tell, arguments over the compensation will be plus or minus 30% or so, not an order of magnitude. There are some concrete facts that will limit the range, i.e. there is a crush injury resulting in a multiple multiple fracture. There will be permanent scarring, loss of joint motion and stability, and arthritis. A new break later will not necessitate amputation, but could result in a worse prognosis than would otherwise have been the case

The talk of plus or minus 30% suggests a range of contributory negligence being alleged. IF so, then the extent of the injuries is not relevant to the amount in 5 terms of the contributory negligence contributory negligence.

Okay, look is this forum moderated? If you think I'm focussing on insults and so forth, then it is because I'm genuinely taken aback at your initial tone. It struck me as wholly unnecessary. That I turned out to be an argumentative so and so does not detract from my initial emotional response.

I know what Tourette's is. The guy who introduced me to South Park many years ago had it pretty badly. Oddly enough, South Park cleverly criticises people who leap to the defense of supposedly offended minorities without questioning whether or not they would anyway be offended, thereby accidentally being more offensive than the supposed offence.

I believe that the word mitigation will be found to have been in use before our legal system was in exisence. It means relief, or alleviation, the action of reducing the severity or seriousness of something. Presumably it also has a specific legal meaning, however the person who used it was not a lawyer and therefore it is arguably more correct to construe the term in its more general sense, rather in the narrower legal sense.

By analogy, if in response to a radio article about traffic chaos, a physicist were to start banging on about nonlinear dynamic systems, people will rapidly lose interest.

W1

bearfraser wrote:

make sure you keep up the physio as much as you can tolerate the pain and see if your solicitor can fcuk the driver good time (and suggest the driver goes to "Specsavers" must be a blind barsteward , typical SMIDSY

Good luck !!

You mean fcuk his insurance company? The driver really won't be particularly further affected by the size of the claim - just the fact that there has been a claim, together with the criminal penalties.

First.Aspect

bearfraser wrote:

make sure you keep up the physio as much as you can tolerate the pain and see if your solicitor can fcuk the driver good time (and suggest the driver goes to "Specsavers" must be a blind barsteward , typical SMIDSY

Good luck !!

SMIDSY is pretty much exactly what he said!! Actually it was IDKHIDSY.

But the guy hit me about 200 yards from his home, so he'll have a reminder every day, pretty much. He is a bit of an idiot for sure, but he stopped and he admitted it was his fault. I feel less animosity towards him than I do towards the multitudinous thick necked morons who play out their animal urges behind the wheel of a 2 ton metal weapon every time they drive, and who make far worse decisions and far worse mistakes without ever realising how close they got to hurting someone.

First.Aspect

Waddlie wrote:

Anyway - First Aspect, when I was laid up I watched the first 6 series of Spooks back-to-back. It's a load of nonsense, but thoroughly entertaining if you don't take it too seriously.

My nonsense quota is currently filled with Battlestar Erectica. Wall to wall t&a, interrupted by explosions. I am far too old and sensible to find this at all interesting, but I cannot seem to resist.

jimmypippa

Spen, cut the guy some slack, he's just had a real "oh f*k" moment, and was quite clear that he wants to vent as much as anything:

Part of this thread is about catharsis and the therapeutic value will be negated by know-it-alls (yes, I've followed the odd thread on this forum!!!)

First Aspect:

Best of luck

Should it cost an arm and a leg?

First.Aspect

Part of this thread is about catharsis and the therapeutic value will be negated by know-it-alls (yes, I've followed the odd thread on this forum!!!)

walkingbootweather

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Is it a left or right? I need a right because I have two left feet!
Not really, I'm a former professional dancer!

Ahh if it's dancing you want it for, you need to be sure that the OP is entirely blameless, 'cause guilty feet have got no rhythm

I'll get my gillet....