What would you do - poll?

Wheelspinner

It was a group of about 8 riders, but not one affiliated in any way with a club, so suing would mean an individual action. I doubt very much he has any insurance cover for that. I don't. End result would be a lot of lawyer fees and little else. Since I can still walk basically normally, and work, the loss of ability to participate in my preferred hobby, and general grumpiness is not going to get much consideration from the courts in those circumstances anyway.

If it had been a sanctioned club ride, then yes I'd probably have sued. Just the bills paid to date already total well past 5 grand for damages, health treatment and related costs and while it would be nice to have someone reimburse that, I don't fancy a long untidy court action to try. In an individual case, even "winning" is no guarantee of being paid if they don't have the money. TBH, I've no idea if he does, and nor do I really care.

That much at least I can put down to sh1t happens.

Despite half you lot suggesting "Move On, say nothing" (typical English.. ) I will probably contact him. Will see. After a long think last night I reckon that's the best option. I don't need or want anything specific from him, and an apology at this point is not worth much, but closing the chapter is important - to me.

First.Aspect

Wheelspinner wrote:

If it had been a sanctioned club ride, then yes I'd probably have sued.

You'd still lose. Its your fault.

How has it built up to £5k? I needed physio for 4 hours a week for 3 months, but this is available on the NHS. Perhaps its where I live, but this was arranged as and when I was ready for it, the referral coming from the surgeon's team.

You still haven't explained much about the accident.

Good luck - maybe you will get some closure. But don't pin too much on it.

gabriel959

I believe he lives in Australia so you're West Lothian case is rather meaningless in his case .

roger_merriman

gabriel959 wrote:

I believe he lives in Australia so you're West Lothian case is rather meaningless in his case .

either way I think you'd struggle to find any legal system that would not find Wheelspinner culpable to some degree, simply due to being too close to not run over the guy who crashed.

Thus far they all seem to take the line of if you chose to ride in a group then you accept the risks of that behaviour.

First.Aspect

gabriel959 wrote:

I believe he lives in Australia so you're West Lothian case is rather meaningless in his case .

I hadn't noticed that. However it isn't necessarily true. There's no binding precedent (not that there would be anyway, since this was not a higher court) but the case could still be persuasive, although possibly less so. And Roger is correct that the same principlles would probably be applied over there, probably with the same result, for the same reasons.

But you are very very clever Gabirel.

Wheelspinner

roger merriman wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I believe he lives in Australia so you're West Lothian case is rather meaningless in his case .

either way I think you'd struggle to find any legal system that would not find Wheelspinner culpable to some degree, simply due to being too close to not run over the guy who crashed.

Thus far they all seem to take the line of if you chose to ride in a group then you accept the risks of that behaviour.

Not really interested in your legal opinion, if that's what it is, since you clearly can't even read a simple thread post. Or at least, you seem inclined to just make sh1t up to suit your own argument.

Please point out where I stated that "I ran over the guy who crashed"?

Fail. Try again, thanks.

Wheelspinner

Double post. Stupid wireless connections.

roger_merriman

Wheelspinner wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I believe he lives in Australia so you're West Lothian case is rather meaningless in his case .

either way I think you'd struggle to find any legal system that would not find Wheelspinner culpable to some degree, simply due to being too close to not run over the guy who crashed.

Thus far they all seem to take the line of if you chose to ride in a group then you accept the risks of that behaviour.

Not really interested in your legal opinion, if that's what it is, since you clearly can't even read a simple thread post. Or at least, you seem inclined to just make sh1t up to suit your own argument.

Please point out where I stated that "I ran over the guy who crashed"?

Fail. Try again, thanks.

Fine back to your first post.

Wheelspinner wrote:

He crashed, wiped me out too, both ended up in hospital.

it's very hard to see how he could wipe you out if you where at a safe distance? Which clearly would rule out group riding.

when i'm riding with mates clearly i'm not riding at a safe distance since we are riding close enough to chat etc.

Wheelspinner

First Aspect wrote:

On the face of it, I think you need to move on.

You spent 3 days in the same hospital. Is he an ar$e for not contacting you again since you both left hospital? Perhaps, perhaps not. After all, sounds like you chatted during the 3 days after the accident and were otherwise not close. How is he doing? Or haven't you asked? There you go.

I agree with those who point out that if you go on a group ride, you must accept the risks. You haven't really described the accident, or how you know what he should have seen to avoid going down. After all, you didn't see it, did you? And you cycled into him and put him into hospital for 3 days.

It sounds like he wouldn't have been hurt, or as badly hurt, if you didn't cycle over him, you wouldn't have been hurt if he was more attentive, and neither of you would have been hurt if you hadn't been riding an unsafe distance apart at speed on a public road. Move on.

In relation to the legal option, there was a quite serious accident in West Lothian about 3 or 4 years ago where someone tried to sue over a group ride accident and failed.
http://www.mackssolicitors.co.uk/compensation-claims/road-traffic-accident/crash-cyclist-loses-compensation-case.html
The law says you are both to blame.

I understand fully how you feel. It is very hard getting over an injury like this - trust me I have the rest of my life to deal with the consequences of a driver's carelessness, who I know has my contact details and who I know has been informed of the consequences of his actions. In this clearest cut of cases (he eventually pleaded guilty to careless driving and the insurance case goes on) I know I will never hear from him. It is probably best that way. This is just human nature and is completely normal.

Move on. Deal with your injuries. Focus on you. I hope you will get better - be patient, its early days. Do not give up. If you keep telling your body to do something, there is a chance it will eventually comply. If it doesn't, you will find another way. Whatever happens, it will be easier if you aren't angry at this guy. Its pointless.

Hmm. Another fail. Lawyer I take it?

1. I did contact him after we'd left hospital. See OP. Read it properly.

To address the rest of the cr@p you made up, I'll describe the accident, and this time you can make an informed comment, instead of presumptive drivel. Fair enough?

8 guys out for a decent social ride, all similar standard. Riding down the designated bike lane beside a major highway back to town. Downhill, straight, fast stretch, with perfect surface. At point of accident, the group was strung out over a distance of at least 50 metres, likely more, arranged in approximately double file, but somewhat staggered rather than precisely side by side if that makes sense. Rider who crashed was fifth in line, on right hand side of lane. I was sixth, off his back left, and several METRES behind. Behind me, seventh had been dropped, about 30 metres back, and 8th was waaaay back. Speed: approx 50 km/h on that stretch, easy given the gradient.

Riders 1-4 all waved, pointed and called out in warning of obstacle, which was a dead wallaby on the road. I heard them, and saw it. The guy behind us in 7th saw it from where he was behind us and slowed. The only one who didn't see it ran smack into it at that speed, head down in time trial mode if you like. I watched his back wheel lift off the road in slow motion almost, and it pivoted across in front of me while he was still on the front wheel. I managed to duck and miss his wheel in my face, but in doing so caught my front wheel in the guttering on the side of the road. Front wheel slipped into the kerb and I am over the bars in a heartbeat, head first onto the edge of the concrete kerb. I have the crushed helmet to thank for no pulverised skull.

So, I did not "run over him". I did not cause his injuries to be any worse in any way. I did not even make any contact whatsoever with him, or his bike, nor contribute in any way to his error. The only "fault" was I was being too safe in sitting far enough back to allow room in case he moved off line. Had I been right up beside him I'd have been past and safe before he crashed.

So where on earth you got this from:
"It sounds like he wouldn't have been hurt, or as badly hurt, if you didn't cycle over him, you wouldn't have been hurt if he was more attentive, and neither of you would have been hurt if you hadn't been riding an unsafe distance apart at speed on a public road."

Or this: "And you cycled into him and put him into hospital for 3 days. "

I am f*cked if I know.. suggestions?

The only part of that sentence that is true is "if he was more attentive". Had I not even been there he'd still have run over the damned thing because he was not looking where he was going.

Clear?

Yes I'm in Australia and things are somewhat different here. Physiotherapy is not covered by the national health scheme, nor are osteopaths, chiropractors, myotherapists, acupuncturists, or other medical treatments. Cost of GP and specialist visits is only partially covered. Medications aren't at all, and in a lot of cases, neither is radiography.

My cost of 5k to date (Australian dollars, so call it 3200 pounds for now) is from:

Helmet: 300 bucks
Assos Mille knicks: 250
Race shoes (Adistar): 350
Compression undershirt: 70
Jersey: 90
Gilet: 80
Gloves, shredded: 40
Rudy Project glasses, mashed: 260
Selle Italia SLR Kit Carbonio saddle: 230
Campag Super Record 11 Speed crankset, ground through to the crank spindle: 700
Fast Forward F2R carbon tubular wheels rebuilt, remarkably unscathed: 150
Campag Super Record Ergo levers: 530
Bar tape: 30
Speedplay Zero Stainless pedals, badly scratched from almost new: 210

Considering the speed of the crash the bike survived remarkably well. Frame, forks and bars are all unmarked. See "Fastest" in my sig.

Other costs: more than a dozen visits to osteopath at 90 bucks a session. Several hundred dollars in un-reimbursed radiology costs for multiple X-ray, MRI and CT scans of knee, shoulder, elbow, neck, skull, hip. Half a dozen GP visits to get referrals to neurosurgeons and radiographers, repeat script for medications etc, all of which have a net cost of about 40 bucks out of pocket. Visit to neurosurgeon for "assessment" when the brace was removed. A couple of hundred bucks worth of medications. Four visits to masseurs that I can recall to see if that helps. Attempted acupuncture to relieve muscle spasms in neck and back, 3 sessions. No luck. On fifth "recommended" pillow to find something I can sleep on without exacerbating the stiffness in the neck. Current one not bad, but first four were failures, expensive ones too. Four hundred wasted bucks in those.

You add it up.

I'm not inclined to pursue legal action, partly because I'd have to deal with lawyers. There is a lovely story in our news here about the principal partners of one of this country's largest ambulance-chaser firms, who have scammed millions from clients, and now declare bankruptcy to avoid paying it back. All assets in wives and kids names. Typical slime that that field of the law seems to attract and encourage as practitioners. I'm sure there are good ones, but.....

Your last couple of paragraphs made good sense. Thank you for those words. (Believe it or not, I mean that.)

Wheelspinner

roger merriman wrote:

Fine back to your first post.

Wheelspinner wrote:

He crashed, wiped me out too, both ended up in hospital.

it's very hard to see how he could wipe you out if you where at a safe distance? Which clearly would rule out group riding.

when i'm riding with mates clearly i'm not riding at a safe distance since we are riding close enough to chat etc.

Please read first couple paragraphs of reply above to First Aspect. Then describe what exactly I did to be contributory to the extent of both his and my injuries, other then turning up to ride?

Apologies if I sound seriously rude or angry here. I am rarely the first, frequently the second of late. Sorry! :oops:
Cheers.

kelsen

Not going to muddy the waters further by commenting on who was to blame, but just wanted to say that the more you elaborate on the incident, the more (mis)interpretations there will be from others. Only you and the people who were on the ride can say with a degree of accuracy as to what actually happened. It's pretty clear you're not interested in pursuing legal action so all this discussion around it is a moot point. It seems you just want to draw a line under the whole episode and move on with your life, but it sounds like this won't happen until you put some demons to rest. The bottom line is you need to be clear in your mind what you want out of it. Do you just want to express how you feel? Are you looking for an apology? This is obviously a very emotional matter for you and confronting the guy over it may not result in the resolution that you hope for so you need to bear that in mind. Personally, I think the best way to approach this, initially at least, would be to communicate how you feel in writing to avoid the risk of escalating a delicate matter. Good luck and hope it all gets resolved.

rjsterry

Moving away from retrospective crash analysis through the medium of the internet forum, I think your only sensible option is the second one: getting angry at him for not calling, but refusing to make the first move is just prolonging your frustration. There are all sorts of reasons why he might not have got in touch, you won't know whether if it's a good reason or not without calling him. If he turns out to not give a damn, then at least you know where you stand, but with a bit of luck, you'll get a more sympathetic response.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry wrote:

Moving away from retrospective crash analysis through the medium of the internet forum, I think your only sensible option is the second one: getting angry at him for not calling, but refusing to make the first move is just prolonging your frustration. There are all sorts of reasons why he might not have got in touch, you won't know whether if it's a good reason or not without calling him. If he turns out to not give a damn, then at least you know where you stand, but with a bit of luck, you'll get a more sympathetic response.

True. But not much luck..

Have rung. An entirely civil conversation, about ongoing issues we both face in health and well-being. Half-hearted apology offered for not contacting me, with "didn't have your number" as the reason.

So, that's a CBA then, since my phone details are readily and freely available to all and sundry via the Phone Directory.

Feel marginally better for having said something at least.

First.Aspect

Okay, you are in Australia, I get it. It explains more than you probably realise.

The legal comments are relevant because they relate to your assessment of fault, which is fuelling your anger.

This isn't about apportioning blame, its about NOT apportioning blame. I'm trying to get you to think, if the guy in front of you is at fault, then why aren't you also at fault? You were in a group going 50kph and you didn't have enough stopping distance in front of you.

But it was an accident - neither of you were at fault. The concertina effect in groups is well known; you just have to see footage of a pro race to see that. This guy might have been looking, might not. The guy in front of him might have given a half arsed signal, he might not. But it could equally have been a puncture, a glass bottle, a pothole, touched wheels and it just happened to be a dead animal. The worst place to be is in the middle of a group, as you both found out.

You might not have realised it at the time, but you did take on additional risk when you decided to join the group ride. The law says you did, the consensus of opinion here says you did. The outcome of the phone call is also about what you'd expect. You didn't get a clear apology from a guy who accidentally hit an unexpected obstacle in the road, but I guess you exchanged mutual sympathy. That's about right, isn't it?

Wheelspinner

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, you are in Australia, I get it. It explains more than you probably realise.

The legal comments are relevant because they relate to your assessment of fault, which is fuelling your anger.

This isn't about apportioning blame, its about NOT apportioning blame. I'm trying to get you to think, if the guy in front of you is at fault, then why aren't you also at fault? You were in a group going 50kph and you didn't have enough stopping distance in front of you.

But it was an accident - neither of you were at fault. The concertina effect in groups is well known; you just have to see footage of a pro race to see that. This guy might have been looking, might not. The guy in front of him might have given a half arsed signal, he might not. But it could equally have been a puncture, a glass bottle, a pothole, touched wheels and it just happened to be a dead animal. The worst place to be is in the middle of a group, as you both found out.

You might not have realised it at the time, but you did take on additional risk when you decided to join the group ride. The law says you did, the consensus of opinion here says you did. The outcome of the phone call is also about what you'd expect. You didn't get a clear apology from a guy who accidentally hit an unexpected obstacle in the road, but I guess you exchanged mutual sympathy. That's about right, isn't it?

Was that intentionally snide and condescending, or did you just get lucky?

rjsterry

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Moving away from retrospective crash analysis through the medium of the internet forum, I think your only sensible option is the second one: getting angry at him for not calling, but refusing to make the first move is just prolonging your frustration. There are all sorts of reasons why he might not have got in touch, you won't know whether if it's a good reason or not without calling him. If he turns out to not give a damn, then at least you know where you stand, but with a bit of luck, you'll get a more sympathetic response.

True. But not much luck..

Have rung. An entirely civil conversation, about ongoing issues we both face in health and well-being. Half-hearted apology offered for not contacting me, with "didn't have your number" as the reason.

So, that's a CBA then, since my phone details are readily and freely available to all and sundry via the Phone Directory.

Feel marginally better for having said something at least.

Well, better than nothing I suppose. If you know you've caused someone that degree of injury and expense, then it's a lot easier to avoid the issue and put it to the back of your mind (especially if you are only passing acquaintances) rather than get in touch and try to make amends in whatever way. Just human nature, I think. As you seem clear that you don't want to take legal action, that leaves you with leaving it at that, or pursuing some kind of dialogue.

First.Aspect

Wheelspinner wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, you are in Australia, I get it. It explains more than you probably realise.

The legal comments are relevant because they relate to your assessment of fault, which is fuelling your anger.

This isn't about apportioning blame, its about NOT apportioning blame. I'm trying to get you to think, if the guy in front of you is at fault, then why aren't you also at fault? You were in a group going 50kph and you didn't have enough stopping distance in front of you.

But it was an accident - neither of you were at fault. The concertina effect in groups is well known; you just have to see footage of a pro race to see that. This guy might have been looking, might not. The guy in front of him might have given a half arsed signal, he might not. But it could equally have been a puncture, a glass bottle, a pothole, touched wheels and it just happened to be a dead animal. The worst place to be is in the middle of a group, as you both found out.

You might not have realised it at the time, but you did take on additional risk when you decided to join the group ride. The law says you did, the consensus of opinion here says you did. The outcome of the phone call is also about what you'd expect. You didn't get a clear apology from a guy who accidentally hit an unexpected obstacle in the road, but I guess you exchanged mutual sympathy. That's about right, isn't it?

Was that intentionally snide and condescending, or did you just get lucky?

It was condescending because you seem to need things expllaining v e r y c a r e f u l l y or you have a strop.

Wheelspinner

First Aspect wrote:

It was condescending because you seem to need things expllaining v e r y c a r e f u l l y or you have a strop.

Lovely, thanks. Particularly enjoyed the irony of that. Given you clearly failed to read and comprehend the first post in parts, then went to considerable length explaining how or why I should and would lose a lawsuit I'd already declared no interest in pursuing, I'm unclear who hasn't understood what?

O r d i d y o u m i s s t h a t b i t t o o ? ?

First.Aspect

Wheelspinner wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

It was condescending because you seem to need things expllaining v e r y c a r e f u l l y or you have a strop.

Lovely, thanks. Particularly enjoyed the irony of that. Given you clearly failed to read and comprehend the first post in parts, then went to considerable length explaining how or why I should and would lose a lawsuit I'd already declared no interest in pursuing, I'm unclear who hasn't understood what?

O r d i d y o u m i s s t h a t b i t t o o ? ?

I'm hugely more intelligent than you. In relation to your inarticulate first post; I read it, understood it, and disagree with your simplistic and childike assessment that you got hurt and its all someone else's fault. I'm done arguing with an idiot.

Origamist

Wheelspinner wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Moving away from retrospective crash analysis through the medium of the internet forum, I think your only sensible option is the second one: getting angry at him for not calling, but refusing to make the first move is just prolonging your frustration. There are all sorts of reasons why he might not have got in touch, you won't know whether if it's a good reason or not without calling him. If he turns out to not give a damn, then at least you know where you stand, but with a bit of luck, you'll get a more sympathetic response.

True. But not much luck..

Have rung. An entirely civil conversation, about ongoing issues we both face in health and well-being. Half-hearted apology offered for not contacting me, with "didn't have your number" as the reason.

So, that's a CBA then, since my phone details are readily and freely available to all and sundry via the Phone Directory.

Feel marginally better for having said something at least.

Well, at least it's progress of sorts. I think you did the right thing by contacting the chap - it sounded like you were bottling up the resentment and it was dragging you down. Whilst it may not have drawn a line under the incident, it's hopefully the start of a slow-burning rapprochement.

All the best for your continued recovery.

#theeternaloptimistcodpsychologist

Wheelspinner

Origamist wrote:

Well, at least it's progress of sorts. I think you did the right thing by contacting the chap - it sounded like you were bottling up the resentment and it was dragging you down. Whilst it may not have drawn a line under the incident, it's hopefully the start of a slow-burning rapprochement.

All the best for your continued recovery.

#theeternaloptimistcodpsychologist

Thank you.

In the dim past, I remember a vaguely hippie speaker at a seminar expressing the view that a sore throat was a sub-conscious manifestation of something you need to say to someone but haven't. The trick was figuring out what it was, and to whom. Mumbo-jumbo or not, occasionally in my experience the principle has had some validity. Not so much get it off your chest as get it out of your throat...

Had to be worth a try this time too. Can't hurt!

vermin

You're sounding more positive already

Am somewhat amused to see that there has been another vote for "Say nothing" since you spoke to him.