run into from behind/crash and carbon frame question
Comments
-
As I understand it, your settlement and their payment are independent. If you are worried though, see if you have legal cover on your house insurance.bing gordon wrote:I only asked because I've never used a personal injury Solicitor before so I no idea who pays what and what percentage they take if you win.
I spoke with Slater & Gordon (not signed anything) but the young lad was talking at 900 mile an hr to the point I had to ask him to slow down a touch.
Sorry for been so naive, how does it all work and who pays who ?
I just used Slater and Gordon. They were okay. You might need to press any solicitor to get the best deal, but from X years on this forum, I'd say either firm will be fine.0 -
@first aspect and wishitwasallflat , thankyou ,
I will more than likely choose from one of the two. I did manage to speak to the other cyclist who was 2-3 car lengths behind me at the time of the accident and he saw everything. He said the driver never slowed down, he just drove onto the roundabout as though I wasn't there and rammed into my rear wheel catapulting my about 15 yard up the road.
He said he overheard the guy say "I was looking in my rear mirror, I never saw him". I also spoke with the Police officer and he said he can't see any reason to press charges as it was an accident and it I won't gain anything by getting the guy 3 points as he has suffered enough.
I wonder if he would change his tune if he were zipping me up in a body bag.0 -
Depending on how strongly you feel about it, applying some pressure to the police is an option. That's a pretty shocking attitude if you ask me. If you call the officer and let him know you ended up in hospital, you might get somewhere now. If not, then a chat with his segeant might help.
That the guy already called and offered an unofficial pay off rather suggests that he has not really understood the gravity of nearly killing someone.
[I still think your use of the past and present tense is worthy of Harry Redknap, btw ]0 -
I see it as an accident,I'm pretty sure the guy didn't mean and wasn't speeding and certainly not dangerous driving but not looking forward or to the right when driving onto a large and must add, a very fast roundabout that leads on a to a major motorway ? that to me is careless driving.
I did speak to the officer who came to the accident on Monday as I needed to get the other cyclist details. It was then he said the things he said that the the driver was shaken up and 3 points on his licence wont achieve anything.
The call about the payoff came from the guys brother, I've never actually spoken to the driver, well as far as I can remember0 -
To be fair to the driver - it probably was an accident - will 3 points make any difference? Probably not to you, but it will to him - it'll be a PITA that he has to declare to insurance co's etc etc.
Also - being fair to the driver (ok - it came through the brother - that's ok) - the offer to replace your bike is a good sign - it shows that the driver knows he was at fault - they probably don't know how much these things cost - or what recompense you may get through the insurance company.
On a far smaller scale - my one and only collision with a car (as an adult anyway) was me getting doored - wrote off the front wheel - I got away with a scratch and a few bumps - no hospital visit! the chap was appologetic and offered to take my bike to be repaired as well as drop me off and pick me up later - it was fine by me - I got a new wheel out of it and only a little inconvenience - I also learned not to ride quite so close to parked cars and he learnt to check before opening his door - accidents happen and IMHO as long as both parties are happy with the "lessons learnt" then it's all ok ...0 -
I agree with most of your points and yes it was an accident but one caused by careless driving. After 30 odd years of driving I have always looked to my right and forward when entering a large fast roundabout and the approach is clear I very rarely (if ever) do I look in my rear view mirror but anyway, it is what it is and the main thing I'm safe and sound and that's all that counts. As for the brother , it was a nice gesture but it still annoys like hell out of me as I couldn't have done anything it was totally the fault of others.0
-
First Aspect wrote:
[I still think your use of the past and present tense is worthy of Harry Redknap, btw ]
I'll be the first to own up I wasn't very good at school, but I do know Redknapp is double p
thanks for the advise First Aspect I've took it all in 0 -
yup - not quite 30 years here - but getting close! (actually - it is 30 years of driving - but the first few were off road!)bing gordon wrote:I agree with most of your points and yes it was an accident but one caused by careless driving. After 30 odd years of driving I have always looked to my right and forward when entering a large fast roundabout and the approach is clear I very rarely (if ever) do I look in my rear view mirror but anyway, it is what it is and the main thing I'm safe and sound and that's all that counts.
yup - again, a nice gesture - you don't have to accept it and I know you won't - but at least having that offer does suggest that they know you weren't at fault. I wouldn't get annoyed about it though - you could accept recompense directly from them, as I did for my significantly less serious incident, but I think they probably don't quite realise the level of recompense!bing gordon wrote:As for the brother , it was a nice gesture but it still annoys like hell out of me as I couldn't have done anything it was totally the fault of others.0 -
I take a different view, it wasn't an accident which implies no one was at fault. It wasn't intentional either but the driver was responsible for his actions and as a result you have been injured and your bike damaged. It's not 'just one of those things' it was the drivers inattention and this kind of attitude is reflected in Police inaction and if it does get to Court, mild or no sanctions on the driver.0
-
Unexpectedly and unitentionally - I think that acurately describes most incidents - the driver didn't expect it and didn't do it intentionally - doesn't mean that the driver isn't at fault - just that it wasn't done on purpose.Accident: an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
People are not infallable and they do (some more frequently than others) make mistakes - it's quite easy to get distracted and not pay the right level of attention to the road ahead - but that's the risk we all take whenever we stop looking where we should be - be that to look at our GPS, shoulder check, check that tyre that's feeling a bit deflated or even why the chain is now skipping over the cassette - in a car it's very easy to be distracted even for a moment - the risk is higher because cars tend to travel further in the same time. I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable not to pay sufficient attention only that it happens far more frequently than the accident rate suggests and we all do it in our own ways.
Should this driver be "done" for careless driving? I don't know - but look at what you're trying to achieve by prosecuting - it's not supposed to be retribution. So what is it? Punishment or Education? Points will give him a financial penalty and inconvenience - he'll get a financial penalty anyway due to the insurance excess (I assume he has to pay that?) and an increased premium due to the incident - incovenience is there as he'll have to declare the incident everytime he renews his insurance (with a different company) or hires a vehicle. Then there is the feeling of guilt - you can't easily measure the impact - but assuming he feels responsible then he'll feel guilty about it and be a lot more attentive in the future - that'll be the education side then.
About the only positive thing I can see from a successful prosecution is that it'll go on record and if he has more incidents whilst driving (in the timeframe) then it could lead to a driving ban.0 -
But it's the mindset using that term creates that's the problem, even the emergency services have dropped the 'a' from RTA now and it's become RTC - this could lead on to a whole discussion on why we give drivers of motor vehicles this special treatment and how the balance of responsibility has shifted over the years.0
-
There is a great temptation to feel sorry for the wrong person in these cases. Let me tell you, the "trauma" that the driver feels will be far smaller than the mental consequences of being hit by a car. That he is already trying to paper over the incident strongly suggests to me that he hasn't really grasped the gravity of the incident.Slowbike wrote:
Unexpectedly and unitentionally - I think that acurately describes most incidents - the driver didn't expect it and didn't do it intentionally - doesn't mean that the driver isn't at fault - just that it wasn't done on purpose.Accident: an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
People are not infallable and they do (some more frequently than others) make mistakes - it's quite easy to get distracted and not pay the right level of attention to the road ahead - but that's the risk we all take whenever we stop looking where we should be - be that to look at our GPS, shoulder check, check that tyre that's feeling a bit deflated or even why the chain is now skipping over the cassette - in a car it's very easy to be distracted even for a moment - the risk is higher because cars tend to travel further in the same time. I'm not suggesting that it's acceptable not to pay sufficient attention only that it happens far more frequently than the accident rate suggests and we all do it in our own ways.
Should this driver be "done" for careless driving? I don't know - but look at what you're trying to achieve by prosecuting - it's not supposed to be retribution. So what is it? Punishment or Education? Points will give him a financial penalty and inconvenience - he'll get a financial penalty anyway due to the insurance excess (I assume he has to pay that?) and an increased premium due to the incident - incovenience is there as he'll have to declare the incident everytime he renews his insurance (with a different company) or hires a vehicle. Then there is the feeling of guilt - you can't easily measure the impact - but assuming he feels responsible then he'll feel guilty about it and be a lot more attentive in the future - that'll be the education side then.
About the only positive thing I can see from a successful prosecution is that it'll go on record and if he has more incidents whilst driving (in the timeframe) then it could lead to a driving ban.
Do you really think that some hazard perception training wouldn't go amiss here? I mean, a bicycle isn't a small object. Its much bigger than a dog. Much bigger than a child. Pretty hard to miss, when right in front of your car. Yet he did.
The fact remains that the driver was a few inches away from killing or seriously injuring someone. I think it sends entirely the wrong message to say, "he feels bad about it already, no harm done". The extension of this thinking is that when serious harm IS done, the penalty really IS a few points on one's licence.
In comparison, doing 40 in a 30 zone with no harm done is 3 points. Why? Well apart from the obvious (its easy to detect and process automatically), the principle is that the potential harm is very significant indeed.
To my mind, when someone has inadvertently driven into a large object in broad daylight, it is worse.0 -
I get you - don't entirely agree with you as I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making out.
As for Hazard perception training - yes - I think a lot of drivers could do with it (myself included sometimes).
Fact remains that drivers are a few inches away from killing or seriously injuring someone on a regular basis - fortuantely most of the time they pass that few inches without incident.
I think driving has become too casual a task - there is so much comfort and entertainment within the car that drivers are all but removed from the driving process. It's a tricky one to address as I quite like the fact that I can get in the car and drive the length of the country in relative comfort and in under a day too - but perhaps that comfort is too much. I certainly felt more "connected" when driving the Mini, Peugeot 205 or more recently my MGBs ... not sure I'd want to drive the length of the UK in and day with one of those! Although I did do south coast to Bangor, North Wales in the mini a few times ... felt it afterwards!0 -
Slowbike wrote:
I think driving has become too casual a task
I'm with you there, it's as normal to some people as watching tv but it's an active not passive activity and the sense of danger largely absent, especially for the driver. One comment from the Oaf Clarkson which resonated with me is speculating how people would drive if they had a 6 inch metal spike protruding from the steering wheel.0 -
Well it is now in the hands of Leigh Day so I will let them deal with my claim. I just hope to God they driver just admits and lets be done. The last claim was my wife who had a false claim against her and it took 2 years to get it scrubbed off our insurance record.
I would just like say a big thanks to all those who offered help and advise , much appreciated0 -
I have just had the paperwork from Leigh Day but I have not actually signed anything just yet. I read the paperwork and came across this, ;-
"Damage to bicycle
You are entitled to claim for the cost of repairs or, where the damage to the bike has rendered it beyond economic repair, you can claim for the pre-incident value of your bike (i.e. what your bike was worth on the open second-hand market as at the date of the incident, not a brand new replacement). Please obtain a quote from a local specialist for the cost of repair (or the pre-incident value of the bike if economical repair is not possible). Please also ensure that you take photographs of the damage to your bike. It is possible that your household insurance will cover the damage. If so, please let us know. You may be able to recover any policy excess payable.
Other property damage
An estimate will be required as evidence of any damage sustained to your clothing, helmet etc. Unless these items were brand new at the time of the incident the third party insurers are likely to seek to reduce this claim on the basis of ‘wear and tear’. Please could you therefore confirm to me the age of the helmet/clothing as at the date of the incident and if possible, please provide the original purchase receipt (if retained) together with photographs of the damaged items."
......................................
Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?0 -
Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?
This is entirely normal and appropriate. The aim of the law is to place you back where you were not where you want to be. Your bike was not brand new so you do not get a brand new bike.0 -
kayakerchris wrote:Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?
This is entirely normal and appropriate. The aim of the law is to place you back where you were not where you want to be. Your bike was not brand new so you do not get a brand new bike.
Whilst this is true there are some brands that offer lifetime warranty (frame) to the first owner - a second hand bike won't have this "value", so to put you back in the position you were in before would require a new frame or for the manufacturer to extend the lifetime warranty to a subsequent owner.
Carbon frames can often be repaired - although you can forget any manufacturer warranty after that too ...0 -
So what would be the second hand value of a custom made bike be I wonder.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Carbon frames can often be repaired - although you can forget any manufacturer warranty after that too ...kayakerchris wrote:Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?
This is entirely normal and appropriate. The aim of the law is to place you back where you were not where you want to be. Your bike was not brand new so you do not get a brand new bike.
There's nothing to repair framewise , the frame has no cracks , splinters, dints from the the crash.0 -
drlodge wrote:So what would be the second hand value of a custom made bike be I wonder.
Good question ...
Bottom line is - it's up to you/your solicitor to get the money you want from the insurance company - and whilst they will spout a load of bolx about - there is no hard & fast rule let alone law about how much you should be re-imbursed for a broken bike.0 -
bing gordon wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Carbon frames can often be repaired - although you can forget any manufacturer warranty after that too ...kayakerchris wrote:Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?
This is entirely normal and appropriate. The aim of the law is to place you back where you were not where you want to be. Your bike was not brand new so you do not get a brand new bike.
There's nothing to repair framewise , the frame has no cracks , splinters, dints from the the crash.
Nothing visible anyway.
I know carbon can and does flex (used to own a carbon fibre mast and bowsprit on a 2 man trapeze dinghy - wow - it bends!) but it also has limits on where it can flex before it's structurally damaged. On a dinghy I'm not that bothered if the mast or bowsprit breaks - there's a risk of injury but it's quite slight ... not sure I want to risk my arse on a saddle attached to a frame doing 50mph (down hill obviously) that may be structurally unsound.
The cost of reliably evaluating the structural integrity of a carbon bike may cost more than a replacement frame. If a reliable test isn't done then it's just guess work as to whether it's ok or not. There may be folk out there capable of a more educated guess - I'm thinking they may be able to physically examine the frame and see if it bends unepxectedly or more than it should - but that's my guess too!0 -
I'm gonna sign up and let them deal with the case, all's I know is, my bikes off the road and me aarse back hip is killing me, It's a large funny deep purple kinda colour about the size of a large chopping board, very painful0
-
I very much doubt that. Industry spends millions every year on inspecting composite structures, if they could do it by eye they would!Slowbike wrote:bing gordon wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Carbon frames can often be repaired - although you can forget any manufacturer warranty after that too ...kayakerchris wrote:Can someone please confirm that this is the normal with all personal claims companies ? pre-incident value ?
This is entirely normal and appropriate. The aim of the law is to place you back where you were not where you want to be. Your bike was not brand new so you do not get a brand new bike.
There's nothing to repair framewise , the frame has no cracks , splinters, dints from the the crash.
Nothing visible anyway.
The cost of reliably evaluating the structural integrity of a carbon bike may cost more than a replacement frame. If a reliable test isn't done then it's just guess work as to whether it's ok or not. There may be folk out there capable of a more educated guess - I'm thinking they may be able to physically examine the frame and see if it bends unepxectedly or more than it should - but that's my guess too!
You're quite correct about the 'nothing visible' - have a look through here:
http://www.netcomposites.com/guide-tool ... ssessment/
My advice - do not let a bike shop mechanic 'evaluate' it and declare it OK (unless he is a materials engineer and has sent the frame for NDT)."It must be true, it's on the internet" - Winston Churchill0 -
bing gordon wrote:I'm gonna sign up and let them deal with the case, all's I know is, my bikes off the road and me aarse back hip is killing me, It's a large funny deep purple kinda colour about the size of a large chopping board, very painful
Make sure you take plenty of photos of your bruising and other injuries. Keep a diary of how it affects you on a daily basis. If it goes to court you'll have a good recollection of how you were rather than a hazy memory of what happened months earlier.Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
depemds on what level of confidence you want ... in an aircraft for example - it matters quite a lot ...Andcp wrote:I very much doubt that. Industry spends millions every year on inspecting composite structures, if they could do it by eye they would!
on my carbon mast - so long as you can't hear splintering when you bend it it's probably ok.
Anecdotal evidence from on here - no shop mechanic has ever declared a carbon frame ok when asked to assess it after a crash.... ok - a bit of a sweeping statement - but there's the duty of care element - like I asked earlier - would you want your bike to come apart as you're doing 50mph downhill ... I wouldn't!Andcp wrote:My advice - do not let a bike shop mechanic 'evaluate' it and declare it OK (unless he is a materials engineer and has sent the frame for NDT).0 -
I'm not siding on any side , I was hit directly from behind. The guy clipped my rear wheel and it ended up buckled. this forced me to fall to my right and I landed on the right side hip and backside and by the look of my bruise to my hip and backside on the right side it seems I took the front full of the impact and cushioned any impact to the bike.
A friend of a friend ( a retired bike mech for 30 years on / off) has gone over the bike with a fine tooth comb and bare a nick to the edge of the saddle and the bar end and brake lever minor scratch the bike itself looks fine and sounds fine tap test, no a blemish bar the usual stone chips. I got chatting to a guy online who has a masters regarding carbon and he said , "No one can tell without the right equipment and the vast majority of cycling companies do not own the correct testing equipment."
He also said, "Carbon is ultra strong on stress , you will be surprised how strong flexible it actually is"
I can also see were a bike shop is coming from and fully agree, they would not want to be the one's to give it the all clear then it gives way. It's not financially viable for even the largest cycling stores to own such testing equipment that are "still" not 100% conclusive as to whether or not the carbon is damaged on the inside, it's cheaper and safer just to buy a new frameset or bike for safety and peace of mind.
So it all depends on the accident, how you were hit, the speed of the impact, the force of the impact, how you and the bike landed , what you were hit with, car , animal, pedestrian, and I personally think only the rider knows this. I mean, your asking someone who wasn't there so has no idea the nature of the accident. He wall always side on the side of caution but I bet if he was behind or in the accident himself he would access his bike on that and if it was like mine I'm sure he'd ride it again.
I can imagine some accidents are no worse than a bike sliding down a wall but you wouldn't scrap it for that or falling over stuck in your cleats at lights. Me personally, I think the way my accident happened I would side on the side and be pretty confident the bike took no more of an impact than a tumble on a slippy road. I'm knocked up and been in my 50's doesn't help as I'm more worried about riding again and the bumps and knocks hurt and you worry alot more than say in your 20's all gun hoe, jump back in the saddle and "Hi Hoe Silver and a away !!" (which I've done)
But the question is ?, will I ever use it again ? I very very much doubt it. Will I have got back on say at 21 years of age and no insurance to claim off ?, I'd probably be on it today in the rare sunshine, new back wheel of course. I wouldn't mind a bike to get on as soon as I'm fit to go rather than dwell because the longer I leave it the longer I will ponder what if, I know I will0 -
Smack the rear stays with a hammer so there's no doubt and claim a new frame in compensation along with the new rear wheel. :twisted:
Transfer all the existing components to the new frame and you are good to go. (well, after the bruising and stiffness has gone down)Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
your probably right PhotoNic69
After speaking to 2 bike shops none will give it the green light no matter what so a new frame or bike will probably be the the outcome.
My bike has/had dura ace 7800 shifters, dura ace 7800 front and rear mech and ultegra brakes s works chainset carbon crank arms dura ace pedals, not over expensive but again not cheap and Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels I upgraded to. I upgraded as time went by on certain components so hence I don't want to be to be given a replacement bike (no disrespect) like some cheaper Allez version because mine, as it stands has the same second hand value as a new Allez.0 -
Have you got photos of any scrapes or bruises etc from the fall ? You should claim for everything - that would help you get back to the position you were in before the crash.0
