Forced off my bike by oncoming vehicle - Ouch

StillGoing

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

ben@31

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

I have a go pro rear and a Garmin Virb front on my bike now after a few incidents. I have two due to the amount of times cars have squeezed past me so close that if they had hit me the front would very likely of not picked any evidence up. Plus a rear facing cam will get the drivers face so no denying who was at the wheel.

Sadly even if you have evidence, do we get a positive outcome? Where I live, car owners submit video footage of illegal blatant dangerous driving to the police, only for nothing to happen. According to my local newspaper, when dangerous driving rarely gets to court, they get away with it very lightly. For example, http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ice_chase/

trivial_poursuivant

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Semantik

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Fully agree with this. The OP is going to struggle getting any kind of recompense for his troubles so long as the driver continues to argue that his driving was not to blame. This is the way the world works.

All his angst can be avoided in future if he just buys himself a nice 'dangerous/arrogant/sh*t driving recording device' and uses it on his future rides.

daveb99

Again, thanks for all the responses. To clarify - I understand the debate over whether I should/could claim for damages etc against the driver, but in all honesty, given that I am recovering fairly well thus far, and I don't have BC silver membership (only bronze) I'm not interested in pursuing it.

If my injuries were significantly worse, or life changing, or if I was self employed, it may have been worth having a go - but as people have said, it's his word against mine, no witnesses, no CCTV, so would be very difficult to get a result.

Regarding the 'angst' avoidance by buying a GoPro or similar - I think it will give me a small amount of reassurance that any future incidents may be recorded, sure, but the real angst is coming from being worried about it happening again - no recording device can prevent that...

For what it's worth, below is a list of the things I'm planning to do to reduce the risk of being forced off the road / hit by another complete bloody idiot in future. To be clear, none of these (apart from maybe the lights) would have prevented what happened, but I think every little thing I can do will help me feel safer and I'll at least think I'm doing all I can to reduce the risk.

- Choose my routes even more carefully, and avoid busy times (I do this already). Less traffic = less risk.
- Reduce the pedal/cleat tension to make it faster/easier to unclip in emergencies
- Consider unclipping in very busy start/stop traffic (sometimes)
- Use bright flashing lights front and rear - day and night - I don't care if it looks OTT
- Avoid cycling in pouring rain (unless I just get caught out in it)
- Focus a little less on performance and try to increase my awareness more - and always have a plan for the "what if"
- Allow plenty of time to ride, so I'm not in a rush
- Ride slightly further from the kerb/verge to make it clear to drivers there isn't room to pass (but beware oncoming morons that aren't going to give way...)
- Fit a small rear view 'racing' mirror to my drops
- ALWAYS wear bright coloured gear (I was wearing bright blue at the time.....)

Plus of course getting some kind of GoPro to record any future incidents, this won't prevent it from happening but at least helps with the aftermath.

Any comments (or additional suggestions) would be very welcome...

Semantik

Didn’t want to give the impression that I think your situation is a hopeless one, just could have been better with some evidence of his bad driving. You’ve nothing to lose I would say (apart from your own time) by starting a claim against the driver- in your favour is the fact that :

1) He stopped.
2) You have significant injuries and damage to your bike
3) The police made a report on the incident
4) The fact that he stopped indicates strongly that your fall/injuries were in some way attributable to HIS driving- that would be a logical inference in any court proceedings-otherwise why would he have stopped at all or not protested strongly to the police that he was NOT a party involved in any accident?- if he was truly innocent he would surely have done this?- he could just have said that he was driving down the road and some clumsy cyclist coming the other way fell off in front of him- but he has not said this, or at least that is what you suggest.
So why not get hold of a personal injury lawyer who specialises in cycling related accidents?- look for a recommend- and give it a go- it’s quite a straightforward process. As said previously photos of the scene and evidence of your injuries and the damage to your bike are the main requirements at this stage. Helps if you sought medical advice via GP or hospital/walk-in centre even if it was a day or two later.

PS I do feel quite strongly about the need for a camera if you are a regular road cyclist- no, they don't stop incidents happening but they make life a whole lot easier after any event like this. I speak from experience.

StillGoing

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to any property other than that vehicle, or to any person other than the driver of that vehicle. There does not need to be contact between the two. The actions of another driver are enough to cause someone to take evading action and suffer injury or damage to their vehicle.

The Police evidence is not circumstantial. It is fact. Their opinion of what happened may be circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is admissible with factual evidence in prosecutions where dangerous or reckless or inconsiderate driving is prosecuted. If the Police have decided to prosecute the other person involved, it adds weight to the claim by the OP. The Police do not have to go through the formal channels of prosecution for blame to be apportioned. A driver that pulled out in front of me was giving a driver awareness course as an alternative to prosecution for dangerous driving. As a Police Sergeant at the time, I fully agreed with it. He was a young family man who fully realised his error.

veronese68

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers.

Not so.

Wrong.

Philthy is ex police so we know his area of expertise. If you don't mind me asking, what makes you so sure he is wrong? Are you legally qualified or is it just an opinion.
I realise this won't help the OP but it's an interesting point that may help someone in future.

BigGeordie

Cycliq fly12 (with a fly6 on the back) gives better battery life than a GoPro and comes with a built in light. I use one of these and find it fantastic- haven't tried the fly6 yet though.

trivial_poursuivant

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to any property other than that vehicle, .

There was no contact. That has been established. As to why the driver stopped it could be because he saw him fall - does not mean he was guilty. He could argue the cyclist came 'out of nowhere' if he says he didn't see him until last minute. The police cannot say 100% for certain the circumstances that created the incident other than from both parties. One has a poor recollection. The other denies any wrong doing.

Not in a million years would this result in the driver being apportioned blame solely. If I were the driver I would say ' he fell off his bike, he appeared out of nowhere and I had managed to avoid him. There is no evidence of speeding, aggressively driving, or any other traffic offence other than what the cyclist says he did and he denies it so now what?

StillGoing

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to any property other than that vehicle, .

There was no contact. That has been established. As to why the driver stopped it could be because he saw him fall - does not mean he was guilty. He could argue the cyclist came 'out of nowhere' if he says he didn't see him until last minute. The police cannot say 100% for certain the circumstances that created the incident other than from both parties. One has a poor recollection. The other denies any wrong doing.

Not in a million years would this result in the driver being apportioned blame solely. If I were the driver I would say ' he fell off his bike, he appeared out of nowhere and I had managed to avoid him. There is no evidence of speeding, aggressively driving, or any other traffic offence other than what the cyclist says he did and he denies it so now what?

Wow! So you were there and have seen the Police RTC booklet. OP, you have a witness after all.

trivial_poursuivant

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

"My memory is all very hazy" says the op. I wonder what he told the police at the time. A decent lawyer for the other driver would use that against them. Going back to the scene there is no guarantee it's not changed since the incident so cannot be reliably used as evidence in the OPs favour. With or without the police being there it's still his word against the drivers. And since he has little recollection of the incident it's not going to be a reliable account.

Not so.

If the Police attended, they will have completed 1) an RTC injury booklet/report together with a diagram of the scene and 2) probably a stats form for the local authority highways department and government collision statistics. Both of these are usable as evidence. If the gap between the parked cars is such that a driver would have to give way to traffic with the priority right of way, then they are liable if they fail to give way to anyone already in that space and cause a collision. Drivers are prosecuted in fatal collisions with no witnesses having been present. It isn't rocket science to work out what happened at a collision. Record the scene, traffic sings, road conditions, weather, visibility and vehicle positions, direction of travel, start point and final position, record injuries and damage, record first hand accounts, submit report and NIP with recommendations for prosecution.

The haziness of the OP has no relevance other than their injuries. If they were on that section of road before the other party came along and the other party failed to give way, the responsibility for the collision and injuries lies with the other party. Given the requirement to give cyclists room when passing, the same will inevitably apply when approaching a cyclist from head on.

Wrong

The police can say this and that, it's all circumstantial. There was no collision. Any injuries sustained came from him hitting the ground. The cars parked there are again only able to play a part ifa witness or any video evidence can show categorically that the driver failed to yield and give the cyclist right of way. He could say that he approached and the cyclist was not there then suddenly appeared from the pavement or other side of the road. The point is, you can't prove otherwise.

This btw is a civil case not a criminal one as the police would bring in a fatal RTA, so you also have to look at is , is the cost of litigation worth the possible outcome? It's going to be extremely difficult to prove on the balance of evidence on a his word vs mine regardless of what the police say 'may' of happened. They weren't there at the time only for the aftermath. Sorry but that's too late, it isn't proof.

Owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage is caused to any property other than that vehicle, .

There was no contact. That has been established. As to why the driver stopped it could be because he saw him fall - does not mean he was guilty. He could argue the cyclist came 'out of nowhere' if he says he didn't see him until last minute. The police cannot say 100% for certain the circumstances that created the incident other than from both parties. One has a poor recollection. The other denies any wrong doing.

Not in a million years would this result in the driver being apportioned blame solely. If I were the driver I would say ' he fell off his bike, he appeared out of nowhere and I had managed to avoid him. There is no evidence of speeding, aggressively driving, or any other traffic offence other than what the cyclist says he did and he denies it so now what?

Wow! So you were there and have seen the Police RTC booklet. OP, you have a witness after all.

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

gimpl

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

We know what philthy3's qualifications are, you have already been asked what yours are - that may help you get your point across with more authority than now.

trivial_poursuivant

Gimpl wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

We know what philthy3's qualifications are, you have already been asked what yours are - that may help you get your point across with more authority than now.

Is he a lawyer? Do the police interpret law? No they investigate crime and collect evidence. Evidence which there is none of on this case. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

Fact is, it's a civil case. Burden of proof lays with the plaintiff, he has scarcely anything other than he fell off his bike because he says a car approached when he had right of way. There is no other evidence. The police can take a statement and the driver denies it. They can take whatever statistical analysis of the road and the layout but it's flimsy and without a witness the case would fold very quickly.

fenix

Aldi are doing a very similar light/camera to the Fly6 one :

http://road.cc/content/tech-news/229329 ... 350-indoor

jgsi

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

We know what philthy3's qualifications are, you have already been asked what yours are - that may help you get your point across with more authority than now.

Is he a lawyer? Do the police interpret law? No they investigate crime and collect evidence. Evidence which there is none of on this case. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

Fact is, it's a civil case. Burden of proof lays with the plaintiff, he has scarcely anything other than he fell off his bike because he says a car approached when he had right of way. There is no other evidence. The police can take a statement and the driver denies it. They can take whatever statistical analysis of the road and the layout but it's flimsy and without a witness the case would fold very quickly.

Aha! outed Adam Barlow

gimpl

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

We know what philthy3's qualifications are, you have already been asked what yours are - that may help you get your point across with more authority than now.

Is he a lawyer? Do the police interpret law? No they investigate crime and collect evidence. Evidence which there is none of on this case. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

Fact is, it's a civil case. Burden of proof lays with the plaintiff, he has scarcely anything other than he fell off his bike because he says a car approached when he had right of way. There is no other evidence. The police can take a statement and the driver denies it. They can take whatever statistical analysis of the road and the layout but it's flimsy and without a witness the case would fold very quickly.

Not at all in fact - I'll take the word of a serving police sergeant over a law diploma any day. If however you could say I have been involved in multiple cases of this type and possibly refer to case law then yes I'll take your word over philthy's.

trivial_poursuivant

Gimpl wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Gimpl wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Ah well typical police, clutching at straws again and guessing (wrongly) :roll:

We know what philthy3's qualifications are, you have already been asked what yours are - that may help you get your point across with more authority than now.

Is he a lawyer? Do the police interpret law? No they investigate crime and collect evidence. Evidence which there is none of on this case. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

Fact is, it's a civil case. Burden of proof lays with the plaintiff, he has scarcely anything other than he fell off his bike because he says a car approached when he had right of way. There is no other evidence. The police can take a statement and the driver denies it. They can take whatever statistical analysis of the road and the layout but it's flimsy and without a witness the case would fold very quickly.

Not at all in fact - I'll take the word of a serving police sergeant over a law diploma any day. If however you could say I have been involved in multiple cases of this type and possibly refer to case law then yes I'll take your word over philthy's.

Each case is judged on its own merit. Do you (or anyone else here) honestly believe for one second the OP would have any success if they tried to take the Driver to court?

I've personally been involved In claiming against a third party after been knocked off my bike. I used my insurance companies lawyers to claim , it is a slow process, my case took over a year to resolve and it was a lot more cut and dry than this. It is also expensive and any person looking to claim would have to consider the legal costs and are they worth the potential amount awarded. Which would maybe cover the damage and loss of any earnings while recovering which would not be much. So you could win but get hardly anything back or lose and face a huge legal bill. It's not worth it in THIS case.

I mentioned at the start of all this I have 2 cameras on my bike now to show if anything were to happen whilst out riding . Why? Because without them you generally have nothing to prove your side. Go watch YouTube or read the countless cases or riders being cut up or hit while out riding. Even the pretty blatant ones the police sometimes dismiss out of lack of evidence. How many people have dash cams to protect themselves from insurance fraud as in crash for cash dealings. If the police were always there to say x is liable over y then we wouldn't need them. But we see them more because is plain to see we do.

I would rather people could ride safely without concern over drivers and I hope all can and I use this case to point out that we need to protect ourselves and make sure we have a camera . I may not be a police sergeant but I know the law and how it works. Take his word over mine , but if he says the OP has a workable case I completely disagree. It's easy to say when it's not your money paying for it.

bendertherobot

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

.

A what now?

trivial_poursuivant

bendertherobot wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

.

A what now?

A Di plo ma. I was going to do a degree afterwards but decided to take s different career path. That was over 18 years ago and I'm glad I didn't follow one in law. But is still know it more than the majority of people who think they do.

veronese68

So we have a person with years of on the job experience or someone that did a bit about law at school more than half his lifetime ago. I wonder which one I believe more.
A police report does count as valid evidence in court. It's irrelevant in this instance but worth knowing for future reference.
I sometimes disagree with philthy, but in this case he has knowledge and real life experience.

trivial_poursuivant

Veronese68 wrote:

So we have a person with years of on the job experience or someone that did a bit about law at school more than half his lifetime ago. I wonder which one I believe more.
A police report does count as valid evidence in court. It's irrelevant in this instance but worth knowing for future reference.
I sometimes disagree with philthy, but in this case he has knowledge and real life experience.

Do you think the op would win? On the base of what he has told us?

pblakeney

Has he told us everything that is in the police report?

bendertherobot

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

.

A what now?

A Di plo ma. I was going to do a degree afterwards but decided to take s different career path. That was over 18 years ago and I'm glad I didn't follow one in law. But is still know it more than the majority of people who think they do.

What type of diploma? Generally the LPC, BPTC and GDL are referred to as such.

veronese68

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So we have a person with years of on the job experience or someone that did a bit about law at school more than half his lifetime ago. I wonder which one I believe more.
A police report does count as valid evidence in court. It's irrelevant in this instance but worth knowing for future reference.
I sometimes disagree with philthy, but in this case he has knowledge and real life experience.

Do you think the op would win? On the base of what he has told us?

Yes. I think with the support of the police report he would stand a very good chance. There are recorded facts, it's not just his word as you insist. The width of the road is fixed. We know there were parked cars present and this will have been recorded as fact. So we know how much room is left, from that we can ascertain if there is sufficient room for a car to pass when a bicycle is coming the other way. It's not difficult.
But he's not claiming so it's academic, I'm interested in knowing the procedure as that may help someone in future, philthy has helped with that.

trivial_poursuivant

bendertherobot wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

. I have a law diploma is that eases your concerns. I know what would make sense trying to claim in the courts and what is unlikely to win. That's the job of the law, not the police.

.

A what now?

A Di plo ma. I was going to do a degree afterwards but decided to take s different career path. That was over 18 years ago and I'm glad I didn't follow one in law. But is still know it more than the majority of people who think they do.

What type of diploma? Generally the LPC, BPTC and GDL are referred to as such.

GDL from Newcastle Uni. 1997/99. So what?

I get the feeling you are looking to cause trouble and argue for arguments sake so I'm even not going to entertain you in this thread as it's got nothing to do with the subject.

bendertherobot

Not at all. You brought it up as giving you legal insight. Always worth checking when someone brings the word diploma up.

trivial_poursuivant

Veronese68 wrote:

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So we have a person with years of on the job experience or someone that did a bit about law at school more than half his lifetime ago. I wonder which one I believe more.
A police report does count as valid evidence in court. It's irrelevant in this instance but worth knowing for future reference.
I sometimes disagree with philthy, but in this case he has knowledge and real life experience.

Do you think the op would win? On the base of what he has told us?

Yes. I think with the support of the police report he would stand a very good chance. There are recorded facts, it's not just his word as you insist. The width of the road is fixed. We know there were parked cars present and this will have been recorded as fact. So we know how much room is left, from that we can ascertain if there is sufficient room for a car to pass when a bicycle is coming the other way. It's not difficult.
But he's not claiming so it's academic, I'm interested in knowing the procedure as that may help someone in future, philthy has helped with that.

How many parked cars? Were they all there from when the incident took place to the police counting them? Who entered the obstacle first? The car could have manoeuvred to pass them and be half way down before the cyclist approached. What does the driver say? He denies it. Until the OP tells us if he does ask for it then we won't know but from what we know I believe it would take a hell of a lot more to build a case.

trivial_poursuivant

bendertherobot wrote:

Not at all. You brought it up as giving you legal insight. Always worth checking when someone brings the word diploma up.

I was asked, I answered. As though the police are the only people who know how the law works, which they may know some as for criminal law but civil law and its process are different.

I'm not pretending to be an expert in the police procedures , I am saying that the case that could possibly be brought to court would have little chance of success. That's where I probably know more than a police officer. I doubt many are trained in civil jurisprudence.

pblakeney

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

How many parked cars? Were they all there from when the incident took place to the police counting them? Who entered the obstacle first? The car could have manoeuvred to pass them and be half way down before the cyclist approached. What does the driver say? He denies it. Until the OP tells us if he does ask for it then we won't know but from what we know I believe it would take a hell of a lot more to build a case.

All those unanswered questions, and yet you have a conclusion.
Strange.