I don't, honestly. It does bug me that they now seem to think they own the road so can take up half of it, all the while filming everything just in case someone twats them.
They do have an attitude problem. I have it every morning for work. I have to move out about 8 feet because they ride side by side in pairs
I knew someone that changed lanes and hit a motorcyclist undertaking once, the insurers laid 100% blame with the driver, because he changed lanes, regardless if the other person was undertaking. So i sort of guessed the same applied to cyclists, even if it is the passenger, the grey area that has been challenged in court before, and the driver lost.
You've got to factor in the red light here though. Why be undertaking at speed in the knowledge the light is on red anyway?
just spotted this. been a fair few years since I worked in PI but two main rules I can't see changing. One. Collision between car and bike almost always goes through the car insurance and driver is at fault. Two. Driver is responsible for all passengers too. Reason is insurance. Cyclists don't have it so drivers cover it. Also (as regards passengers) the driver is in an arguably better position to see if they're about to do something stupid - wing mirrors angled etc. That said... If it's low cost and no injury just pay. Not least as his girlfriend isn't going to thank him affecting her no claims!
I agree. Worth a challenge in my opinion, even if it only moves it to 80/20% porportion of blame. I'd challenge it but not through the courts, let your insurers argue you it, and if it's a no go, just accept it. Nowt to lose.
He no doubt will if he takes any form of advice and if your lad has opened the car door on him he could well win. They’d no doubt try and go after the cars insurers i.e. his girlfriend.
I think it's more arguable if you are the vehicle at the front of the queue, ie red light to speed ratio. But if you are further back, it's going to be very difficult to argue.
Will cost a fortune if they go the injury claim route, hence why the insurers might just play ball and pay out.
It depends on where his representatives pitch their claim mate. If they ask for a few bags then I’d suggest they’d likely agree a deal and it’s done. If they go for a daft amount then maybe not. Insurers work on the basis of worst case liabilities. If a case goes to court it’ll cost them a couple of bags minimum plus the risk of losing so they invariably just agree a pay out if they can close it for less than 2 large. Roundabout accidents are the worst, as some ****er can come flying out of a junction onto a roundabout and T bone you, as you were already on it, but they’ll agree a 50/50 split unless there’s a witness statement that can corroborate who’s at fault. It’s an unwritten ‘rule’ between them that roundabout shunts are split liability.
I would have said that your son is at fault as he should have checked and seen the cyclist before opening the door.
No mate. The ambulance chasers will send you to a ‘Dr’ who’ll write a report on your ongoing issues months later. They’re ****ing bandits in that section of the legal profession.
No. Whiplash can come on slowly and some people don't realise until the next day. Shock can focus peoples minds away from injuries sustained. You support scousers. You should know this, ffs.
My brother did exactly the same, rode his bike into a delivery van door that was opening, he got the blame for that as not looking out for hazards as a cyclist. It was 1969 like, before the snowflake gen..
Ok so a left hand turn 3 cars ahead of them and he didn't even open the door fully. So he's overtaking on the wrong side no hi vis no lights although it wasn't dark but light starting to fade. He's admitted it was partly his fault and has no details of the car only my son's name and phone number.
