Forum menu
NOOOOOOO - my BC membership lapsed! Any other ideas/sources of legal advice?
NOOOOOOO - my BC membership lapsed! Any other ideas/sources of legal advice?
This is why you get those nice renewal emails...
CTC are the same, they'll only assist if you're a member. Could try one of the numbers in the back of Cycling Weekly, there's usually several no-win-no-fee cycling solicitors listed there.
Now go and renew your BC membership.
doing it as we speak, bizarrely got my renewal letter last week for 24/1/12!!
A few tips here: [url= http://www.lfgss.com/thread4213.html ]http://www.lfgss.com/thread4213.html[/url]
" ....just as a bloke pulls out also from behind the car in front of her."
Seems to me like there were two people driving her car...
eh?
if you really believe it was not your fault, why dont you just refuse to pay on those grounds and if she doesn't agree she can take you to a small claims court.
she has your contact details so you can't be accused of leaving the scene or anything like that.
the next move is hers, just see what she does
Not sure that 12mph on a main road is too fast really stu!
Any speed is too fast if you're unable to stop safely.
You could argue that she violated your right of way - but then she could argue that you should have been able to anticipate her actions (always expect the unexpected, especially on the roads).
If she starts shouting for compo, point out that your bike sustained damage too and that you want compo from her.
Personally I see this as a 50/50, it's going nowhere.
thats my thought
I don't understand this. If she pulled out in front of you she is unquestionably at fault.
My two pennorth:
1) You've not helped the assembled stw judge and jury with this description
just as a bloke pulls out also from behind the car in front of her
I'm not the only one confused by this. On my reading, behind the car in front of her, would be her, surely? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this. It would, I'm sure, help us immensely in judging you.
2) Fault. Not suggesting in the absence of damage to a child's face that the police will ever be interested in this, but if they were, then I would suggest that
She says "he pulled out so i stopped, not a clue what that noise was" - it was me hitting her.
is as clear an admission of "without due care and attention" as you could ask for really (on the part of the woman who thereby admitted that when she pulled out she wasn't aware of an approaching bicycle). In the reality of any sort of arguments with insurance companies etc.
this may be important - she cannot possibly pass any sort of comment on the standard of your riding, whether you were too fast, too close to her, too close to the kerb etc. given that she clearly hadn't seen you at all.
3) The presumption I've seen here a couple of times that if you hit her back end (oo-err) it is therefore your fault is ridiculous. It's the same as the ignorance you see about the "presumed fault" concept - some people seem to conflate it with proven fault, e.g. if a car hits a bike (Holland is it?) there's presumed fault, this DOES NOT mean it's the driver's fault. It means that it is presumed to be the driver's fault unless or until it's shown otherwise. Same here, you can start, and it's not unreasonable to do so, from the assumption that: bike hit back of car = cyclist's fault, but that DOES NOT mean that it IS the cyclist's fault if, when you look at the sequence of events, it turns out that it wasn't, which it may do here (I'm still confused by the car behind the one in front thing so not quite ready to form a judgement, although I fully intend to do so once I'm satisfied that I have the information I need).
Hope that helps
So the car in front of her pulled out and she had to stop ?
Had she been driving (Ok, parked but still applies) with due care and attention, she could have realised that as the car in front was occupied, it was likely it would be pulling out into traffic.
Further to that, if you had been going any faster (within the speed limit) and she had stayed where she was, you would have just run in to the back of the other car. That said, he may well have actually seen you and stopped moving because of that. (if i have the sequence correct).
Any speed is too fast if you're unable to stop safely.
Nonsense! If she is parked at the side of the road and he's expected to leave room to stop in case she pulls out, he'd be obliged to roll to a stop before reaching her. 🙄
I don't think she will even ring up asking for the cash after she has had some time to think about it. I wouldn't worry about it, and I certainly would refuse to pay, that will be the end of it
surely you must have had a go pro on your helmet, they're life savers these days....
Got home to a message from car driver, ignore?
Do whatever your lawyers advise.
and now claiming 800 ****ing quid
I expect she's got whiplash, too.
Get some legal advice. If she's determined to be a pain, you can throw your own bike damage into the mix.
Time for legal advice
Home insurance?
Get a cycling solicitor its worth a few quid if what you said is true then should be open and closed case. Cycling lawyer would be the key though !
Get the legal eagles on it. You should be on safe ground. Whilst strapping my bike to my (parked) car a roadie rode straight into my boot. Turns out it was my fault as he's the 'vulnerable road user'
Try speaking to www.bikeline.co.uk - the advice you'll get should be just as good as you'd get as a BC member (they'll just refer you to their friendly solicitors who work in the same way). Or if not, if you have home insurance you'll most likely find you have legal cover on that which will cover it.
Hopefully this will be handled by the home insurance (marks and spencers?)
If your version of events are correct it's amazing that she even thinks she can claim anything from you. You had right of way and that's the way it would be seen by any court. What you could do with really though, is a witness, otherwise it's your word against hers.
That said, if she hasn't changed her story, then it should be clear cut.
Hopefully this will be handled by the home insurance (marks and spencers?)
Yep - I'm with them, and fairly sure it has such legal cover.