[Closed] Hit by a car this morning 🙁

Probably not, but these things take a while to set in. When I was last hit by a car I thought I'd only got bruising, but ended up limping for a week and unable to run for a couple more.

I still wouldn't have claimed for that personally.

I did also have quite a bit of damage to the bike, hence might as well claim for the injury as well (which resulted in me missing a fairly important event). Note I'm not actually suggesting the OP claims, just pointing out he is injured - though personally I'd definitely be reporting that to the police.

woody2000

"Did you get his details? Sorry, but I'd be reporting him to the police and claiming on his insurance. Hope you're not badly hurt"

what a nob...actually hate these type of pri@ks

mmmmmmmm am i missing something here about the OP's road positioning?
if he was a walker or a jogger he STILL would have been hit.
so his positioning is no excuse for what happened.
*could* his positioning further in the middle of the road helped? perhaps, perhaps not, perhaps he would have been struck and pulled under the car and been a lot worse off
...so lets deal with the facts...
he should not have been hit AT ALL.

now, in regards to the last paragraph of the OP's original post. that plays on my mind a lot recently, a death just south of us of a cyclists and one east of us just a few months ago.
the dark mornings. i was due a 6.45am ride to work today, and backed out....

we can be as safe and reflective as anything in the entire world and still get wiped out....

what a nob...actually hate these type of pri@ks

Why? Do you often hit people in your car? They driver obviously didn't see him and drove in to him. I'd report it even if its just so there's a record of the crime. If I ended up with more severe damage than it initially felt like and had to take time off work or cancel a holiday it would be very useful to have his details and it wouldnt be a spurious claim. That why he has insurance.

Wow. People that don't know me at all, hate me. I'm still waiting for mr pumpa to tell me why, why don't you enlighten me boc?

I'm not suggesting the OP engages in ambulance chasing, I'm suggesting he reports the driver to the police and makes a claim (if necessary, obviously) against his insurance. I do about 4,000 miles a year on the road and I'm sick to f*ck of the people who think it's ok to say "oops, sorry" and that's the end of it. He's been hit, not passed close or beeped at, actually hit by a car. Hit by someone who could have done it before, might do it again, who knows.

[quote=ndthornton ]I think people should have to retake the test once they hit the 65ish mark - especially the "can you read this numberplate" bit. Would save a lot of lives.
That rather flies in the face of official accident statistics showing that older drivers are, overall, safer.

what a nob...actually hate these type of pri@ks

Yeah me too. They're so, so much worse than drivers who run into cyclists.

You jumped straight on it with the claiming on the insurance bollocks....read the guys post. He'll be on the bike at the weekend so end of story.

"Hit by someone who could have done it before, might do it again, who knows"

The above is doubtful as again you haven't read the guys post. The driver was an older gent who clearly sh@t himself, and more than likely doesn't make a habit out of mowing people down on the road.

I'm not sure how to answer you without it descending into a silly argument, so I think it best to just say we'll agree to disagree.

You read into it what you want to see, and I'll do the same.

Hope your OK OP.

People forget that accidents can happen..

woody2000 - Member
Did you get his details? Sorry, but [b]I'd[/b] be reporting him to the police [b]and claiming on his insurance[/b]. Hope you're not badly hurt

So is why insurance premiums are so high in this country, "some" people just want money for any event regardless of outcome I think. (where there's a blame and all.)

The police are only interested if someone is injured, but agree it would be good practice to record the event incase this happens on a weekly basis.

[b]Accidents can happen[/b]

The driver was an older gent who clearly sh@t himself, and more than likely doesn't make a habit out of mowing people down on the road.

So how come he did mow down the OP? What makes you so sure he won't do it again? Presumably his insurance company wouldn't put up his premiums if they knew about it...

So is why insurance premiums are so high in this country, "some" people just want money for any event regardless of outcome I think. (where there's a blame and all -- insurance fraud.)

I'd be very surprised if it was even possible to detect the difference claims by cyclists who have minor injuries after being hit by a car makes to insurance premiums. It certainly isn't what's driving insurance premiums up - insurance fraud might be, but that's irrelevant to this case.

I'm not suggesting the OP engages in ambulance chasing, I'm suggesting he reports the driver to the police and makes a claim (if necessary, obviously) against his insurance. I do about 4,000 miles a year on the road and I'm sick to f*ck of the people who think it's ok to say "oops, sorry" and that's the end of it. He's been hit, not passed close or beeped at, actually hit by a car. Hit by someone who could have done it before, might do it again, who knows.

Accidents can happen

D0NK - Member

yes, but this wasn't an accident.

The driver intentionally crashed into the OP ?? Get a grip..

[b]Definition[/b]
Accident
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

negligence
?n?gl?d?(?)ns/
noun
noun: negligence;?plural noun: negligences

1.
failure to take proper care over something.
"his injury was due to the negligence of his employers"
synonyms: carelessness, lack of care, lack of proper care and attention, dereliction of duty, non-performance of duty, non-fulfilment of duty

<edit> and a cyclist being on the same road as you isn't unexpected is it?

yes, but this wasn't an accident.

Really? You reckon if it was deliberate that the guy would have then stopped? I don't think so.

your first post didn't quite read like that

DONK - it didn't, you're right.

rickt - read my most recent post above please before suggesting I'm somehow responsible for a massive increase in insurance premiums, thanks. And you can spout dictionary definitions all you like, this wasn't an accident. It may not have been deliberate, but it wasn't an accident.

Its the claim culture which Woody2000 suggested which is wrong in my opinion when there was no suggestions of physical or personal damage/injury.

That rather flies in the face of official accident statistics showing that older drivers are, overall, safer.

I suppose that depends what the statistics class as older drivers.
My issue is with very, very old drivers, some of whom I see driving incredibly dangerously all the time where I live.

I love my Grandparant's to bits but Id be terrified to think of them getting behind the wheel of a car (as would they). They can barely see or hear anything, shake a lot and have more than one or two marbles rolling around upstairs 🙂 But both have full driving licenses.

I am not allowed to drive after just a pint of beer - but seriously - who is the most impaired here! I'm not advocating drink driving - just making a comparison.

15% on personal injury claims under £500,000

*wild guess

driver wasn't watching where he was going, lack of intent doesn't make it an accident.

Yes, it pretty much does - accident means without intent - *NOT* without guilt.
An accident doesn't absolve the person of guilt. If you you accidently run some one over because you're pissed out of your head, it's still an accident, but you're still going to jail, because it was avoidable and caused by your actions.

It may not have been deliberate, but it wasn't an accident.

What was it then? Are you suggesting there's malicious intent in all crashes? What would qualify as an accident? Serious question.

He's probably in his 60's and to be fair looks far worse than me - very, very apologetic and already looks like shock is setting in as he can't stop shaking! We have a discussion for about 2mins

In all honesty, if it shook him up enough, and you were able to chat about it, i would chalk it up as an accident. sounds like an unfortunate mistake. These things do happen and as a 27 yo driver with 20 20 vision, the sun is VERY low at commute o’clock at the moment (not that its an excuse, but it is a factor)! hope he has the where with all to take a bit more care in future.

If he had come out swinging "you were in my effing way mate you effing dont even pay effing road tax" I would have taken his reg and reported it. (accidents involving cyclists should ALWAYS be reported to the police, even if on the 101 number). That or rip his wing mirror off and take a dump through his window.

Some people might be in need of a dictionary, to save you the bother, I'm going with ROSPA's definition of an accident:

An unplanned, uncontrolled event which has led to or could have led to injury to people, damage to plant, machinery or the environment and/or some other loss.

or maybe the HSE who suggest

An undesired circumstance(s) which gives rise to ill health, injury, damage, production losses or increased liabilities.

WTF is this thing on here that people say that if an accident was someone's fault then it's not an accident? Seriously, what is that? Where does it come from? The rest of the world seems to understand what an accident means, why do singletrackers seem to struggle with it?

The reality is that pretty much every accident is someone's fault, barring meteorites falling out of the sky..

The rest of the world seems to understand what an accident means, why do singletrackers seem to struggle with it?

Don't tar us all with that brush!

Sorry, it's just that every time I see a thread where accidents are discussed we seem to get this weird thing trotted out that someone was at fault and therefore "it's not an accident" which is not only really weird, but also something I've never, ever come across anywhere other than on here.

I would really love to know why it is - was there one of those "classic" threads "back in the day" that explains to a relative newbie why the word "accident" has a different meaning here from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses?

It probably all started when the Police started changed RTA to RTC "because accident implied nobody was to blame"

I hope your recover both mentally and physically.

FWIW my 2nd vehicle collision convinced me I didn't want a 3rd so I've moved over to MTB completely now.

Relying thousands of times on idiot drivers for your survival is no longer a chance I am willing to take. I've reduced my car exposure manytimes over but no doubt at some point someone will try to kill me again.

because accident implied nobody was to blame

How the flippity flip does it do that?

Tell me you made that up?

Even the old bill, those notorious manglers of the language, can't really think that. Can they?

Accident is a tyre blowout or a heart attack leading to third party getting injured, something unexpected. Hitting an illuminated reflective bedecked cyclist on a public road because you werent watching where you were going isn't an accident IMO.

[i]Trying[/i] not to get all emotive or spouting hyperbole, a car is a dangerous piece of machinery and care should be taken when using it.

That protester a year or two back who lobbed a fire extinguisher off a roof, if that had hit someone would you have called that an accident? No intent, he didn't mean to injure anyone he was merely lobbing a chunk of metal into a public place with enough kinetic energy to do serious damage, kinda like driving a car without properly watching what you are doing.

Accident implies it couldn't have been avoided, everyone simply looking where they're going and driving more cautiously could prevent a lot of "accidents" I reckon.

It may sound pedantic but there is, I feel, an important distinction.

I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over some old codger [b]who drove into someone on a clear open road[/b] having a bit of a bump in their insurance premium. Those who think this is an acceptable standard of driving, have very different concept of acceptable to me.

If it really was a bizarre one-off and the driver is otherwise careful and competent, they'll get their NCB back in a few years. If, on the other hand, they have a long history of smidsys and sideswipes (and many, if not most, drivers who crash are regular repeat offenders) then he should be off the road.

Well, there's the difference - your claim for compensation against an old codger at fault for a sore arm is an unnecessary and pointless legal action that will have a negligable affect on ther insurance but I'll see the increase on mine. Thanks.

I said it before, but if you want to teach them a lesson (as opposed to lining your greedy little pockets), why don't you suggest a custodial sentence, rather than financial compo?

your claim for compensation against an old codger at fault for a sore arm is an unnecessary and pointless legal action that will have a negligable affect on ther insurance but I'll see the increase on mine.

You appear to have got that the wrong way round. Unless of course you are the old codger or your NCD is in some way linked to his.

I'm exceedingly drunk and haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say thank whoever that you're not hurt and hopefully this will be a wake up call for the driver.
🙂

I'm not sure a custodial sentence is appropriate, a conviction for driving without due care and attention certainly is (perhaps even dangerous driving), but the legal system doesn't see it that way. I don't make the laws (nor set the policy regarding their interpretation), and within the system as it exists, a moderate compensation claim is the best option IMO.

Of course, people who are happy to have incompetent drivers hitting clearly visible cyclists on open roads don't have to take any action when they suffer such an event.

@thecaptain

Conviction? Compensation? Codswallop!

It was pondo who brought up the topic of custodial sentences. However hitting someone in broad daylight on an open road seems to be considered a fully acceptable standard of driving, so I agree with you that there is no prospect of that happening.

Seems to me that we need another term rather than accident to describe these, seeing as 99.999% of these collisions and near misses are neither at one end deliberate, nor at the other totally unavoidable, but rather could have been avoided if someone had done something different. And before the pedants start, I don't mean not going out that day at all, etc. Then hopefully we don't have to have this same bloody argument every time this subject comes up.

Unfortunately I was witness yesterday to a very near miss, that could easily have been avoided if the other driver wasn't an absolute liability. Near where I live is a residential 2 Lane road with parking bays and passing spaces up one side. I pulled in to give passage to a cyclist coming the other way. He was clearly visible in a fluoro waistcoat and riding in primary, and travelling at a fair rate. The car behind me decided clearly not fast enough and overtook me straight into the oncoming cyclist, who was forced up onto the pavement. At the end of the road are lights, and I got out and confronted the driver who told me that there was plenty of room. When I asked how that was so because if the cyclist hadn't gone on the path she'd have mowed him down, she changed her tune to 'didn't see him until too late' and then 'should have been on the path on that bit anyway'.

What hope do we have when that's the attitude? She'd have got a far worse earful if she hasn't had her kids in the car with her.

Do we not need collisions like this logged so the authorities get a clear idea of the overall situation and maybe change policies/law quicker?
Also for the ops situation this guy may need an eye test so a call from the police may help him get there.

You appear to have got that the wrong way round. Unless of course you are the old codger or your NCD is in some way linked to his.

It was pondo who brought up the topic of custodial sentences.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that my NCD is full and my insurance goes up every year way beyond the rate of inflation. Something's making it go up.

I very much doubt it's because of cyclists making claims for minor injuries when they're hit by cars. My car insurance certainly doesn't go up like that - if anything it's been getting cheaper recently (I certainly pay significantly less now in absolute terms than I did for my first insurance premium 25 years ago), so maybe it's because people like you are going round having more [s]accidents[/s] collisions.

You know what I really hate? It's when people on threads like this get confused between fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims with making genuine claims for injuries people receive through no fault of their own, and then suggest that you shouldn't make a claim because it will affect their insurance premium. The former do have an effect on your premiums, the latter not really. It really isn't blame culture to ask for a bit of compensation for your suffering when somebody else clearly is at fault.

I very much doubt it's because of cyclists making claims for minor injuries when they're hit by cars. My car insurance certainly doesn't go up like that - if anything it's been getting cheaper recently (I certainly pay significantly less now in absolute terms than I did for my first insurance premium 25 years ago), so maybe it's because people like you are going round having more accidents collisions.

You know what I really hate? It's when people on threads like this get confused between fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims with making genuine claims for injuries people receive through no fault of their own, and then suggest that you shouldn't make a claim because it will affect their insurance premium. The former do have an effect on your premiums, the latter not really. It really isn't blame culture to ask for a bit of compensation for your suffering when somebody else clearly is at fault.

Accident implies it couldn't have been avoided

No! No it doesn't! It means that it wasn't a planned or intended outcome. It does not imply either that it was unavoidable (and to explore that one we'll need a proper philosophical debate about causality which I really don't have the time for today) or that it wasn't someone's fault, either due to negligence, incompetence, carelessness or any other reason other than intentional malicious action.

FFS, look the word "accident" up in any dictionary you care to - the word does not mean, or imply, lack of culpability, responsibility, or negligence on someone's part, or that it's unavoidable. It simply doesn't.

You're not being pedantic, you're trying to change the meaning of a word. You're simply being wrong.