Forum menu
I'd already been doing within the 30mph speed limit, and something about this person's demeanour had caused me to slow down meaning that I could actually stop.
So you were moderating your speed and anticipating what the pedestrian was going to do. That would seem at odds with the OP.
If someone walks out in front of you (be that in a car or bike), you have no time to react and you are not breaking the law; on what basis is the car driver or cyclist at fault?
This is a civil issue, not a criminal one.
Pain, suffering and loss of amenity is the head of claim. Plus loss of earnings, etc
how much were the earings?
The speed limit does not apply to cyclists, so it's irrelevant.
Excuse me?
To answer your original question:
Yes, [i]possibly[/i].
It will all come down to what information can be provided, proved, etc. Also what financial implications there were for you and whether insurance money is up for grabs.
Speak to a reputable lawyer and see what they think.
You genuinely think you've been caused damage by negligent behaviour. Why not?
the bus the cylist "out accelerated" did react in time so was fortunately was paying reasonable attention.
Eh? Presumably there are two things that helped the bus driver:
1. The bus was behind the cyclist, therefore increasing the amount of time available to react and stop
2. The bus driver was reacting to a crumpled heap of cyclist and pedestrian [i]already in the road[/i], not predicting someone [i]stepping into[/i] the road.
If I chuck something off a motorway bridge and it lands on your car I can't say "well, the car 300 yards behind you managed to avoid it, you should just pay more attention".
I've got to the point where I pretty much assume any pedestrian in London is about to wander into the road with all their attention on their phone. They don't like it when you shout 'oy!' at them, but at least you're still upright and so are they and the driver behind isn't having to stand on his brakes.
Nothing to add to the OP here as I really don't think there's enough to judge but heal quickly and well and remember that London is full of hazards for everyone - drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and someone, somewhere at somepoint will do something daft - ride accordingly. Personally I like riding singlespeed cos it stops me accelerating too fast off at the lights and I top out c 20mph - and that helps keep me relaxed rather than trying to rag it everywhere
out of intrest where did the 'head down' comment that is referenced in page one go to? Cheaky edit, or ther posters assumptions.
The "head down" part is from the imaginations of the people wanting to blame the OP. As far as I can see, he never said it.
But plenty of people since have added that little detail to make it easier to blame him.
Similar to the few people that have suggested he went through a red light. Or crossed to stop line before the lights changed.
Another detail that was not mentioned by the OP. But apparently it "sounds like it was likely" for some reason.
Sounds really nasty, and I do hope you make a full recovery.
I'd ignore a lot of people on here, other than the ones telling you to ignore a lot of people on here, and seek proper legal advice. Especially ignore 'advice' such as this:
Legal action has a clear negative impact on recovery. You've got 6 years to take action
The sooner you get the process started, the better. CCTV footage is rarely kept for more than a few days, weeks if you're lucky. It is possible the bus company might make the footage available to you, but usually only through a solicitor, and often only after a formal legal request from either police or a solicitor. Be prepared for any footage to have been erased; 3rd parties are often loathe to get involved as it is a hassle for them and they have nothing to gain by doing so. Witnesses often disappear/decline to give evidence in such cases.
Be prepared to get nothing. That way, if you do get anything, it will be a bonus. In order to successfully sue, you will need to prove wilful negligence on the part of the pedestrian. You will need to prove that their actions put you in a situation where injury was totally unavoidable. Whilst that may well be the case, successfully arguing that in a court of law is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Likewise, you may well need to prove you did nothing wrong whatsoever, and that you did everything in your power to try to avoid the collision. You also have the added issue that their behaviour probably doesn't constitute a criminal offence, unlike many other RTA situations. And then there's the probability of a counter-claim. By your own account, it may transpire that you were not cycling according to the particular conditions, and not possessing sufficient awareness of the potential for a collision. I imagine you must have been going at quite some speed; it could be argued that such a speed was unsuitable for the particular conditions. In short, you have to be prepared to successfully argue against every possible claim that could be made against you. And be mindful that the pedestrian will be doing the same, and therefore doing everything to avoid having to pay out. It will be your lawyers vs theirs. And theirs might be better than yours.
Already, with only your version of events to go by, it isn't looking great for you, sadly. So, as frustrating and 'unfair' as it may seem, you may well be better off just accepting that shit happens, and that you have to move on.
Good luck in whatever you chose to do, and be thankful that it wasn't worse.
The speed limit does not apply to cyclists, so it's irrelevant.
Excuse me?
Technically correct, bizarrely. Although to say it's 'irrelevant' is somewhat foolish, I'd say.
Be prepared for every single aspect of your behaviour, and the 'roadworthiness' of your bicycle, to be placed under extremely close scrutiny. Were your brakes working correctly? Had your bike been serviced recently? Did it meet all conditions according to the law? Did you have correct approved lighting? Did you have reflectors and pedal reflectors fitted? Etc etc. One little thing that's not quite right according to the legal requirments, and bang, you case could collapse. The pedestrian's legal team will be looking for anything that could save them from potentially massive costs. It's a minefield. It could drag on for ages. You could lose a huge sum of money. Are you prepared for that?
If someone walks out in front of you (be that in a car or bike), you have no time to react and you are not breaking the law; on what basis is the car driver or cyclist at fault?
If for example the footway was crowed with peds and a cyclist chose to ride at speed 18" from the kerb rather than well out into the road. Some blame might be given for not anticipating someone might step out.
Not saying that is the case for the OP.
If for example the footway was crowed with peds and a cyclist chose to ride at speed 18" from the kerb rather than well out into the road. Some blame might be given for not anticipating someone might step out.
That's the scenario I'd previously considered as the most problematic in terms of PL. As a cyclist, you're between a rock and a hard place.
Similar to the few people that have suggested he went through a red light. Or crossed to stop line before the lights changed.
probably because the OP said this:
...and had positioned my bike out ahead of the traffic...
...and had positioned my bike out ahead of the traffic...
like at an advanced stop line??
Bez - Member
...I can only fault it on one thing: the speedo shows that the driver's travelling above the speed limit...
i thought it was from NZ? (100ish kph is roughly 60ish mph)
so still speeding i think, but with a nod to the legal limit, not total disregard.
I'm going to try and avoid speculating at all, but provide some hopefully helpful advice.
If you have contents insurance then you will be insured for your legal liability if the ped sues you, so I wouldn't worry too much about any counter claim.
If the ped has contents insurance (or his parents do) then he will be insured for any liability for your injuries.
IANAL but ISTM that based on that the best for both parties might be to sue each other so that both insurance companies pay out (assuming some liability can be assigned each way) - if that's the way things work here?
Again IANAL, but provided the ped can be shown to have been negligent then any contributory negligence by the cyclist should not prevent the claim being successful but would reduce the amount of the payout.
It's already been said, but worth repeating, whilst it might be a good idea to avoid getting too involved in legal action whilst you're recovering, you need to get evidence now before it disappears, so you need to speak to a solicitor today if you haven't already.
As they've not been mentioned yet, I'll suggest http://www.bikeline.co.uk/ who have successfully dealt with a couple of claims I had. Though I'm sure other companies mentioned are just as good, that's another option - no need to go to the real vultures of the NWNF world.
As for those speculating and seeking to apportion blame on insufficient evidence - grow up. FWIW, like njee I'd not be supporting a ped who walked out directly in front of a car (if that is what happened here - still not going to speculate).
Oh and I once had a ped walk out directly in front of me in London. Went straight into them and OTB. Thankfully neither of us damaged too much, though I don't think the ped noticed as he appeared to be steaming drunk - he certainly didn't seem likely to have any contents insurance as I suspect he had all his possessions with him - I did make sure he was OK, but he picked himself up and staggered off. I doubt I was doing much more than 15mph, but no time to react if somebody does step straight in front of you.
wanmankylung - MemberNo fault of your own? That there is the problem. We expect car drivers "to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear" but for some reason complain like hell when someone expects a cyclist to do the same. You did play a part in it, you are partly to blame - suck it up princess.
This is such a moronic post,
if something moves out directly in front of you are supposed to be able to stop?
you must go everywhere a 3 mph, "princess" 😆
OP hope you make a full recovery and that the other unfortunate does too.
be careful out there everyone!
i thought it was from NZ? (100ish kph is roughly 60ish mph) so still speeding i think, but with a nod to the legal limit, not total disregard.
Yes, that's the point. He's speeding. Showing the speedo at ~107km/h gives the viewer the chance to look at the video and say, "well, that guy's speeding," and dismiss the message.
That one shot reinforces the idea that there's a fixed speed at which you cross from being responsible to being irresponsible. And that's a very problematic attitude that plays out both behind the wheel and in a court.
If they took that one shot out, or showed the speedo at 90km/h, the message would still be exactly the same, and every bit as powerful. But it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss as a simplistic matter of breaking or not breaking the speed limit.
As they've not been mentioned yet, I'll suggest http://www.bikeline.co.uk/ who have successfully dealt with a couple of claims I had. Though I'm sure other companies mentioned are just as good, that's another option - no need to go to the real vultures of the NWNF world.
Bikeline are a NWNF firm. In fact, most firms offering personal injury claim services will have NWNF agreements. It's disingenuous to call all NWNF firms 'vultures'; many very reputable firms offer this service.
Here's some good information:
Most law firms are completely scrupulous, don't forget that this is a big business; you want money, they help you get money, they take a fee. Obviously it's in their interests in trying to get as high an amount as possible, but this is set by the court, not the solicitors. You can of course bring a claim yourself, and represent yourself throughout. Not a very good idea unless you are a qualified lawyer expert in personal injury claims though.
You can of course instruct a law firm to represent you in a claim, outside of a NWNF agreement, but this could end up costing you a fortune if you lose. As for household insurance; be very sure to read every single bit of the small print. It's quite possible you won't be covered at all.
This is such a moronic post,if something moves out directly in front of you are supposed to be able to stop?
you must go everywhere a 3 mph, "princess"
You are correct your post is moronic.
To answer your question - yes you are meant to be able to stop. Why would you think not being able to stop if someone stepped out in front of you was good riding?
I dont go everywhere at 3mph, but if 3mph is the correct speed to go I'll happily do 3mph.
Its clearly neither practical nor realistic to expect everything on the roads to move at 3 mph everytime they see a pedestrian on the grounds the pedestrian may step into the road without warning. One ocudl not pass ones test driving like this.
Likewise there is no point me running for my life everytime I see a car just because some sometimes mount the pavement.
Lets me put it like this: I've never hit a pedestrian by accident and that's not because nobody has ever walked out in front of me.
[quote=bartyp ]
no need to go to the real vultures of the NWNF world.
Bikeline are a NWNF firm. In fact, most firms offering personal injury claim services will have NWNF agreements. It's disingenuous to call all NWNF firms 'vultures'; many very reputable firms offer this service.
Where did I suggest that they weren't, or that all NWNF firms were vultures? However some clearly are (were?) rather disreputable and have given that whole segment of the industry a bad name, which is the sort of company a lot of people think of when suggesting NWNF.
Are you saying you have only ever hit them on purpose 😉
It's because they have never done it so close you could not stop
Its not impossible that this could happen to you or to me or to anyone as the only way to avoid it is 3 moh everywhere
[quote=wanmankylung ]Lets me put it like this: I've never hit a pedestrian by accident and that's not because nobody has ever walked out in front of me.
Well clearly we're not all riding gods capable of stopping with infinite deceleration like you.
BTW, how many have you hit deliberately?
We have no idea of the distance between the cyclist and pedestrian as he stepped out, nor cycle speed.
There are approved stopping sight distances for vehicles for a given speed. I would imagine at low speeds a cycle has similar distances to a car . A lot of that distance is made up in the reaction time. If the ped was unsighted he may not have had time to react, let alone brake.
If the ped was unsighted he may not have had time to react, let alone brake.
I hit a pedestrian on Deansgate in Manchester like that years ago. Riding south, pouring rain - one of those sudden and torrential summer showers. I had flashing lights, helmet and a bright waterproof on. Traffic going north was stationary. From between the line of stationary traffic a woman sprinted out, head ducked and holding a newspaper over her to try and keep the rain off. She didn't look and I didn't have time to brake, swerve, shout, ring a bell. I just hit her full on, we both went flying. I remember lying in the road screaming a phrase that rhymes with clucking bell. Bike one way, lights and computer both knocked off and in the middle of the road. She picked herself up, took one look at me and ran off.
Meanwhile all the passers-by were glaring at me like it was all my fault.
Sometimes you just can't avoid it, no matter what speed you're doing - I was doing no more than about 12mph - a fast running speed, it's not like I was in head down TT mode. Simply no chance to avoid it.
Guessing that's what happened here - sometimes things happen before you can even begin to react to them and all the argument in the world about stopping distances etc becomes void.
Some of the responses on this thread are depressing beyond belief.
OP, heal strong, see a good solicitor and ignore the armchair jury on here.
Crazy legs, that's the nightmare scenario. You physically could not do anything, and yet people look at you like you just drop kicked a baby.