[Closed] Update Bike v Police van

did not have any insurance

Thats why they make stable doors.

This the one where a police van pulled across you late at night?
any word from police?

Would insurance have covered the OP?

True - what happened - I take it was a you v cop van incident and they're denying culpability because you (obviously) cycled straight into the large white van covered in fluorescent markings?

Heard nothing from police but its more a civil claim trying to get compensation. They waited 5 days to take my statement under caution before a statement was taken from the driver.
Oops That bit of paper should not have been left on your desk.
The chances of getting anywhere are looking slim.

What about one of the 'accident chasers' that advertise on telly?

Am I thinking of another thread on here, or were you riding back from the pub when the collision took place?

that's the one isn't it?
He'd had a few beers & ran into the police van

I don't trust them no win no fee lot, to me they work in the same office as cash for you and money lenders.
Cranberry, the thread about riding back from pub was me.

Wasn't the general feeling on that thread 'hard luck old bean, feel for you, but can't see as you're entitled to a penny, you half cut blind muppet'?

Proving that the van driver (Police or not) manoevered dangerously or without due care an attention will be impossible when you were too close, and your bike illuminations was non-BS or highway code compliant renders you just as culpable.

To be honest, I did say in your other thread that I felt your claim had good prospects. The vehicle owes a greater duty of care to you than you to they, the fact you may have had a drink or two is irrelevant if it didn't contribute to the circumstances, and the motor law of Davis Vs Schrogin, whilst aimed at motorcycles, is pretty valuable to your case.

At the end of the day, no win no fee is just a way of funding a claim, and if you were not injured, then your claim up to £5k can be made in the small claims court anyway, where no legal fees are required/needed, nor is any cover for theirs.

Chase up the household insurance, but the police are not the best at assisting when they've been in a bump. Arrogant coppers who know they make impressive and unimpeachable witnesses, and that courts lap up their evidence, will routinely mess you about, not respond to requests for information and basically make life hard for you. Either that, or they're all too busy eating bacon sandwiches in the canteen to deal withthe paperwork.

you were too close, your bike illuminations was non-BS or highway code compliant and thus just as culpable.

All of these are for teh rozzers to prove (WTF is "too close"?), and re: lights, it's not necessarily as simple as that (though it may be in this case, I can't remember the details).

To be honest, I did say in your other thread that I felt your claim had good prospects. The vehicle owes a greater duty of care to you than you to they, the fact you may have had a drink or two is irrelevant

What a load of tripe, there's no way in hell you could argue that the drink had no influence on the outcome, best you could surely hope for is 50:50 and being charged with being drunk in control of the bike (IIRC there is a charge aimed that way).

coffeeking - Member
What a load of tripe, there's no way in hell you could argue that the drink had no influence on the outcome, best you could surely hope for is 50:50 and being charged with being drunk in control of the bike (IIRC there is a charge aimed that way).

What evidence do teh rozzers have to establish that?

Just been on to insurance co and they will cover cost of bike but not loss of earnings etc on household policy. I have to phone legal dept tomorrow and see what they think.
Does this have to go to court in order to claim off them? the Sergeant seemed to think the CPS would send the driver on one of those driving courses.

What evidence do teh rozzers have to establish that?

I don't remember the details of the previous thread, but wasn't it confirmed that he'd had a few beers? Will this not be noted (though not tested specifically - not that they have a specific limit for bikes?)?

Cofffeeking - the cops would have to establish he was "unfit to ride thru drink" Having not done so at the time using tests similar to the american sobriety tests they have no way of doing this now. The fact that he had been drinking is irrelevat. What is relevant is whether he was unfit or not and that cannot be decided retrospectively. It must be tested for at teh time.. No chance whatsoever of him being prosecuted.

The lights might mean a reduction in damages.

Myself I'd be pestering the cops - there is a fair chance they will settle out of court as its a small sum ( compared to if you had been permanently maimed)and if they won't use an ambulance chaser. You should accept some of the blame IMO - but you should still get some damages - your household insurance might cover you as well to sue in which case you could use one of the CTC recomended lawyers

At the time of the accident the driver called his sergeant who promptly arrived and immediately breathalysed the driver but not me. I was asked if I had been drinking and they could probably smell the alcohol, so I was not going to lie about the fact I had two pints of larger and a packet of crisps 😀
Just looking at the CTC website as recommended by others in last post.

If they didn't test you for alcohol at the time, I'd be arguing that you were obviously not affected by drink. If there were any chance that drink was a factor then obviously they would have breathalised you.

Cougar - they have no right to breathalyse a cyclist and its of no importance anyway - they have to do manual tests to show that you are unfit to ride. What your blood alcohol level is is irrelevant.

Just to clarify there is no power for the police to breathalyse cyclists, however police officers are classed as an "expert witness" as regards drunkeness and can give evidence as to any intoxication, no need to conduct sobriety tests or stick someone on a machine. A full collision report would have been completed as it involved a police vehicle. If you feel that the accident was the fault of the police driver then you are entitled to make a claim against them which would involve going to the small claims court or instructing a solicitor as you wouldn't be going through an insurance company.

You don't have to do any tests to give evidence of intoxication.

Interesting. Do we know what they said?

I had no test done to me, just the question of had I been drinking. The sergeant gave me insurance details in order to pursue my claim.

They probably didn't breath test you because they thought it would weaken their defence if you were found to be sober.

Now they can say you were drunk.

Nonsense - are you sure? I have witnessed a police surgeon testing a suspected drug driver to see if he was unfit to drive using tests such as standing on one foot and walking a straight line.

The tests in that case were inconclusive and the person was not charged with driving under the influence. A policeman's word was not considered good enough for that and its the same offence I thought.

Teej you are thinking of S.4 Road Traffic act, unfit through drink or drugs which relates to mechanically propelled vehicles cars, mopeds, lorries etc. A force medical examiner can give evidence that someone is unfit through drink or drugs in the same way a specially trained police officer can.

Pedal cycles are covered by entirely different legislation because they are powered by your legs. It's a good job the OP didn't get in the way of the van with his horse whilst pissed, because that's against the law as well.

It's very rarely prosecuted because most people are just told to get off and push home. The bike, not the horse.