Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Alex Heney on 4 Jul 2008 18:35 On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:23:00 +0100, Simon <simon345(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my >> bicycle by a White Van Driver rurning right to reach a parking bay on >> the right side of the road. At the time the traffic was either slow >> moving or stationary and I was overtaking on the right, and well out >> into the right lane of the road which was clear of oncoming traffic. >> The van driver did not indicate or did not indicate at a time that I >> had any chance of seeing prior to pulling diagonally across the road >> to reach the parking bay, the right front side of his van hitting me >> from behind. >> >> I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation and a hard bump to >> the head. >> >> I have been offered �5,100 settlement with a 20% v 80% liability - >> meaning I would receive just �1,020, and admit that I was 80% to blame >> for the accident. I have rejected that offer. >> >> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >> >> Should I give that counter offer, or should I still go for 100%? >> >> The difference for 5% of my pride and the possibility of a hassle free >> settlement is worth �255. >> >> It is worth considerably more than that to my no win - no fee >> solicitors. >> >> The no win - no fee barrister says the following (highlights only): >> >> - On the basis of the written evidence in my opinion Mr Crispin has a >> very good (70%) claim that the accident was entirely caused by the >> negligence of the Defendent. >> >Am I the only one to note that if his own Barrister thinks that there is >a 70% chance of it being the van's fault, the same barrister must think >there is a 30% chance that the cyclist was at fault! >And if you take this statement to its logical conclusion, blame could be >apportioned 70-30! > >So to get 80% of the money might be seen as a EXCELLENT offer? > It would, but he is being offered 20%, not 80%. He is incredibly unlikely to get any more than the percentage suggested by his own barrister, and most likely to not even get that much. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Taxation is little more than legalized extortion. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Rob Morley on 4 Jul 2008 18:55 On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100 %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > > Note that 165 and 191 make reference to two separate vehicles. That is > that in the circumstances where one vehicle has stopped and another is > moving one may not overtake either. > > And the Highway Code applies to cycles. They are specifically > included. The Highway Code is only a general guide to legislation and good practice. The relevant legislation in this case specifies that it applies only to motor vehicles. <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#28>
From: JNugent on 4 Jul 2008 19:30 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:21:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" > <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >>> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >>> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >> Overtook a slowing van; silly of him, pretty silly of you. > > The van was stuck in traffic at red lights. > > It took the opportunity of no oncoming traffic (due to the lights) to > pull out to the right 50m ahead of a loading bay on the right. He > must have passed one or two stationary cars before turning into me > from behind, his wing mirror clobbering me on the back of the head, > and then proceeding to drive over my bike's front wheel. > > There is little doubt that the driver was 100% to blame for running me > over. > > His only defence is that he was indicating at the time that I passed > him and that I was driving [sic] too fast. > > He was not indicating at the time that I passed him, and my speed was > about 12 mph. > > The simple facts are that he didn't look properly before turning right > across two sets of zigzag lines at a pedestrian light crossing, and he > did not indicate in any way that I could see, therefore I could not > have reasonably predicted the manoeuvre he was about to undertake. > > For further details see: > www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/rundown It's difficult to see how this thread can possibly be on topic for uk.rec.driving, but the obvious answer is that if you are in any doubt about your position, you should take - and listen to - proper legal advice from people qualified to give it.
From: Steve Firth on 4 Jul 2008 19:29 Rob Morley <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100 > %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > > > > Note that 165 and 191 make reference to two separate vehicles. That is > > that in the circumstances where one vehicle has stopped and another is > > moving one may not overtake either. > > > > And the Highway Code applies to cycles. They are specifically > > included. > > The Highway Code is only a general guide to legislation and good > practice. The relevant legislation in this case specifies that it > applies only to motor vehicles. > > <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24> > <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#28> I did not state that Crispin should be prosecuted. "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as 'should/should not' or 'do/do not'."
From: Tom Crispin on 5 Jul 2008 01:46
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:24:23 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote: >On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:10:30 +0100, Tom Crispin ><kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > >>On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:21:50 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" >><nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>>> My no win - no fee solicitors have suggested that I give a counter >>>> offer of �5,100 with a 05% v 95% liability - meaning I would receive >>>> �4,845, and admit that I was 5% to blame for the accident. >>> >>>Overtook a slowing van; silly of him, pretty silly of you. >> >>The van was stuck in traffic at red lights. >> >>It took the opportunity of no oncoming traffic (due to the lights) to >>pull out to the right 50m ahead of a loading bay on the right. He >>must have passed one or two stationary cars before turning into me >>from behind, his wing mirror clobbering me on the back of the head, >>and then proceeding to drive over my bike's front wheel. > >This is very different from what I believed had occurred based on your >previous postings. > >If you passed him *then* he pulled out, and he hit you from behind, >then there can be no realistic doubt. > >It is 100% his fault. Any indications he may have been making are >utterly irrelevant. > > >But, it seems extremely unlikely that the facts are exactly as you >present them here either. > >And what you have written at the site you detailed below does not >tally with this interpretation either, but meshes more with what you >have said before. > >So please answer this. > >Were you completely past the van before it moved? Probably. According to the witness I was. >If so, then it was 100% his fault. > >If not, then it was probably partly your fault, even if he didn't >indicate. |