From: Tom Crispin on 5 Jul 2008 02:20
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100, %email@example.com (Steve Firth)
>Danny Colyer <danny_colyer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2008 17:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>> > And, apparently the Tom Crispin who missed the Highway Code instruction
>> > that one must not overtake a vehicle in a zigzag zone.
>> Rule 165:
>> "You MUST NOT overtake ... the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing".
>> Rule 191:
>> You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the
>> vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
>> I have seen no suggestion that Tom was overtaking the *nearest* vehicle
>> to a pedestrian crossing.
>His description of the circumstances makes it soudn that it was the
>nearest vehicle to the pedestrian crossing.
Does this help?
It wasn't me crossing the zigzags, but the van clearly intended to do
so, and indeed would have to to reach the loading bay.
From: Geoff Pearson on 5 Jul 2008 03:27
"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:47:19 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net>
>>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:53:14 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox(a)beeb.net>
>>>>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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:
>>>>I see no reason why you should agree any contributory negligence, but 5%
>>>>would be a negligible concession and would help to persuade them to
>>>>liability thereby getting it out of the way.
>>>>As to the value of your claim it sounds as if your lawyers reckon your
>>>>general damages are worth 5k and they are adding a nominal 100 pounds
>>>>for interest or for travel and incidental expenses. Or was it for the
>>>>of repairs to the bike?
>>> The repairs to the bicycle came to about �1,500. There was also
>>> damaged clothing.
>>>>A valuation of 5k implies that you are fully recovered now, with no
>>>>continuing discomfort or limitation of movement. Is that the case?
>>> I have a permanent lump on my shoulder, and when swimming breaststroke
>>> I feel a mild clicking sensation in my shoulder but no discomfort.
>>> Apart from that I seem to have full movement in my arm and no pain.
>>Does your medical report mention the lump and the clicking? If not, it
>>I'd say the general damages for pain and suffering are worth around 4k.
>>your solicitors to press for a higher offer, because 5100 is on the low
>>Obviously it would be futile to tell them that this is based on the
>>of a chap on uk.legal. Even if the anonymous chap happens to be an expert
>>on personal injury law (in the sense that I have dealt with many hundreds
> I have checked my figures again.
> �3,750 is for pain and suffering.
> �1,147 is for repairs to my bicycle
> �203 is for damaged clothing, panniers and a broken rear light
> I dropped a 50p claim for a damaged keyring as a gesture of goodwill.
how much will you have to pay your no win-no fee lawyer - 40% of this?
From: Tom Crispin on 5 Jul 2008 03:52
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:27:15 +0100, "Geoff Pearson"
>how much will you have to pay your no win-no fee lawyer - 40% of this?
If I win, nothing. Provided I am made an award greater than any offer
made by the defendant's employer's insurer, the legal costs will be
paid by the insurer.
From: Rob Morley on 5 Jul 2008 04:48
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:29:39 +0100
%firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Rob Morley <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100
> > %email@example.com (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.
And so the backpedalling begins.
> "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'."
The HC says this is a 'must' rule. 'Must' rules refer to specific
legislation. The legislation referred to applies only to motor
vehicles, therefore this is not a case in which the HC /may/ be
used to establish liability, any more than a cyclist can be found
liable for not using a seat belt.
From: Ian Smith on 5 Jul 2008 04:53
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:24:23 +0100, Alex Heney <me8(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> This is very different from what I believed had occurred based on
> your previous postings.
Didn't stop you making categorical absolutely definite postings, which
contradicted the opinion of teh barister involved who actyually does
know all teh facts. Perhaps you should just admit yopu actuially
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig