Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Steve Firth on 4 Jul 2008 12:46 Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > Some of you may recall that on 30 April 2007 I was knocked off my > bicycle No, I don't in fact I neither know nor care. However I would like to know if this is the same Tom Crispin that advocated cycling through red lights as an aid to safety for cyclists. And, apparently the Tom Crispin who missed the Highway Code instruction that one must not overtake a vehicle in a zigzag zone. Can I have the name of the insurers of the other party so that I can pass them some of your Usenet posts?
From: McKev (yay!) on 4 Jul 2008 14:02 "Peter Fox" <unet0608(a)PeterFox.ukfsn.org> wrote in message news:g4jkhd$1jav$1(a)energise.enta.net... > My 2p. > > Dismiss the talk of liability : Demand 100% liability. (Ask the simple > question of them : "In what particular way were you at fault? As they > can't start to make a valid case and you can defend easily against any > spurious bluster you have this base covered.) > > AND _more money in general damages_. (ie don't get distracted by %ages) > Your barrister is saying (as far as possible) you have a cast-iron case. > > Good luck. Don't give up on the final straight you have everything in your > favour. > > > Either you'll get a cheque for 100% by return of post or an expensive(for > them) day in court and educational day for you. Remember that it isn't > inconceivable that you'll be helping others out with their court cases in > future - so this could be an hour or two well spent. > > IANAL > > I absolutely agree! McK.
From: Danny Colyer on 4 Jul 2008 14:30 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. Even if he had, it should be borne in mind that these rules are examples of the HC being inaccurate in implying that the legislation applies to all vehicles. It does not: <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#28> IANAL. -- Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk> Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
From: Ian Smith on 4 Jul 2008 17:22 ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.] On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, 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. Indeed, but it is interesting that up until relatively recently I thought you should not overtake in the zig-zag zone. A couple of months ago I was checking something and noticed that it doesn't actually say that. I then went back and looked at my old copies, and they don't say it either, back to 1978 at least. > I have seen no suggestion that Tom was overtaking the *nearest* vehicle > to a pedestrian crossing. Even if he had, it should be borne in mind > that these rules are examples of the HC being inaccurate in implying > that the legislation applies to all vehicles. It does not: > <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24> > <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#28> It is somewhat disturbing how often that turns out to be the case. Despite its fine words, much of the highway code appears to be a motor-vehicle-driving code with some additions tacked on for other highway users. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
From: Alex Heney on 4 Jul 2008 18:15
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:35:50 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:10:30 +0100, Se�or Chris <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> >wrote: > >>Tom Crispin wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >>Quite right - what grounds do they give for accusing you of 80% liability ? > >Powell v Moody (1966) > >The Court of Appeal held 80% 20% in favour of the party pulling out >and stated that "any vehicle jumping a queue of stationary vehicles >was undertaking an operation fraught with great hazard and which >should be carried out with great care". > >>> 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%? >> >>They will just offer to meet you halfway. Stick with 100%. > >I think that the defendant's insurers will see 05% v 95% as a >technical offer to save hassle in the belief of a 100% win in court. >They may go for it to save costs. I doubt very much they would go for it, knowing full well that they would do very much better than that in court. The case quoted above is quite right. It is only the fact that he did not indicate (assuming he accepts that) which would drop your liability below 80%. And that still won't drop it to anything *like* as low as 5%. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Programming Department: mistakes made while you wait. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |