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 18:16 On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:41:03 +0100, Peter Fox <unet0608(a)PeterFox.ukfsn.org> wrote: >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.) > It is obvious how he was at fault. He was overtaking a line of stationary traffic. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager A bird in the hand can be messy. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 4 Jul 2008 18:24 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? If so, then it was 100% his fault. If not, then it was probably partly your fault, even if he didn't indicate. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Don't mess with Murphy. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Steve Firth on 4 Jul 2008 18:20 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. Zigzags aren't placed at other traffic lights, so it seems it was a crossing. Crispin had overtaken the vehicle. The vehicle, he says, turned right within the zigzag area. That area is rather short and even if there were two vehicles then is seems he overtook the *moving* vehicle nearest the crossing. 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. So "nice try" as Dork Dave "Dynamo" Hansen is fond of saying, "but no cigar" as he fails to follow up.
From: Alex Heney on 4 Jul 2008 18:29 On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:57:56 +0100, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >Paul Boyd wrote: >> >> Entirely up to you, of course! From what you describe though, I can't >> see how you can be in any way to blame. > >Sadly, there's a massive difference between "legal" >and "natural justice". > >Courts (bizarrely) are often keener on agreements >than court cases, and (therefore) view someone >refusing a reasonable offer in quite poor light. > >Courts are also (surprisingly) not interested >in principles. > >So, stink though it might, I would take >the 95% and run. Why on earth do you think he is likely to get the chance to do that? The defendants are offering 20%. You think there is *any* chance they will accept anywhere *near* 95% without a court case? I don't. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Faith is good, but scepticism is better. - Giuseppe Verdi To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 4 Jul 2008 18:33
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:43:24 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 11:20:03 +0100, "Novice" ><tobeornottobe(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >>Who says its only worth �5K and why? >> >>General damages for your injury? >> >>Unless you have fully recovered (in which case possibly no more than �2,500 >>for the injury) it will be too early to say. >> >>Be wary of an optimistic prognosis which suggests that you will recover >>shortly eg within 2 years.(Then getting it up to �5K) but far more if the >>prognosis is wrong. >> >>Past loss of earnings + interest? >> >>Future loss of earnings eg when undergoing surgical decompression? >> >>Handicap on the Open Labour Market? > >I think the figure is something like this: > >�1,500 for damage to bike and clothing >�2,500 for shoulder separation injury >�1,000 for permanent lump on shoulder > >I was pretty much back to normal within four weeks, though during a >mountaineering holiday in Glencoe, Scotland 26 May to 2 June 2007, I >didn't do as much walking and was not as adventurous as I would >normally have been. > >The settlement is agreed, and I am satisfied with the �5,100 figure. >The only point to settle is the percentage. I think that 100% is >correct but will be happy with 95% for a trouble free payment. >Anything less than 95% and court it is and the defendant's employer's >insurer's can pay the legal costs. Well then it will be court. There is no chance they will accept paying you 95% without court action when they have only offered 20%. And who will pay the legal costs will depend on how close to their offer the final judgment of the court is. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Hackers have kernel knowledge. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |