Accident with car on bike - insurance wont pay out

[BazzaS]

 

I have always had concerns about that particular stretch of road and you have to have your wits about you in any vehicle there.

 

 

Excellent news!

If you've always had concerns you'll have a record of notifying the council to ensure they repaired it : their lack of action will enable you to sue them effectively based on your previous complaint.

 

If course, if you haven't previously notified them, knew about the road's poor state but rode on it anyway ; you've just handed the council a defence on a platter, since you have accepted you knew the risk and voluntarily accepted it - volenti non fit injuria. (Consent with willing acceptance of risk).

 

What is more, your statement is now immortalised on the Internet, as part of your ever-changing story (where you have moved from "it was my fault" to " let their insurance pay", to "it was the road, let the council pay"!

 

And you know what else? I'm not buying this needs a whole new tailgate theory either. Metal can be heated and moulded into all kinds of shapes quite easily.

 

If you think they are overcharging you : arrange it for the cheaper price (but at an acceptable quality)

[angrycrow]

And you know what else? I'm not buying this needs a whole new tailgate theory either. Metal can be heated and moulded into all kinds of shapes quite easily.

 

Yes in theory most panels can be straightened with heat and pulling and 20 years ago this tailgate would have been repaired but modern cars are built to much higher tolerances and even if straightened the glass would most likely leak.

 

Not to mention labour costs to repair and respraying the tailgate would far outweigh the cost of a new tailgate.

 

In terms of liability are you saying you hit a rock or that the road surface was damaged.

 

If you hit a rock how can the council be liable, they did not put the rock there. If you are saying the road surface was damaged you would need to prove that the road had been damaged for some time and that the council either knew of the damage and failed to repair it, or that they had failed to inspect the road within proscribed time scales, both very hard to establish.

[unclebulgaria67]

Why do you think it's unlikely they will take me to court? They seemed pretty sure about it on the phone today.

 

Because many people who threaten this don't actually bother. They would have to pay a fee to the court and they might incur further costs if you defended. They don't know whether they would get their money back, so they might decide it is not worth it.

 

This is my last answer to your thread. It is now your choice what you decide to do. It is shame that there is no Home Insurance where you are living, as that might have liability insurance which might help you.

[king12345]

We have been Americanized: Anything that happens is someone else's fault, surely not ours!

Fact is that they were happily driving and all of a sudden they are £1000 out of pocket because of a cyclist who won't take responsibility for an accident you caused.

If the council is to blame (I seriously doubt it) you can recover your money at a later stage.

You can't expect the council to pay the other party directly.

You should pay them and then recover the money from the council, but from your latest post I gather that you will let the innocent driver fork out the money for the repair.

SAD!

[2ltr16valve]

I must post here. I am SHOCKED that the op can even contemplate denying liability. YOU hit them, it might be so this was the after effect of someone causing you to come off but the fact remains you hit them while they were stopped.

 

This is one of the reasons all bikes that use the roads should be insured in my opinion. Had the car driver had hit the rock an hit the back of your bike buckling your wheel you would be screaming blue murder !!

[king12345]

I must post here. I am SHOCKED that the op can even contemplate denying liability. YOU hit them, it might be so this was the after effect of someone causing you to come off but the fact remains you hit them while they were stopped.

 

 

 

This is one of the reasons all bikes that use the roads should be insured in my opinion. Had the car driver had hit the rock an hit the back of your bike buckling your wheel you would be screaming blue murder !!

 

Thumbs up to you 2ltr16valve!

[chang]

I must post here. I am SHOCKED that the op can even contemplate denying liability. YOU hit them, it might be so this was the after effect of someone causing you to come off but the fact remains you hit them while they were stopped.

 

This is one of the reasons all bikes that use the roads should be insured in my opinion. Had the car driver had hit the rock an hit the back of your bike buckling your wheel you would be screaming blue murder !!

 

So all bikes should carry insurance because there are so many cars hogging up the space on the roads all of which cost a fortune to repair?

 

They should have been covered, and you know what if there weren't so many idiot/inconsiderate drivers hogging the pavement on that stretch of road then I would have been taking this route to get round them on my bike in the first place!

 

I went out on my bike again yesterday and had to swerve to avoid two cars coming out of junctions, that's about the average. I was left thousands out of pocket years ago suffered a broken foot after a bus collided with me knocking me off.

 

I've explained what happened, I can't be held liable for a repair that costs a thousand for something that ultimately wasn't my fault.

 

Anyone who thinks I am being dishonest here just keep it to yourself, I'm just looking for advice on how I can deal with this. If they are going to drive around without insurance to cover their car for accidents like this then that's their bad!

[2ltr16valve]

So all bikes should carry insurance because there are so many cars hogging up the space on the roads all of which cost a fortune to repair?

 

They should have been covered, and you know what if there weren't so many idiot/inconsiderate drivers hogging the pavement on that stretch of road then I would have been taking this route to get round them on my bike in the first place!

 

I went out on my bike again yesterday and had to swerve to avoid two cars coming out of junctions, that's about the average. I was left thousands out of pocket years ago suffered a broken foot after a bus collided with me knocking me off.

 

I've explained what happened, I can't be held liable for a repair that costs a thousand for something that ultimately wasn't my fault.

 

Anyone who thinks I am being dishonest here just keep it to yourself, I'm just looking for advice on how I can deal with this. If they are going to drive around without insurance to cover their car for accidents like this then that's their bad!

 

Do you mean the drivers of the cars who PAY for the upkeep of the roads ? That your privileged to ride on ??

 

Yes you ALL should pay insurance. I also ride a motorcycle and pay insurance. I take up the same room as a racer yet I have to pay for everything. Tell me why you should be exempt.

 

Furthermore. Why should other road users have to pay more for insurance because you don't want too ?? Why should we all have to insure for things that are completely beyond our control such as this ?

Facts of it are:

You hit the rear of a stationary vehicle.

Caused substantial damage to the vehicle

Are uninsured

 

Had you been in a motor vehicle you would be at fault automatically regardless of road conditions, as you must take these into account while on the highway (same applies to all users of the highway)

 

I really can not see how you can preach from your soapbox.

YOU ARE AT FAULT. Pay up, why should the car owner/driver take a hit on their no claims and excess.

[chang]

If course, if you haven't previously notified them, knew about the road's poor state but rode on it anyway ; you've just handed the council a defence on a platter, since you have accepted you knew the risk and voluntarily accepted it - volenti non fit injuria. (Consent with willing acceptance of risk).

 

 

 

If you think they are overcharging you : arrange it for the cheaper price (but at an acceptable quality)

 

What else am I supposed to do, get off my bike and walk that stretch of the road? Might as well just walk the whole distance then seeing as the roads are pretty much a mess everywhere in this city, and certainly you can't move for cars and traffic lights anyway most of the time. Cars own the space in between all the buildings you see, because it was tarmacked over for their convenience.

 

Maybe they can sell the car and buy a cheaper one that does the same job. They are bleating about being hard up but appear to have more than one car and probably a mortgage, which is more than I have and I manage to get by. You don't need a car to bring up children. I, on the other hand, need to feed myself.

 

My story changed yes, but in cases like this the facts don't always come to light straight away. This is not me being dishonest. I'd like to help them but they are threatening me with court action and accusing me of all sorts into the bargain. So they can deal with it themselves.

 

I did the decent thing and stopped to help, they're problem for not being insured. If a branch had fallen off a tree and panned one of their windows in they also wouldn't be insured. It's their fault for not being insured. I ain't stumping up a grand to repair their fancy car for something that ultimately was not my fault!

Edited September 13, 2014 by chang

[chang]

Do you mean the drivers of the cars who PAY for the upkeep of the roads ? That your privileged to ride on ??

 

It's a fallacy that drivers pay for the up keep of roads, in fact everyone pays for it.

 

I'll happily cycle on a dirt track, the tarmac is there for their convenience, yet I still have to pay for it.

 

Yes you ALL should pay insurance. I also ride a motorcycle and pay insurance. I take up the same room as a racer yet I have to pay for everything. Tell me why you should be exempt.

 

Because ultimately if you are going to use a vehicle that is so costly to repair then the onus is on your to insure it completely. If there were no cars on the road, only mountain bikes, would there be an argument for me to have insurance then? I have to insure myself because the roads are clogged up with expensive vehicles?

 

Had you been in a motor vehicle you would be at fault automatically regardless of road conditions, as you must take these into account while on the highway (same applies to all users of the highway)

 

I wasn't though, was I?

 

I really can not see how you can preach from your soapbox.

YOU ARE AT FAULT. Pay up, why should the car owner/driver take a hit on their no claims and excess.

 

Bottom line is they should have been insured because their loss is more substantial than mine, should my bike get trashed. The more expensive the commodity, the more reason you have to insure it yourself.

 

I am also not at fault, perhaps no-one was at fault here.

[2ltr16valve]

I've read enough too see your the type of person that always blames someone else.

 

You've been given plenty of advice, it just so happens it's not what you want to hear.

Your argument is flawed. Why should other road users insure them selfs to cover your mistakes ??

Their level of luxury is irrelevant, had it been an old fiesta it would still cost £100s to fix.

Why should someone work to pay for what they chose for someone else to damage it and then say "well if you didn't have that then I wouldn't have broken it"

 

LAUGHABLE.

 

Anyway. I sincerely hope the owner or driver takes court action, I certainly would. I would also love to sit in to hear the judges response to your claims here above that why Should you pay because someone else has an expensive car you damaged.

 

At the very least I can see you paying their excess and increase in insurance costs.

[chang]

I'm paying nothing and you can keep your comments to yourself! Sick of car drivers all thinking that they own the road. You want to have these luxuries of modern life then YOU INSURE IT!

[chang]

And another thing. I spend my whole life trying to catch up on sleep because of the NOISE cars make, yet I don't get any compensation for the damage to my health or the damage to my health from their exhaust fumes! Maybe they should insure themselves to compensate people for that? Look it up, new research is showing the devastating effects noise pollution etc. is having on people's health and mortality rates, noise pollution alone could be responsible for the deaths of millions of people across Europe every year. Oh but the poor car drivers have it so bad, having to drive around and avoid cyclists everywhere they go.

[2ltr16valve]

I'm paying nothing and you can keep your comments to yourself! Sick of car drivers all thinking that they own the road. You want to have these luxuries of modern life then YOU INSURE IT!

 

I do insure it. For events I cause !! Not for inconsiderate cycle warriors to damage it.

 

I ride a bike remember, albeit with an engine so am as vulnerable as you. You need to lose the chip on your shoulder about car drivers.

Cycle riders need regulation and insurance. Don't see why every other road user has to pass tests an jump through hoops to be on the road yet you don't and cause damage just the same. Then shun any responsibility.

 

You clearly only want the answers of "it wasn't your fault" don't worry little Johnny I'll wipe your tears. That big bad car man is mean and Should pay !

 

Well tough. I say it as I see it. I'm sure there are many others on this forum that think the same but could not be bothered to reply as they have more important things to post on.

 

If it was my vehicle is be getting my money for repairs, an be dammed if I'd be paying anything out my pocket for Damage caused by an uninsured 3rd party.

[chang]

You're the one with the chip. I'm not here looking for negativity, just advice, so save your comments I'm going to just ignore you.

[Vauban]

The only person who is definitely not to blame here is the driver of the car: you smashed into them, causing significant damage to their car. Your suggestion that they should pay because they can probably afford it is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility. I doubt you'll find many people on this forum who think that is acceptable behaviour. If you think the Council caused you to smash into the car (and frankly the evolution of this thread casts a lot of doubt on that proposition) then that is a matter between you and the Council. So do the decent thing, man up and accept your responsibility. And then sue the Council if you think you have a case.

[angrycrow]

This will be my last comment on this thread as the attitude of the op is shockingly poor (in my opinion).

 

My advice has come from almost 2 decades of resolving motor accident disputes and 3 decades of long distance cycling.

 

Chang you are setting back cyclist/driver relations at a time where the majority of cyclists are working their backsides off to improve relations and make the roads a safer place to cycle.

 

The insurance issue first. The driver has the minimum required level of insurance to legally drive the vehicle on the road. They have done so in the assumption (slightly flawed) that if anyone hits them the other person will have insurance to cover their damage.

 

Liability issue next. The driver was stationary (by your own account) in traffic minding their own business when the vehicle behind them has failed to travel at a speed appropriate to the road conditions and for whatever reason (most likely braking to late and too hard) lost control and collided into the rear of their vehicle causing over £1000 of damage to the vehicle. They are an innocent party so any claim they bring against you through the courts will automatically succeed. If it can be proven that somebody else’s negligence caused you to come off the bike then you could pursue the negligent party and name them in a defence of any court action taken against you by the car driver.

 

We all pay for the roads through our taxes (not VED) and we are all entitled to use the roads subject to following the laws concerning the use of the roads including all the terms imposed by the highway code.

 

Whilst insurance is not required to ride a cycle on the road I would always advise that cyclists have insurance in place for third party claims which is normally part of your home insurance. There are various cycling organisations such as British Cycling who offer very cheap cycle insurance which covers third party losses if you do not have home insurance at about £32 a year.

 

Put yourself in their place, what would you be doing if they had driven into the back of you and destroyed your bike and injured you, I am guessing you would hold them 100% at fault and sue them for your losses.

 

So in summary from a claims handling perspective please accept that you are 100% liable for the damage to the Clio. In my opinion your claim against the council is a non starter and will fail. In short contact the car owner and reach an agreement to pay what you afford to pay each month and then stick to it.

[chang]

Not interested. You can all go to hell!

[chang]

I'll get advice from CAB rather than have to put up with the attitude of some of the stuck up edited on here.

Edited September 13, 2014 by slick132
swearing removed

[2ltr16valve]

I'll get advice from CAB rather than have to put up with the attitude of some of the stuck up edited on here.

 

Bye then.

 

Shame CAB will have to waste their time with you tho, they have genuinely destitute people to help.

If you think their advice will be any different you are seriously out of touch with reality.

Edited September 13, 2014 by slick132
swearing not tolerated

[BazzaS]

Sigh, another poster who only wants to hear what suits them , rather than what applies to their situation.

 

I'm not here to validate your lunacy / intent to defraud.

[slick132]

This thread has run it's course, I think.

 

Chang admitted liability at the start and sounded quite prepared to do the right thing.

 

Responsibility for the incident should not change because the repair costs are more than Chang can afford.

 

The suggestion that the council be blamed is probably dishonest and not something that CAG would condone.

 

The car driver was not at fault and should not be left out of pocket, or with a damaged car.

 

With hindsight, cyclist's insurance for third party damage would have been the answer.

 

Thread closed.