What to do in the case of an accident (discussion)

Possibly @hippy

Yeah.

Get photos of the pothole (I took a ruler and used it and my feet for scale and depth). Then get onto google and see if you can find evidence that it's been there a while - you can use a little date slider thing to find older pictures of the same location.
If you can find evidence it's been there for more than say 3-6 months you might be in with a chance. It depends on the road though - different roads have different requirements for inspection frequency.
Start taking details or any witnesses and start totting up any damage costs too.

Cheers Hippy, got no witnesses as it it was fairly late. But can get the rest. Took a photo at the time. Reckon it’s 3-4 inches deep small but just enough to stop a front wheel at the wrong angle.

Not sure if I used any witnesses anyway just thought I'd suggest it in case they turned out to be useful to your case later on. Go back and take photos with something for scale if you can. Show the hole with ruler in it, foot in it whatever and also show it in a wider shot with the position on the road, etc.

Done the google research. It was there over a year ago and the start of it was there in 2017. I'll head back today and get some more photos.

Cool. Sounds like you might have a case then.
I used Slater Gordon I think but that was 5 years ago.

Cheers. Did you claim for damaged bike or injury?

or both?

Bike (minor damage, it was an Inbred after all), helmet, clothing, sunglasses, injuries.

I've unfortunately been reading through these pages because I was taken out by an inattentive driver on Monday morning. I was traveling in a straight line through an intersection, and the driver (coming from the opposite direction) turned right across my path without looking.

I've just got a couple of questions, would really appreciate any help!

1. I've lodged a police report for a traffic incident with at least one person injured but I've yet to hear back from the police. Am I correct in thinking they will be in touch or is the report simply to have on file for insurance purposes?

2. I've lodged a claim with my insurer as my bike was a write off (collision was at 30mph so there was a lot of damage) and provided them with the details of the driver and 3 witnesses from the scene. I understand my payout will be less my chosen excess, however is it on me to chase the excess from the driver (or her insurance) or does my insurance company do that?

3. I collected the drivers details but did not supply mine to her (she immediately admitted fault, probably in part because of the three witnesses yelling at her for being an idiot, so I didn't see the point of giving my details to her). Looking at photos of the car after the crash it's likely to be a write off as the A pillar was badly damaged. Should I be preparing for potential legal action against me, despite her being in the wrong, admitting so and having three witnesses confirm my story? She didn't seem the type to do so but again, you never know.

Appreciate any guidance by anyone who's been in a similar situation. Cheers

Get a solicitor they will take over from here and let you know what is required.

Usually no win no fee basis but as you seem insured don’t know whether that would include solicitor.

What fussballclub said ^

And I hope you’re ok, dude. That sounds like a big smash, especially mentioning the speed and damage to the car.

Were you injured? Great if not, but the police won't be interested in the crash unless it was a personal injury collision, as technically they have to collect those statistics. It's very unlikely that the police will contact you. They'll assume that it's a case of the driver's insurer paying you for damages.

There's actually no legal requirement on you to give your details (there is for drivers, but, oddly enough, not for cyclists), but why wouldn't you? You'll have to contact her insurers, anyway, and they'll have to contact their client, so how will they be able to verify that you're making a genuine claim?

You don't say if you have the details of the witnesses--this is crucial. They can make all the difference, e.g. if in the intervening time the driver has changed her mind about being at fault (this often happens when they get home and get talked to by people close to them, or they realise that their insurance premiums might go up).

With any luck, the driver will be friendly and not contest your claim, but be prepared that they will.

Hope it all works out without too much hassle!

I wasn't injured in the collision thankfully (beyond cuts and bruises) which the doctors at hospital were pretty amazed at.

As I wasn't seriously injured I assumed a solicitor wouldn't be interested in the case. Besides, I just want my property replaced, I'm not interested in taking the driver to court. She was an 80 year old woman with her 91 year old husband in the passenger seat, no reason to put them under stress so long as they play nice with my insurance claim.

I took down details of three witnesses, all of whom followed up with a message to confirm their story and check I was ok. So I feel if the driver did try to contest the claim I'd be well supported.

Will I actually need to contact her insurance? I was under the impression that my insurer will be in contact with hers (I provided these details to them) and they will sort it out between them. If that's not the case I can call the driver and provide my details but I wasn't sure if it was required in this situation.

She was an 80 year old woman with her 91 year old husband in the passenger seat

It may feel mean to set a solicitor on them but it's their insurance that will be paying out. And it sounds like there's a good argument that they shouldn't really be driving any more.

Yeah that's a fair argument - she claimed she "didn't see me" but I was traveling in a straight line for several hundred metres before the intersection and I was wearing a bright red jersey on a green and purple bike so that's pretty worrying.

If your insurer's dealing with it, fine. It sounds as if you've got this sorted--statements from responsive witnesses should make it impossible to contest. Hopefully they're nice people and there won't be any more difficulty.

Very lucky that you weren't badly injured.

Anyway, it sounds as if you've done everything right so far.

And it sounds like there's a good argument that they shouldn't really be driving any more.

Well, if that's so, that's a decision for them to make. Pressure to stop driving often comes from within the family. It's likely that driving is their form of mobility, so shouldn't be taken away so lightly.

Yeah that's a fair argument - she claimed she "didn't see me" but I was traveling in a straight line for several hundred metres before the intersection and I was wearing a bright red jersey on a green and purple bike so that's pretty worrying.

I don't think it's a fair argument based on just one crash. Thousands of much younger drivers say the same thing all the time. It's in all probability not down to age, but driver inattention is quite simply one of the most frequent causes of crashes. The main issue with older people can be their eyesight. It's an ageist myth that older drivers are particularly dangerous--most crashes are caused by younger drivers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37292951

Well, if that's so, that's a decision for them to make. Pressure to stop driving often comes from within the family. It's likely that driving is their form of mobility, so shouldn't be taken away so lightly

Agreed. I generally don't believe people as old as 80 should be driving, even if their eyesight is fine. I understand the mobility argument especially when rural but it's just too much of a risk to themselves and everyone else on the road.

If nothing comes of them driving in to someone their family may never know and would not be prompted to consider if they should still be driving.

I agree with your argument here, most crashes are definitely caused by younger drivers. I know in Australia it's almost prohibitively expensive for under 25s (especially men) to take out insurance - the statistics suggest rightly so.

A bit of context for my comment - the driver in my collision did have on glasses and appeared to have trouble opening her left eye fully, hence why I agreed it's a fair argument that she should consider whether or not she should still be on the road. Obviously not an easy decision to make, but clearly a conversation worth having if accidents start occurring.

cuts and bruises

That is an injury. Cops have to take statement. You've got other witnesses though so it shouldn't be too difficult to proceed.

no reason to put them under stress

Except the next rider they fail to see might be killed.

so shouldn't be taken away so lightly.

They've just run someone down. Fuck their mobility.

if accidents start occurring.

It's not an "accident" if someone with failing vision gets behind the wheel of a car. It's wilful negligence and should be viewed (pardon the pun) and treated the same as drink driving.

A bit of context for my comment - the driver in my collision did have on glasses and appeared to have trouble opening her left eye fully, hence why I agreed it's a fair argument that she should consider whether or not she should still be on the road.

Yes, that might be an eyesight issue--or it might not. However, if it's the former they certainly have to do something about it. I was mainly objecting to the 'they shouldn't drive because of age' comment. Old age can of course be a significant cause of poor eyesight, but what would disqualify from driving would be eyesight that can't be corrected, not old age. It's similar to 'all over-70s are classed as vulnerable in the pandemic', to which some over-70s objected in strong terms. Discrimination, whether by sex, age, skin colour, or whatever, rests on superficial, irrelevant criteria.