Accident - Advice sought



Status
Not open for further replies.
Guy, I could not agree with you more. My village in Lincolnshire has been plagued by speeding
motorists for years. Speeding kills and I acknowledge that and it must be addressed. However, this
speed camera obsession and the police's persecution of motorists is nothing to do with safety. It is
a revenue maker. It makes them millions of pounds a year. Furthermore, because of this speed camera
obsession there are not so many patrols out on the road. So drink drivers, dangerous driving,
dangerous vehicles etc are getting away scott free. They are using technology to milk us Guy.

The joyriders and the like are going to ignore the speed warnings anyway. It is the normal law
abiding citizen who end up paying. Why donlt the government try to tackel the problem with extesive
programs on televsion about speeding? That wouldn't make them any money would it? Slim "Just zis
Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "The Real Slim Shady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Let me guess. The police were so busy handing speed tickets out that a genuine member of the
> > public wanting their help had to wait for two
hours?
> > Three? Police are wankers as well. They have turned law abiding
citizens
> > who they need to help crack real crime into folks who hate their guts becuase of their
> > persecution of motorists.
>
>
> Is the wrong answer.
>
> First, my local plod are courteous, efficient, friendly and were very concerned when I reported
> two incidents to them. No waiting was involved.
>
> Second, nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to
speed.
> If you don't want to get nicked, don't break the speed limit. Speed adds danger to all situations
> on the road, and keeping drivers from consuming every last bit of the safety benefits of modern
> road surfaces, tyres and brakes, as performance benefits to the detriment of non-motorised road
> users, is perfectly acceptable.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
>
> WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
>In the event that he isn't insured, can anyone recommend a reputable claims handler that will
>handle a suit for the damages to my wheel, mech and helmet? Since my injuries are not serious, is
>there any point in pursuing a claim for those too?

Those witnesses are your friends.

Good luck with what you decide upon.

gb
 
"The Real Slim Shady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> this speed camera obsession and the police's persecution of motorists is nothing to do
> with safety.

I have never seen a policeman persecute a motorist. I have driven many tens of thousands of miles
and never once been accosted by a plod. Of course, I do my best to follow the rules, but even when I
didn't the plod never caused me a problem.

Of course, I have heard habitual burglars complain that the police persecute them. And I have heard
habitual speeders make the same complaint.

> It makes them millions of pounds a year.

Great - saves on tax.

> Furthermore, because of this speed camera obsession there are not so many patrols out
on
> the road.

This assertion is repeatedly made, but I haven't seen any proof. The cameras are self-financing, so
don't divert cash away from other policing activity. If police numbers are being cut that's got
nothign to do with cameras and everythig to do with a general unwillingness to pay enough tax to put
more plod on the strets. Oh, but police numbers are increasing.

> They are using technology to milk us Guy.

Us? I don't think so. The only time I knowingly exceed the posted limit is when I'm using a vehicle
which is exempt from speed limits :)

> The joyriders and the like are going to ignore the speed warnings anyway. It is the normal law
> abiding citizen who end up paying.

Eh? How do you work that out? If you're not breaking the law, what are they going to fine you for?

> Why donlt the government try to tackel the problem with extesive programs on televsion about
> speeding? That wouldn't make them any money would it?

Actually it's because they are afraid to offend the motor lobby. Hence yellow cameras and cretins
being let off fines because the signs warning of enforcement activity were the wrong colour. Would
you let a burglar off because the signs warning of a CCTV camera were the wrong colour?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:08:13 +0100, "The Real Slim Shady" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That wouldn't make them any money would it?

Too true.

And probably wouldn't get them re-elected either - which is what most Governments are primarily
interested in these days.

Hit car-culture, and you say goodbye to No10.

Maybe a tad cynical, but depressingly true....imo.

gb
 
"The Real Slim Shady" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Right definitley going out on the bike now - just heard Tony on the radio. Pisses me off every
> time I see the swarmy smug idiot. I am going to do about thirty miles. I'll get back for a few
> beers at 8 O'clock so I can
pay
> some more tax.

Best way to pay tax, IMO :)

> P.S. What do you mean "You are Enoch Powell - ICMFP".

Sorry, missed the smiley. Keyword "Asylum Seeker" - fromt he Daily Mail Book of Scapegoats,
page one ;-)

> I said I am not racist - - I even an black girlfriend a few years ago.

Ah, you really have to watch that - "some of my best friends are black" - it can be taken the wrong
way. Seriously. Me, I am racist, but not very racist. I know I'm not very racist because when I
asked my parents if I could invite my new friend Trevor round for tea one day I apparently forgot to
tell them that he was abut six foot six and black as the ace of spades ;-P He is organist at Spanish
Town Cathedral and now President of the Jamica Guild of Organists. Top man.

> Why should we have to cough up for some git who fabcies an easy life? We should help people in
> genuine need. However, we have become a
soft
> touch becuase of the politically correct do-gooder who fine people £800
for
> killing someone.

The politically correct have nothing to do with risible fines for motoring offences - that is the
result of work by the motor lobby over many decades. You don't get much more politically incorrect
than the RAC foundation, they kept Prince Michael as president even after his various convictions.

As to asylum seekers, well I have this feeling that we should honour the spirit of the Geneva
Convention and such. I don't suggest that all asylum claims are well-founded, but I do think that we
should treat asylum seekers humanely and without prejudice.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> He didn't run into the back, he went into the rear near_side_.

Back or nearside - makes no difference if he ran into either from behind. The only situation where
he would not be at fault in that situation is the classic overtake and turn immediately left
manoever where the drivers actions result in insufficient space. Otherwise Section 105 of the
Highway Code applies:

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely
if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall
stopping distance"

Tony

--
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not
dying." Woody Allen
 
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> In message <[email protected]>, "Digweed .. ;)"
> <[email protected]> writes
> >cpm tried to scribble ...
> >
> >> As I went through the junction, a car just ahead of me in lane two decided at the very last
> >> second to brake and turn left instead. He collected me with his rear nearside, taking me and
> >> bike round the corner with him. As he accelerated out of the corner, we all parted company and
> >> I landed fairly heavily on my right side.
> >
> >As you were behind the car when it started the manouvre, and you appear to have run into him
> >while he's making the left turn, I reckon it's possibly your fault ..
> >
> >There's no excuse for hitting someone in front of you, no matter how st00pidly they drive .. you
> >should always leave enough room to stop or take evasive action .. whether riding a bike, driving
> >a car or any other vehicle .. ;)
> >
>
> The OP did write that the car "decided at the very last second to brake and turn left". This is
> not an unusual accident, often caused by the inattentiveness of drivers. We didn't witness the
> incident so it seems totally unreasonable to blame the OP who may genuinely had insufficient time
> to take evasive action..
>
> I wonder if some people on this NG ever ride bikes, Digweed?

For clarification, the car had just passed me as we approached the junction. I have revisited the
scene and noted that lane 2's approach is marked by two successive straight ahead arrows, then
almost at the stop line there is a third arrow with straight ahead and left heads on
it. I must admit that I did not see these arrows but I would attribute that to the nose to tail
traffic conditions making it impossible to see them. I also took a look further back up the
road for signposts and found one that was on the pavement displaying the lane layout ahead.
This is clearly visible while standing on the footpath but from the roadway is obscured by
various posts, traffic signal poles etc.

Anyway, thanks for your views.

cpm
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
>>He didn't run into the back, he went into the rear near_side_.
>
>
> Back or nearside - makes no difference if he ran into either from behind. The only situation where
> he would not be at fault in that situation is the classic overtake and turn immediately left
> manoever where the drivers actions result in insufficient space. Otherwise Section 105 of the
> Highway Code applies:
>
> "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
> You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely
> if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping
> distance"

Since we now know the vehicle had just overtaken, all the above is irrelevant.
 
In news:7Ta%[email protected], Simon Proven
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> Since we now know the vehicle had just overtaken, all the above is irrelevant.

Not at all. Its almost certainly going to come up if OP persues his claim so its best that the OP
has considered carefully the circumstances of the accident before he starts. Happily it appears that
the sole exception to it being his fault is in fact the case.

Tony

--
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not
dying." Woody Allen
 
Following on from cpm's message. . .
>Driver seemed not to want to stop, despite now being pursued by another loud shouting cyclist, and
>only stopping when a pedestrian (witness) stepped out in front of him and held up his hands. Driver
>couldn't give a toss about the incident and left his name, address and reg number and left.

Check up that the driver reported it to the police as they were required to. They should have given
you the details of their insurance company at the time.

You may have the satisfaction of seeing a fine and penalty points awarded. Obviously this means
getting the police do something but if you get a brush-off fax the Chief Constable to complain.

Sue for your damages anyway.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the borehole business dried up
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
><[email protected]> typed:
>>
>> He didn't run into the back, he went into the rear near_side_.
>
>Back or nearside - makes no difference if he ran into either from behind. The only situation where
>he would not be at fault in that situation is the classic overtake and turn immediately left
>manoever where the drivers actions result in insufficient space. Otherwise Section 105 of the
>Highway Code applies:
>
>"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You
>should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it
>suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping
>distance"
>
>
>Tony
>

So what this means is the following. You're riding along a road and a car passes you and then takes
up a position just in front of you. You're to the side and one inch behind the bumper. The car
maintains this position because of slow moving traffic. (Not crawling, but doing 16 mph or similar,
a speed you can keep up with.) What you have to do then is fall back to provide adequate stopping
distance. Another car does the same and another and an...

You never get yourself out of the danger zone and you never get anywhere.

I know there are people who say you shouldn't be to the side, you should be in the lane. But
cyclists are constantly doing this, indeed for slower cyclists they might have to do it.

The vehicle in front is not always blameless when shunted from behind despite what some people
might think.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
 
In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> typed:
>>
>
> So what this means is the following. You're riding along a road and a car passes you and then
> takes up a position just in front of you. You're to the side and one inch behind the bumper. The
> car maintains this position because of slow moving traffic. (Not crawling, but doing 16 mph or
> similar, a speed you can keep up with.) What you have to do then is fall back to provide adequate
> stopping distance. Another car does the same and another and an...
>

Got it in one. A similar arguement is used to justify tailgating on motorways.

Tony

--
"Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. " Philip K. ****
 
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:40:17 +0100, "Digweed .. ;\)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As you were behind the car when it started the manouvre, and you appear to have run into him while
>he's making the left turn, I reckon it's possibly your fault ..
>
>There's no excuse for hitting someone in front of you, no matter how st00pidly they drive .. you
>should always leave enough room to stop or take evasive action .. whether riding a bike, driving a
>car or any other vehicle .. ;)

I trust you're joking, Digweed. I was knocked off by a car few months ago; I also had a close shave
last week. In both cases cars overtook me and turned left "through" my front wheel before they're
completed their manoeuvre. Both times, ISTM, the drivers expected me to brake and slow down simply
because they had to.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg
 
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:40:17 +0100, "Digweed .. ;\)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>cpm tried to scribble ...
>
>> As I went through the junction, a car just ahead of me in lane two decided at the very last
>> second to brake and turn left instead. He collected me with his rear nearside, taking me and bike
>> round the corner with him. As he accelerated out of the corner, we all parted company and I
>> landed fairly heavily on my right side.
>
>As you were behind the car when it started the manouvre, and you appear to have run into him while
>he's making the left turn, I reckon it's possibly your fault ..
>
>There's no excuse for hitting someone in front of you, no matter how st00pidly they drive .. you
>should always leave enough room to stop or take evasive action .. whether riding a bike, driving a
>car or any other vehicle .. ;)

Digweed

An apology is due. I'm misread the initial post and had assumed that the car overtook CPM and turned
left too early.

SORRY James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg
 
In message <[email protected]>, James Hodson
<[email protected]> writes
>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:40:17 +0100, "Digweed .. ;\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>cpm tried to scribble ...
>>
>>> As I went through the junction, a car just ahead of me in lane two decided at the very last
>>> second to brake and turn left instead. He collected me with his rear nearside, taking me and
>>> bike round the corner with him. As he accelerated out of the corner, we all parted company and I
>>> landed fairly heavily on my right side.
>>
>>As you were behind the car when it started the manouvre, and you appear to have run into him while
>>he's making the left turn, I reckon it's possibly your fault ..
>>
>>There's no excuse for hitting someone in front of you, no matter how st00pidly they drive .. you
>>should always leave enough room to stop or take evasive action .. whether riding a bike, driving a
>>car or any other vehicle .. ;)
>
>Digweed
>
>An apology is due. I'm misread the initial post and had assumed that the car overtook CPM and
>turned left too early.
>
>SORRY James
>

But that _is_ what happened.

--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
 
James Hodson tried to scribble ...

> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:40:17 +0100, "Digweed .. ;\)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As you were behind the car when it started the manouvre, and you appear to have run into him
>> while he's making the left turn, I reckon it's possibly your fault ..
>>
>> There's no excuse for hitting someone in front of you, no matter how st00pidly they drive .. you
>> should always leave enough room to stop or take evasive action .. whether riding a bike, driving
>> a car or any other vehicle .. ;)
>
> I trust you're joking, Digweed. I was knocked off by a car few months ago; I also had a close
> shave last week. In both cases cars overtook me and turned left "through" my front wheel before
> they're completed their manoeuvre. Both times, ISTM, the drivers expected me to brake and slow
> down simply because they had to.

If that's what happened then the car driver is in the wrong. That's _not_ what the OP
described though ..

--
Digweed
 
In message <[email protected]>, "Digweed .. ;)"
<[email protected]> writes
>Michael MacClancy tried to scribble ...
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>> In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy <[email protected]>
>>> typed:
>>>>
>>>> He didn't run into the back, he went into the rear near_side_.
>>>
>>> Back or nearside - makes no difference if he ran into either from behind. The only situation
>>> where he would not be at fault in that situation is the classic overtake and turn immediately
>>> left manoever where the drivers actions result in insufficient space. Otherwise Section 105 of
>>> the Highway Code applies:
>>>
>>> "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
>>> You should leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up
>>> safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall
>>> stopping distance"
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>
>> So what this means is the following. You're riding along a road and a car passes you and then
>> takes up a position just in front of you. You're to the side and one inch behind the bumper. The
>> car maintains this position because of slow moving traffic. (Not crawling, but doing 16 mph or
>> similar, a speed you can keep up with.) What you have to do then is fall back to provide adequate
>> stopping distance. Another car does the same and another and an...
>>
>> You never get yourself out of the danger zone and you never get anywhere.
>>
>> I know there are people who say you shouldn't be to the side, you should be in the lane. But
>> cyclists are constantly doing this, indeed for slower cyclists they might have to do it.
>>
>> The vehicle in front is not always blameless when shunted from behind despite what some people
>> might think.
>
>But that's the same argument that is cried out when cyclists moan at tailgaters on motorways .. Now
>which is it to be ? Follow the highway code, or your idea of good practice ?
>

I've never cycled on a motorway so I've never had reason to moan at tailgaters on motorways.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
 
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:49 +0100 someone who may be Michael MacClancy <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>>If others can pass you without changing lane then you appear not to be following John Franklin's
>>excellent advice on positioning.

>John Franklin's excellent advice does not mean that the driver has no responsibility to check that
>it is safe to turn.

Nowhere did I say anything about the responsibility of car drivers.

>I am sure that the driver carries most of the blame in this incident.

So am I.

I pointed out the problem as a way of minimising the chances of a similar crash in the future.

>There are several 'accident' threads alive at the moment. I find it interesting that there are
>people who invariable try to blame the cyclist for any accident and others who claim that the
>motorist is always wholly to blame.

I do neither.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JenWinter
Accident Advice!
Replies
2
Views
2K
Commuting and Road Safety
JenWinter
JenWinter
A
accident advice
Replies
14
Views
612
UK and Europe
Adam Lea
A
J
Accident Advice Wanted (Please!)
Replies
24
Views
923
UK and Europe
Adrian Boliston
A
26ounce
accident advice
Replies
9
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
nerdag
nerdag
Motorpace
Accident: Advice needed
Replies
7
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
mikesbytes
mikesbytes
P
Accident advice sort please
Replies
31
Views
718
UK and Europe
someone here
S
M
Accident/Insurance advice
Replies
21
Views
748
Australia and New Zealand
Al.
A
M
Accident/Insurance advice
Replies
21
Views
993
Australia and New Zealand
Al.
A
M
Accident/Insurance advice
Replies
21
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Al.
A
marcusl
Accident/Insurance advice
Replies
21
Views
3K
Australia and New Zealand
Al.
A
Top Bottom Back