Insurance claim

[Dave Kahn]

"M Series" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Good luck with the claim, I have nothing to add but think its appalling that because you are
> familiar with the road you are partly to blame.

He isn't partly to blame. Having caused an accident through driving with a finger up the bum and the
mind in neutral, the driver is now trying to squirm out of his responsibility.

> How does this have a bearing on the fact that the driver didn't look where he was going ?

It doesn't.

Dangerous places, bike lanes. :-(

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> There was no onus on the part of that driver to check anything, all that a flash means (as the
> Courts have decided) is 'come on so far as I am concerned' it says nothing about whether other
> drivers/riders have agreed, nothing about their presence or absence, nothing about whether it is
> actually safe to proceed.

Highway Code Rule 91: "If another driver flashes his headlights never assume that it is a signal to
go. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully."

--
Dave...

 

[The Mark]

the Mark wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm lookong for some advice.
>
> I was hit by a car back in August last year and subsequently put in a claim through my trade union
> solicitor.
>
> I was travelling along a bike lane up the inside of some slow moving traffic when a car coming the
> opposite way cut through the now stationary traffic to enter a side street having been waved
> through by one of the drivers I was passing.
>
> Every thing about the claim appeared to be going fine, apart from the time it's taking, until now.
> I have just received a letter from my solicitor saying
>
> -the other side have stated that you were partly to blame for the accident because you were
> familiar with the road and knew that drivers in a stationary queue would often leave a gap for
> cars to turn into Matalan. They say that you were overtaking the line of stationary vehicles at
> speed on the inside and that /name withheld/ was turning cautiously into the Matalan entrance.
>
> I'm going to reply to the solicitor with the following information.
>
> I wasn't going fast, I'd estimate about 12 mph and considering where I landed on the road and
> where I think my bike landed[1] I would guess that the other party was going faster than me.
>
> [1] I didn't see my bike until someone picked it off the road a few yards further up the side
> street.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas about anything else I should include in the reply?

Following up on the above claim. I have now received the insurance payout GBP2500.

For those who want to know, I stuck with the union lawyer he said that the other-parties insurance
statement was standard practice, as some had pointed out. My lawyers said that if I didn't accept
the offer then court proceedings would probably take another year and a half. I decided that, as the
money was more than I had anticipated I would just accept it.

Thanks to all for the advice offered.

For what its worth the money will probably be going towards a windcheetah.
--
Mark