In the city where I live there is a definite increase in the number of cyclists on paths and roads. Most would think this good news...but on my journeys out it can sometimes be terrifying. Blind corners,brows of hills,others overtaking with oncoming traffic...I find(some)cyclists as much a danger as cyclists on this forum report motorists on roads. This got me thinking,wotsabout crashes,injury...are cyclist v cyclist claims on the increase and investigated as much as our motorist brethren? Further,how is 'fault' established should bike or cyclist be damaged?
On another note,have claims been made for medical injuries in addition to cycle write-offs,as is the case with motorist claims and professional damage claimants. And...if all parties have insurance with the CTC,who wins,who loses with costs?(Am thinking of purposefully causing an accident but claiming the fault is the other cyclist to claim injury and new bicycle!)
By the way, what cyclist is the equivalent of white-van man? For me it's the fixie who seems to hammer round blind bends at immoderate speed,or the new father in his 30s who has just renewed his interest in cycling again and wants to lose a few pounds.
It can be frightening out there. Sometimes its better safe on roads than on cycle paths. In fact,and on thinking about matters,am I the only cyclist on here that's beginning to feel safer travelling on roads with cars and lorries than on/in cycle lanes...often cycle paths ill designed and too narrow and dangerous for reasonable cycling.
accident claims
Re: accident claims
My problem with cycle paths (the completely away from roads sort) is mostly dogs not under control. I've never had a problem with other bikes. But then I don't use them in the rush hour.
Cycle paths/shared paths next to roads I regard as, with a few specific exceptions, so dangerous at junctions from vehicular traffic that the road is preferable.
I can't recall a problem with other cyclists on roads either, but that may be, again, due to me cycling outside of rush hour/in a part of the UK where there aren't lots of bikes.
Cycle paths/shared paths next to roads I regard as, with a few specific exceptions, so dangerous at junctions from vehicular traffic that the road is preferable.
I can't recall a problem with other cyclists on roads either, but that may be, again, due to me cycling outside of rush hour/in a part of the UK where there aren't lots of bikes.
Re: accident claims
I'm also very wary of other cyclists. To some I think, cycle paths are just an extension of pavement riding.
There don't appear to be any rules about what side to take - if there is room for that.
I always ride on the left but I've come close to being injured on occasion by fast moving cyclists riding on "my side".
These paths rely on people riding at a safe speed with consideration for others - quite a few don't.
And of course there are the dog walkers often with a poorly controlled dog on a long lead.
There don't appear to be any rules about what side to take - if there is room for that.
I always ride on the left but I've come close to being injured on occasion by fast moving cyclists riding on "my side".
These paths rely on people riding at a safe speed with consideration for others - quite a few don't.
And of course there are the dog walkers often with a poorly controlled dog on a long lead.
Re: accident claims
Guess I'm just getting cranky in me old age...or more nervous, There was a head-on(bike v bike)near where I live. One o the cyclists went into ICU. Never followed up the result. Am also in the habit of asking 'ridiculous' questions. Given there's car accident fraud wherein I purposefully make another motorist collide with my colleague to claim whiplash or whatever,I wonder why this isn't being tried with cyclists. In this age of litigation and tight finances,wonder why the inducement to make ££ is not being taken up by creative criminals. Just a thought.
- Lance Dopestrong
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm
- Location: Duddington, in the belly button of England
Re: accident claims
You guys have just beautifully illustrated the difference between a cyclist, and an idiot who just happens to ride a bike. It's pedantry, but I feel a worthy one.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd.
Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Re: accident claims
tyreon wrote:In this age of litigation and tight finances,wonder why the inducement to make ££ is not being taken up by creative criminals. Just a thought.
Drivers are most often insured and I'd expect the criminals target certain groups for their "collisions" to further stack the odds in their favour. After a crash drivers are obliged to stop and exchange insurance details or report the matter to the police. Cars are highly protective of their occupants offering the opportunity to present "evidence" of "fake" injuries rather than real ones.
Compare that to a bike crash. Is the target insured? Will they stop? How does the criminal protect themselves from a real injury?
The creative criminals are after money, not injuries.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: accident claims
Compris,Gaz. Best opportunities in making ££ and get away with it...still in banking and the City!!
Re: accident claims
You get a lot of cyclist on cyclist accidents in racing and road clubs due mainly to the close riding . I can recall many in my cycling club in the last few years including broken neck , broken hip , and many very bad ones. Cant recall anyone claiming against the other rider though despite if they were cases with cars they would be in the many thousand bracket.
Unless you get bad injuries you would not get much anyhow and no win no fee has gone and was always dodgey
Unless you get bad injuries you would not get much anyhow and no win no fee has gone and was always dodgey