just been hit by a car

[Two_Sheds]

High value bikes aren't covered by house insurance.

[janeyo]

Bummer.

If you were to get 3 quotes for how much the bike is actually worth by 'bike people' *, then maybe that would stand up as evidence for replacement?

*Like posh bike shops etc?

[Two_Sheds]

Jane, I'm being looked after by a specialist cycle-claims company. The repairs will be done by the best bike shop in my area.
The insurers will only pay out for "as like" not "new for old".

yes, it's a bummer. I'm emotionally attached to this bike, we've been thru a lot in 13 years (I bought it with my redundancy money in '95, and I did a charity 100-miler on it 6 weeks after my chemotherapy. She's a good old gal)

[Alice]

Well that's a bummer about your bike Two Sheds. �50 will go nowhere.
Don't settle on your personal injuries until you're sure there are no long lasting after effects.
It's terrible the way insurance companies behave to the innocent injured.
My daughter had an accident a couple of years ago when a vehicle rammed into the back of her and shunted her into the vehicle in front. Her car was a write off and she was off work for 5 months with back and neck injuries. The insurance company took 2 years to settle. The police charged nobody.

Hope you get it all settled out and I hope you are feeling a bit better.

[Two_Sheds]

Don't settle on your personal injuries until you're sure there are no long lasting after effects....The police charged nobody.

My solicitor says I will be examined by a doctor only after I recover, however long that takes. They will then work out a claim based on Suffering x Weeks, or something.

It will be many, many months before I see a penny.

And no, the police won't charge anybody. It's easier for them if the insurance companies deal with everything.

[indigox]

A hem.
It's been proven that drivers are even more reckless around helmets, because they perceive the cyclist to be "safe"

That's a pretty lame excuse for not wearing one!

I think most drivers who do not ride bikes are inconsiderate towards cyclists, I often see motorists overtaking cyclists at speed with only inches to spare.


I had an accident about 10 years ago when I came off my bike, in those days I didn't routinely wear a helmet, but that day I was. The helmet was seriously smashed up, and luckily I just had a few bruises, but I kept looking at the lid and thinking 'that could so easily have been my skull.'
Any cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is crazy.

[dexterdoglancashire]

So.
Today I am very stiff and sore. My brand new solicitor rang me and, good news or bad news first?

OK.

Bad news: I will only get reimbursed the cost of a 13 year old bike (about �50), despite the fact it was in excellent nick and that a new replacement will cost me �900.

Good news: she thinks I will get that much for my personal injuries.

Good news: there's another witness
Bad news: he's a taxi driver (they HATE cyclists)

--------------

Funny thing No. 1:
I met the driver today, who had just been for his 6 monthly eye checkup ! His eyes are bad because of diabetes and he wears thick specs. Now why would he be telling me this stuff, after he'd admitted "not seeing" me ?

Funny thing No.2:
My police officer came to "chat" to me, and read me my rights and cautioned me! lol.
I gave a very carefully edited statement (edited by him so that no blame was attached to anyone). In summary, I had to write that I "believed" I had right of way, not that I DID have right of way.

You gotta laugh, or you else you cry.

Two Sheds - I cannot believe your post. How dare the police come and caution you! All I can say is, make sure you claim as much as you can for your injuries as obviously the � for your bike wont cover its replacement. Glad you have got a solicitor already - I can give you the number of the ones who sorted things for me when a chap wrote off my MGBGT.
Reckon you need another long soak in the bath tonight. Take care chuck. Love Bernie

[SarzWix]

Funny thing No.2:
My police officer came to "chat" to me, and read me my rights and cautioned me! lol.
I gave a very carefully edited statement (edited by him so that no blame was attached to anyone). In summary, I had to write that I "believed" I had right of way, not that I DID have right of way.

You gotta laugh, or you else you cry.

They can't do that, they can't tell you what to say in your statement That's the point of a statement, to say your side of the story!! I take it you weren't being recorded?!

[Gwyndy]

What a horrific experience! Glad you are just 'walking wounded' Two Sheds. I too am an occasional cyclist and have experienced many near misses of the type that got you. The police attitude disgusts me but sadly it is what we have come to expect. Of course, if they had caught you in a car doing 31 mph ..........!!!! If it was me I think that I would be asking some serious questions about why they are not taking any action. 'Can't be bothered with the paperwork' is probably the true answer!

I really do think that some action should be taken against the driver that hit you and, much as I hate the litigious nature of today's society, I think that in your case a private action would be totally justified. The driver has agreed to pay for the damage to your bike - isn't that a good admission of guilt?

Good luck - hope you're not feeling too sore. Keep us posted.

[Two_Sheds]

Cycle Helmets

That's a pretty lame excuse for not wearing one!...
Any cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is crazy.

that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

However, a plastic helmet will only save you if the crash is under 15 mph. Above that, it is useless.

Who drives at 15 mph?

Incidentally, more pedestrians (34%) die from head injuries than do cyclists (6%). So, should all pedestrians wear helmets too? Ditto car drivers (28%) http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/inf...um/hillman1991

Everyone thinks a helmet saves your life. This is not the case, and the myth needs to be busted. Instead of blaming cyclists for getting injured, we should be getting dangerous drivers off the road.

The foreword to BSI Standard 6863:1987 (for cycle helmets) reads as follows: ‘It (the standard) specifies requirements for helmets intended for use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularly by young riders in the 5-14 years age group... It is not intended for high-speed or long distance cycling...The level of protection offered is less than that given by helmets for motorcycle riders and is intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved.'

That part is worth repeating...Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved

94% of cycle fatalities involve a motor vehicle, and 90% of severe injuries to cyclists involve a motor vehicle.

They are only designed to protect the kind of rider who falls off his bike (the young, the inexperienced). They offer little or no protection in higher speed collisions involving other vehicles.

Indeed, they can be counter-productive, if the wearer and the driver both think the rider is "safe" they will both be more likely to take risks.
They are also hot, and uncomfortable (I can't even wear a beanie hat w/o getting a headache).

This is even scarier: Cycle helmets sold in the UK today generally offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990s. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

sorry to go on, but this is important.

"the BSI specification makes it clear that cycle helmets only provide ....protection for low speed impact, that is up to about 20 kph, which is required to reduce injury if someone falls off their bicycle and without a motor vehicle being involved" http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillman1991

[chrissie the chippy]

crickey, hope you're ok. Shame there aren't any more witnesseses? Any local shops with cameras? I hate things like that, some people just don't give a damn My step dads mum got knocked off hers the other year (in her 70's!) and the ass hole drove off and left her with a broken leg! Hope you feel better soon, must be pretty shacken after that.

[maytreefrannie]

Just read this thread - sorry to hear about it, Two Sheds.

Seriously, surely for the driver to say he didn't see you isn't acceptable? That sounds to me a bit like saying he wasn't paying attention - The thing is, you were there on the road - a driver is meant to be observing the road and road users.

Again, by saying he'd pay for your bike I'd have thought he's admitting liabilty.

Anyone can make a mistake but usually the person who's made that mistake must put right the damage caused. �50 towards a new bike doesn't actually cover that damage.

Glad to hear you're recovering, take care though. I hope the financial side of things gets sorted.

[petal]

I hope you feel better soon.

[pipscariad]

Not really sure how to react to your latest news - as you say, you have to laugh or you'd cry! Beggers belief really, doesn't it. And as for the "carefully edited" police statement, well....words fail me. The phrase 'the law is an ass' springs to mind.

The cycle helmet thing is also interesting. We have a difference of opinion in this house, as I wear one (only got it about 3 months ago though), and OH doesn't - the children do though. And I insist on everyone wearing high-viz vests at all times, which causes slight friction with my sons, as they are reaching the age where wearing such a garment is distictly 'uncool' - but better uncool than unseen, I say.

Ouch at your aches and pains, bet you've got lurid bruises on the way... Have you any arnica (I know many folk have mentioned it, but I swear by it)? I do hope that you won't take too long to heal, although Janeyo's suggestion of the neckbrace sounds a good idea to me - people can't ignore those!

[Hilary B]

So.
Today I am very stiff and sore. My brand new solicitor rang me and, good news or bad news first?

OK.

Bad news: I will only get reimbursed the cost of a 13 year old bike (about �50), despite the fact it was in excellent nick and that a new replacement will cost me �900.

Good news: she thinks I will get that much for my personal injuries.

Good news: there's another witness
Bad news: he's a taxi driver (they HATE cyclists)

--------------

Funny thing No. 1:
I met the driver today, who had just been for his 6 monthly eye checkup ! His eyes are bad because of diabetes and he wears thick specs. Now why would he be telling me this stuff, after he'd admitted "not seeing" me ?

Funny thing No.2:
My police officer came to "chat" to me, and read me my rights and cautioned me! lol.
I gave a very carefully edited statement (edited by him so that no blame was attached to anyone). In summary, I had to write that I "believed" I had right of way, not that I DID have right of way.

You gotta laugh, or you else you cry.

Car insurance always pays out 'cost of repair or value of vehicle, whichever is less', but compensation for matters relating to loss of something with sentimental value might be worth pursuing (if you are going after compo for injuries, add in something for emotional/psychological injury from loss of your valued machine).

Your right of way is determined by what you were doing, which was proceeding along a road, neither turning onto nor off of it. If the car driver thinks he had right of way, he is ignorant of the Highway Code.

WHY the driver 'didn't see you' makes not one scrap of difference, it is his reponsibility to see other road users and drive accordingly.

Taxi drivers may not much like cyclists (although a lot of them have sympathy, having been there), but they tend to dislike careless/arrogant car drivers even more!

I would hope that you insisted on the statement saying that you were AND REMAIN convinced that you had the right of way, if not, get down the cop shop and say that you wish to add this point. It may become essential that you emphasise that your BELIEF of having the right of way HAS NOT CHANGED since the event.