Had a near miss this afternoon with a cyclist coming out of a junction without looking…
The junction wasn’t a perfect 90 ‘T’ junction, but a slightly offset 45, (nearly like a slip road joining a motorway), so he had hell of a speed going when coming out…
So, what if he had T boned into me and I wanted to claim off him…■■
Would I have to use my insurance, ruining my policy / NCD etc in the process, or go down the NWNF route…■■?
On the plus side, ne did nearly lose it anyway on a roundabout further up the road due to a drain cover. 
You probably couldn’t go down the NWNF route as that simply isn’t generally available unless you are injured. You could either take the easy option (claim through your own insurance) or sue the cyclist yourself. The former may well end up costing you money (i.e. lost NCD etc) while the latter would be something of a gamble (Is he insured? Does he have sufficient assets to meet the cost of a claim? Will he pay up anyway or will it end up costing you loadsamoney to enforce your “victory”?).
Goldfinger:
Had a near miss this afternoon with a cyclist coming out of a junction without looking…
The junction wasn’t a perfect 90 ‘T’ junction, but a slightly offset 45, (nearly like a slip road joining a motorway), so he had hell of a speed going when coming out…
So, what if he had T boned into me and I wanted to claim off him…■■
Would I have to use my insurance, ruining my policy / NCD etc in the process, or go down the NWNF route…■■?
On the plus side, ne did nearly lose it anyway on a roundabout further up the road due to a drain cover.
Trouble is with insurance companies and accidents, even if it is not remotely your fault and even if you don’t claim. You still must notify your insurance that you have been in an accident and they may put your premiums up; the theory is the best of drivers can usually avoid other peoples mistakes, and those who don’t foresee other peoples mistakes are deemed accident prone and more likely to be involved in further incidents hence they are a greater risk.
I believe a lot of regular cyclists do have insurance and as they are more likely to be a home owner in a well paid job then even if uninsured they may be able to pay for any damage they do, so it could be worth pursuing.
If the TP is remotely co-operative and a home owner then there is a good chance you can claim against his household insurance. Some policies cover a householder’s cycling children for damage to third party property.
Thanks for the info…
At least I’ll know for (but hopefully not) the future…
Bluey Circles:
Trouble is with insurance companies and accidents, even if it is not remotely your fault and even if you don’t claim. You still must notify your insurance that you have been in an accident and they may put your premiums up.
I’m currently sorting out the insurance for my car and had a non fault accident 3 years ago (he came into the back of me).
Going through the comparison sites, I’ve included and excluded that accident to see what difference it made to my premium.
■■■■ all is the answer so by informing your insurance company does not necessarily put your premiums up.
DadsRetired:
Bluey Circles:
Trouble is with insurance companies and accidents, even if it is not remotely your fault and even if you don’t claim. You still must notify your insurance that you have been in an accident and they may put your premiums up.
I’m currently sorting out the insurance for my car and had a non fault accident 3 years ago (he came into the back of me).
Going through the comparison sites, I’ve included and excluded that accident to see what difference it made to my premium.
[zb] all is the answer so by informing your insurance company does not necessarily put your premiums up.
That is good but I have heard of some hefty increases. But as you demonstrate shopping around can find companies that won’t load premiums.
theguardian.com/money/2014/ … surance-aa
Is there not some new law that’s came out or being proposed that if you hit a cyclist you’re always to blame regardless of if it’s their fault?
Sure I read about it on here in fact.
Bluey Circles:
Trouble is with insurance companies and accidents, even if it is not remotely your fault and even if you don’t claim. You still must notify your insurance that you have been in an accident and they may put your premiums up; the theory is the best of drivers can usually avoid other peoples mistakes, and those who don’t foresee other peoples mistakes are deemed accident prone and more likely to be involved in further incidents hence they are a greater risk.
I believe a lot of regular cyclists do have insurance and as they are more likely to be a home owner in a well paid job then even if uninsured they may be able to pay for any damage they do, so it could be worth pursuing.
Youre right re non fault claims, these can still put your premiums up. One part of ins which is very unfair…
DadsRetired:
Bluey Circles:
Trouble is with insurance companies and accidents, even if it is not remotely your fault and even if you don’t claim. You still must notify your insurance that you have been in an accident and they may put your premiums up.
I’m currently sorting out the insurance for my car and had a non fault accident 3 years ago (he came into the back of me).
Going through the comparison sites, I’ve included and excluded that accident to see what difference it made to my premium.
[zb] all is the answer so by informing your insurance company does not necessarily put your premiums up.
Be carful comparing different options on comparison sites I did this recently and when I took the insurance out a few days later they questioned the difference in info over different comparison sites . And the only difference was the 3 points i wasn’t sure if it was sp10 or sp30
merc0447:
Is there not some new law that’s came out or being proposed that if you hit a cyclist you’re always to blame regardless of if it’s their fault?
Sure I read about it on here in fact.
Presumed Liability - the proposal as far as I understand it is that the more vulnerable road user sort of gets the benefit of the doubt, ie, if you are in collision with pedestrian or cyclist it will be up to you to prove it was not your fault, I understand it is possibly just an insurance thing and I don’t think it means you get found guilty of an offence but your insurance will be required to pay up if you can’t prove your innocence. Clearly if you can show you were not at fault your insurance won’t be paying up but it will be up to you to prove it. One of the thoughts behind it is the more vulnerable road user can often struggle to find proof as they are often seriously ill in hospital and I suppose that does put them at a great disadvantage.
Apparently this is the systen in force in Denmark, Holland, Germany etc and apparently it works well.
Not sure if a car will be classed as ‘more vulnerable’ if they are in collision with an artic.
Annoys me no end they are allowed to use the road, slow you down, get in your way, make your day longer etc etc
Whilst paying no ROAD TAX!! 
Tommy7437:
Annoys me no end they are allowed to use the road, slow you down, get in your way, make your day longer etc etc
Whilst paying no ROAD TAX!!
Ignoring the fact that VED is a tax on motor vehicles and doesn’t pay for roads any more than VAT does. And you don’t know whether or not a cyclist owns a motor vehicle which they pay tax on.
But claiming a right to use public services based on the amount of tax paid is a very slippery slope to be going down.
Do you have more right to use a hospital than someone earning a lower wage and paying less income tax than you?
Or does someone in a more valuable house and paying more council tax have first preference over which school their children go to?
Time to purchase a dash cam…!
Glen A9:
Tommy7437:
Annoys me no end they are allowed to use the road, slow you down, get in your way, make your day longer etc etc
Whilst paying no ROAD TAX!!
Ignoring the fact that VED is a tax on motor vehicles and doesn’t pay for roads any more than VAT does. And you don’t know whether or not a cyclist owns a motor vehicle which they pay tax on.
But claiming a right to use public services based on the amount of tax paid is a very slippery slope to be going down.
Do you have more right to use a hospital than someone earning a lower wage and paying less income tax than you?
Or does someone in a more valuable house and paying more council tax have first preference over which school their children go to?
Schools? Public services? Less income tax etc etc ■■ WTF?? 
Car owner pays road tax, guy/■■■■■■■ a bike does not. Thats the fact i pointed out
If it annoys you that i hate gimps on bikes getting in my road whilst not paying tax??
Tough! 
Tommy7437:
Schools? Public services? Less income tax etc etc ■■ WTF??
Car owner pays road tax, guy/■■■■■■■ a bike does not. Thats the fact i pointed out
If it annoys you that i hate gimps on bikes getting in my road whilst not paying tax??
Tough!
Roads are a public service, we don’t pay per use of public services, we pay for them via taxation of the things the government demands we pay tax on, irrespective of which services we actually use.
We pay tax on our income, the value of house, goods we buy, alcohol, tobacco, owning a motor vehicle etc. None of those taxes pay specifically for any particular service, and paying any particular tax doesn’t give you more right to use any service than someone who doesn’t have to pay it.
axletramp:
Think bike - think 2at. 
Think bike - think organ donor!
I don’t understand why drivers are so worried about hitting a cyclist.
I would like to hit them until my knuckles bled.