- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Metropolitan Police.jpgLondon cyclist seriously injured in crash with another rider frustrated by police failure to act
A London cyclist has spoken of her frustration at police saying there is no prospect of prosecuting another rider whom she claims crashed into her, resulting in her sustaining serious injuries – and she also says that she is not likely to receive compensation should she bring a civil action against him, since he is not insured.
Melanie Burrows, aged 50 and head of finance at Hanover Primary School in Islington, suffered a fractured tibia and a broken rib following the incident in July on New North Road in July. She will need to have an artificial knee and has had a metal plate put in her leg.
Ms Burrows, who has been cycling for three decades, has also been warned by medical staff that she may suffer from arthritis in the longer term.
However, the mother-of-two told the London Evening Standard that police had told her that they believe it is a civil matter, and no criminal charges will be brought against the other cyclist, even though she insists the collision was his fault.
“I just think it is incredible that you can have this kind of injury and nothing is done,” she said. “I do not know what to do. I feel a bit let down. I want to know what [information] was taken down. There is something about this that does not feel quite right. It does not feel satisfactory.”
She said that the other cyclist involved had assumed she had suffered a torn ligament in the incident and was “shocked” to hear of the extent of her injuries.
“I took it in all very good faith but I have had complete meltdowns. When I was discharged from hospital I was unbelievably unwell,” she continued.
“People think that a bike does not do that to you but it can. I feel angry that something like this can happen and [the response] is a bit ‘oh well’. I do not think it was necessarily taken that seriously.”
According to the Standard, the Metropolitan Police have investigated the collision but since there is “no CCTV footage available and no witnesses,” officers cannot take the case further, and both cyclists will be “formally informed” of that decision.
While the outcome is unsatisfactory from Ms Burrows’ point of view, it does throw up a couple of interesting issues. One is whether cyclists should be required – or at least, advised – to carry third party liability insurance.
Compulsory cover is something that cycling organisations resist since they believe it wold deter many people from riding in the first place, yet the likes of British and CTC do provide such insurance to their members.
Such membership also typically includes legal expenses cover for those wishing to pursue a claim against someone else; as any amount of daytime TV ads attest, there are plenty of law firms willing to pursue civil cases on someone’s behalf on a no-win, no-fee basis – but having legal expenses cover in the first place can provide extra peace of mind.
However carefully you think you may ride, collisions between cyclists do happen sometimes, and you could find yourself accused of causing one, or the victim of such an incident.
And in the latter case, you’d probably want to know that the person causing it was adequately covered, just as if they were a motorist.
Do you think cyclists should be made to carry third party liability insurance? Let us know in the comments below.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 28 min 31 sec ago
The timing does look suspicious, but we don't really want ministers with "hidden" criminal records in power as it compromises them as it can be...
- wtjs 35 min 1 sec ago
Your main and almost insuperable problem is the almost limitless tolerance and sympathy the police display towards motorists, especially in their...
- wtjs 29 min 51 sec ago
These 'advertising' comments are not very convincing! Room for improvement from these bogus 'posters'
- amartin 1 hour 24 min ago
Vingegaard in yellow at the 2024 TdF? Someone get that picture editor a strong coffee now...
- David9694 1 hour 37 min ago
Southampton City Council reverses decision on bollard...
- Jogle 2 hours 7 min ago
Overturned car blocks road in Jevington Another self-driving car accident https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24760579.recap-overturned-car-blocks-roa...
- essexian 3 hours 3 min ago
Someone is lying........
- mdavidford 12 hours 11 min ago
When these were designed in to the new development near us the excuse was 'well if we didn't it would be impossible to get a rubbish truck in to...
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 9 min ago
I should get onto the Guinness Book of Records people then, as they have the world record slowest heart rate for a healthy person down as 26bpm,...
Add new comment
43 comments
Yes, read the story in the Standard last night.
As I understand it, a bicycle is deemed in English law to be a vehicle (which is why cyclists must obey the same rules as car drivers).
A collision between two vehicles, and causing injury, is a road traffic accident requiring the police to investigate is it not?
You are right to raise the issue of insurance. It is responsible and correct for a regular adult cyclist to have third-party insurance, and especially if they commute in a city, where accidents like this one are likelier. But mandatory insurance for cyclists is not desirable, or feasible.
As for Tom Amos's comment, this is the sort of plank-headed macho attitude that makes accidents between cyclists likelier. You want to harden up, get a race licence. Among other things, you actually will then have insurance.
Cycle insurance is desirable and easily done. All cyclists should have it. The clue is the name 3rd Party liability. It indemnifies you against any claims made against you that 3rd parties are not left without a remedy because the party who is liable has no means to pay.
IANAL but I believe a bicycle is a carriage not a vehicle - and why the rules affecting cyclists are actually different to vehicle users (e.g. speed restriction signage) although they may cover similar situations or be covered by a law not solely related to vehicles (e.g. causing injury by wanton or furious driving/riding in Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
A bike is a "vehicle" in UK law, but not a "motor vehicle".
Rule #5
End of debate.
Sounds like (if the no witnesses/CCTV is true) there's not much the police could do to get a conviction in this case.
The guilty party lacking insurance doesn't mean she can't get a judgment, it's just unlikely it would get paid unless the other party has some funds/good job.
Yes, having your own insurance both for third party damage and to cover yourself in case of accidents is a very good idea.
Hope she's back on the bike and not having to deal with any longer term issues
We don't know any facts. It's impossible to determine. But, to confirm and clarify.
Yes, you can sue anyone you damn well want. You take your chance as to whether you win, or not. If you do, and they are insured, great. If they are not, you take your chance of recovering from them. If they're rich, brilliant. If they're not, not great. But you WILL get a judgment for the amount of your loss against that person. Whether you will see the money is a different matter.
What she misses here is her own insurance angle. What if the other party determines she's at fault. Is she likely to be making the same demands?
As to the police angle. Yeah, we know.
We don't know any facts. It's impossible to determine. But, to confirm and clarify.
Yes, you can sue anyone you damn well want. You take your chance as to whether you win, or not. If you do, and they are insured, great. If they are not, you take your chance of recovering from them. If they're rich, brilliant. If they're not, not great. But you WILL get a judgment for the amount of your loss against that person. Whether you will see the money is a different matter.
What she misses here is her own insurance angle. What if the other party determines she's at fault. Is she likely to be making the same demands?
As to the police angle. Yeah, we know.
Yes, very unfortunate for the injured woman, but with no evidence the police can't do anything.
If she has the details of the cyclist who caused the accident (and let's assume that she was blameless - I don't know the circs) then a civil case may well be worth pursuing - it's a simple tort, and the burden of proof is lower too I think.
Well she may be a fellow cyclist but she's clearly an idiot. How can the police report someone with a view to prosecution by the CPS with no evidence.
How would she like that one on the other foot. There she is completely innocent of blame being prosecuted because the police took someone else's word for it and without any other evidence.
This is not a cycling thing or even a road thing. It's just someone who completely misunderstands how the law and the police work and possibly isn't used to not getting their own way on everything.
Agreed Dr Fegg. It's a simple tort: you sue the other party. You will have to pay the cost of instructing someone unless you can get a NWNF lawyer and of course they themselves will be looking to have the costs & possibly part of the damages award and it's this that may be the sticking point. They won't be liking £1 per week.
"she is not likely to receive compensation should she bring a civil action against him, since he is not insured"
I don't quite follow this bit. Civil action aims to get restitution for a wrong suffered. Whether the insurer or the "perpetrator" pays that restitution is immaterial, and not the concern of the court. If the other guy isn't insured, he'll just have to pay out of his own pocket, surely?
Quite. She can bring a claim against the other rider. How successful that is likely to be, if the evidence is as lacking as the story suggests, is another matter.
Pages