£90,000 compensation for Dorset cyclist left-hooked by driver

Titanus wrote:

I don't have an answer or solution 

You do not have much sense at all it seems.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Her claim just doesn't stand up. No cyclist is going to deliberately ride into the side of a motor vehicle. I'm a driver too and I do understand that your vision can be restricted from the driver's seat at times. But I can't see any scenario in which the incident would've occurred in which she wasn't at fault. And let's face it, that the insurance company paid out strongly suggests this to be the case. 

Perhaps he didn't notice her indicator?

Using an indicator doesn't give you priority. The cyclist had priority as he was going straight ahead. 

Must ride must ride wrote:

Using an indicator doesn't give you priority. The cyclist had priority as he was going straight ahead. 

No I don't accept that, no cyclist in their right mind would continue on without adjusting their speed if they saw an indicator on a car ahead. Obviously, it's only her word to say her indicator was on, perhaps it' wasn't.

wingmanrob wrote:

Must ride must ride wrote:

Using an indicator doesn't give you priority. The cyclist had priority as he was going straight ahead. 

No I don't accept that, no cyclist in their right mind would continue on without adjusting their speed if they saw an indicator on a car ahead. Obviously, it's only her word to say her indicator was on, perhaps it' wasn't.

You are Socraticycless and ICMFP.

That is a blatantly stupid reply. 

If she had one on. Looking at the Google Street View* it isn't a left turn lane but a lane that is straight on AND left turn. There is an ASL at the lights and an advisory bike lane all along the road. As the cyclist states he was waiting along the car I wonder if the ASL was filled by it. 

Anyway, I doubt the insurance company would want to pay out that much for something that wasn't her fault.

*The street view vehicle has two cars ahead of it. One is encroached on the ASL on the red and the other is very close to encroaching on the left hand side. Neither have really left room for cyclists at all.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

If she had one on. Looking at the Google Street View* it isn't a left turn lane but a lane that is straight on AND left turn. There is an ASL at the lights and an advisory bike lane all along the road. As the cyclist states he was waiting along the car I wonder if the ASL was filled by it. 

I think this is key to the payout. Someone has posted the drivers’ explanation from the original article. In this the driver states that she was in a left turn lane, implying that the cyclist that was going ahead somehow rode into the back of her while encroaching on the left turn lane.

For the insurance to throw money at the settlement I suspect that she was guilty of a few aggravating factors;

She says that she indicated the turn. I'm prepared to accept that as true, but a cylcist alongside the car may not have visibility of those indicators. I've also seen countless drivers indicate only as they commit to the turn, rather than in advance of the turn.

Possibly encroaching on the ASL, denying the use by the cyclist. Had the cyclist had the use of the ASL this incident couldn't have happened how it did, if at all.

Negligently unaware of the vulnerable road user, highly visible, to her immediate left. She claims that she didn't see the cyclist, but that can only be explained by not looking. Alternatively, the insurance company suspected she was aware of the cyclist and either assumed that the cyclist would be following her round the left turn, or assumed that she would beat them around the turn. Either being negligent, and making her entirely responsible. 

Her claim to be a good driver who has never had an accident should perhaps be reappraised to; she is an OK driver who has probably narrowly avoided similar accident by good fortune, or the reactions of others.

At least she took responsibility and didn't fight the claim.

At least she took responsibility and didn't fight the claim

Did she?  I wonder what would have happened if the other driver hadn't followed her. 

The time elapsed from incident to payout is a good indicator of what sort of "fight" there was.  And her preferences would have had very little to do with determining this.

As you say, insurance companies don't pay out at any level without good reason. 
Perhaps it's none of our business, but to me it doesn't add up.

Bishop0151 wrote:

She says that she indicated the turn. I'm prepared to accept that as true, but a cylcist alongside the car may not have visibility of those indicators. I've also seen countless drivers indicate only as they commit to the turn, rather than in advance of the turn.

I've seen people argue that drivers waiting at red lights should not wait with their indicators on when but only apply them as the lights change.

In my view this is fatal to cyclists who will arrive at the junction with no idea the driver on their right is about to turn left, once the indicators go on the cyclist may well not see them, and if the vehicle is an HGV the rear will take a line through where the cyclist was giving them no escape.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Bishop0151 wrote:

She says that she indicated the turn. I'm prepared to accept that as true, but a cylcist alongside the car may not have visibility of those indicators. I've also seen countless drivers indicate only as they commit to the turn, rather than in advance of the turn.

I've seen people argue that drivers waiting at red lights should not wait with their indicators on when but only apply them as the lights change.

In my view this is fatal to cyclists who will arrive at the junction with no idea the driver on their right is about to turn left, once the indicators go on the cyclist may well not see them, and if the vehicle is an HGV the rear will take a line through where the cyclist was giving them no escape.

That really grinds my gears too.

If you know that you intend on turning and it's not ambiguous then why not use your indicators?

Maybe there should be some supplementary rule in the Highway Code - you must not make a turn unless you have been indicating for at least 2 seconds. I'd also like to see that applied to parked cars pulling out onto the road.

It's one of the reasons I prefer to be in front of other traffic at lights - even if it means going over the white stop line (e.g. where there's no ASL).

You hit the nail on the head. Insurance firms are always reluctant to pay out. The company would not have done so without very good reason.

OldRidgeback wrote:

You hit the nail on the head. Insurance firms are always reluctant to pay out. The company would not have done so without very good reason.

Insurance companies are just scared of the Evil Cycling Lobby. They know when to just shut up and pay up.

wingmanrob wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Her claim just doesn't stand up. No cyclist is going to deliberately ride into the side of a motor vehicle. I'm a driver too and I do understand that your vision can be restricted from the driver's seat at times. But I can't see any scenario in which the incident would've occurred in which she wasn't at fault. And let's face it, that the insurance company paid out strongly suggests this to be the case. 

Perhaps he didn't notice her indicator?

Or, like most drivers, she didn't indicate until the lights changed, by which time the cyclist was already moving.

wingmanrob wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Her claim just doesn't stand up. No cyclist is going to deliberately ride into the side of a motor vehicle. I'm a driver too and I do understand that your vision can be restricted from the driver's seat at times. But I can't see any scenario in which the incident would've occurred in which she wasn't at fault. And let's face it, that the insurance company paid out strongly suggests this to be the case. 

Perhaps he didn't notice her indicator?

we all know that isn't true because Audis don't have indicators!

PRSboy wrote:

we all know that isn't true because Audis don't have indicators!

I believe that it is BMWs that have non-functioning indicators fitted as standard.  Audis appear to have a different system fitted, one that gives the driver little opprtuntity to have any regard for other road users.  Audi bought the technology off Mercedes, who have an even more highly refined version of the system fitted to all their cars.

Richard D wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

we all know that isn't true because Audis don't have indicators!

I believe that it is BMWs that have non-functioning indicators fitted as standard.  Audis appear to have a different system fitted, one that gives the driver little opprtuntity to have any regard for other road users.  Audi bought the technology off Mercedes, who have an even more highly refined version of the system fitted to all their cars.

I think you'll find that both Audi and BMW drivers have indicators fitted, but they're just concerned about resale value if they're used.

PRSboy wrote:

we all know that isn't true because Audis don't have indicators!

mine does

OldRidgeback wrote:

Her claim just doesn't stand up. No cyclist is going to deliberately ride into the side of a motor vehicle. I'm a driver too and I do understand that your vision can be restricted from the driver's seat at times. But I can't see any scenario in which the incident would've occurred in which she wasn't at fault. And let's face it, that the insurance company paid out strongly suggests this to be the case. 

Someone isn't telling the truth here. I know that junction well and there isn't a 'left turning lane' as described. It's straight on OR left turn. If the cyclist was actually waiting for the lights to change (in the bike box) then the driver should most certainly have seen him and he would have been in front of the cars. However in that circumstance the cyclist would have been hit by the front/side of the car.  Instead he apparently hit the rear of the car.  

The most likely explanation to me is that the cyclist was filtering to the left of the vehicles, possibly at some speed on the e-bike, when the lights changed and the vehicles ahead moved off. The cyclist carried on filtering on the left, assuming that the cars were going straight ahead (as the vast majority do at that junction), quite possibly because no cars were indicating left. The driver turned left ahead of the cyclist and he didn't have time to brake or take avoiding action and thus hit the rear of the car.

The driver appears to be at fault for not checking her wing mirror before turning but I'm not convinced that the cyclist was entirely blameless either (unless you consider it safe practice to filter at speed past vehicles moving off from traffic lights with a left turn immediately ahead). 

I've almost been taken out by a driver when going straight on, when the driver assumed that it was a "left turn" filter lane.

Why the driver assumed that I don't know.  There was a 10' long arrow painted on the road showing that the lane was for going left AND straight on, and 50 yards earlier there was a big sign, at least 10' tall, pointing out that the right hand lane was for going straight on, and the left-hand lane was for going left or straight on.

From experience I'd say that drivers only see what they want to see, and that includes signs and road markings.  Plus as most of them don't want to see any cyclists we might as well be invisible to them too.

I don't think that non cyclist car drivers look at the road surface that much.

As a non driving cyclist I am constantly scanning the roads for any defects, objects, or paint.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Someone isn't telling the truth here. I know that junction well and there isn't a 'left turning lane' as described. It's straight on OR left turn. If the cyclist was actually waiting for the lights to change (in the bike box) then the driver should most certainly have seen him and he would have been in front of the cars. However in that circumstance the cyclist would have been hit by the front/side of the car.  Instead he apparently hit the rear of the car.  

The most likely explanation to me is that the cyclist was filtering to the left of the vehicles, possibly at some speed on the e-bike, when the lights changed and the vehicles ahead moved off. The cyclist carried on filtering on the left, assuming that the cars were going straight ahead (as the vast majority do at that junction), quite possibly because no cars were indicating left. The driver turned left ahead of the cyclist and he didn't have time to brake or take avoiding action and thus hit the rear of the car.

Maybe I'm more cynical than you, but the obvious explanation for me is that they were both waiting at the lights, as they both claim. But the cylist was waiting alongside the car, rather than in front, because the car was occupying the ASL. I say this because if the cyclist was in the ASL this accident couldn't have happened, If they weren't in the box, there would usually be a reason, the most common I've seen is that a car is already there.

As the lights changed the car has cut up the cylcist by trying to get around the corner before the cyclist set off, or has been negligently oblivious of the presence of the cyclist.

This is more plausable than the cyclist charging the juction hits a already left turning car. If only because the insurance company knew something that made them throw nearly twice the upper compensation recomendation at the claiment for a full and final "we will never talk about this again" settlement. Not something that insurance companies are know for, unless they think they are avoiding a potentially more epensve claim down the line. They had to have been convinced that their driver was entirely responsible in law.

Must ride must ride wrote:

Make of that what you will. 

Thanks for finding that, but what I make of it isn't printable.

The dig about not wearing a helmet is particularly contemptible. What a piece of work! "I obeyed all traffic laws, turned left and a cyclist rode into the back of me so my insurance company gave him £90k." Yep, always been my experience with insurance companies, they're just desperate to give away money.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The dig about not wearing a helmet is particularly contemptible.

Even more contemptible than the "I ride a bike myself" line?  I believe that the standard comeback to which was "well, that was obviously a VERY long time ago."

Richard D wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

The dig about not wearing a helmet is particularly contemptible.

Even more contemptible than the "I ride a bike myself" line?  I believe that the standard comeback to which was "well, that was obviously a VERY long time ago."

Fair point, call it a score draw.