- 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
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpg£90,000 compensation for Dorset cyclist left-hooked by driver
A Dorset cyclist has won £90,000 in compensation from a motorist who knocked him off his e-bike, resulting in the rider sustaining a triple fracture to his left arm.
The driver of the Audi A1 car turned across the path of the cyclist, a 41 year old man, at Penn Hill in Poole on 30 May this year.
According to Coles Miller, the law firm that represented the cyclist, the 39-year-old female motorist drove away, apparently not realising what had happened.
However, another driver chased her down and she stopped further along the road.
The cyclist had been waiting for traffic signals to change, and started moving off as they changed, but the driver turned left across his path, knocking him off his bike.
He was treated at Poole Hospital, where he needed to have a metal plate inserted in his left elbow. He also suffered cuts and bruises, as well as a fractured finger that needed pinning.
Peter Graves, senior injury executive at Coles Miller, said: “We obtained the police report. After discussions with the driver’s insurer, we were able to secure a full admission of liability.”
At the time of the incident, the cyclist was on furlough from his job as a baker, but his injuries meant that he was unable to work for eight weeks due to restricted movement and being unable to lift trays from the oven.
“The judicial compensation guidelines for a severe disabling elbow injury suggested a maximum award of £51,460 compensation for the injuries suffered,” Mr Graves said.
“But before we submitted any losses, the defendant made an offer of £75,000 in full and final settlement of our client’s claim.
“This offer was more than adequate to fully compensate our client but we were able to negotiate further and agree an overall figure of £90,000 which the client decided to accept."
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 10 min 40 sec ago
The problem is that we're just hearing her side of that discussion (it certainly wouldn't be appropriate for her solicitor to comment on it) and...
- chrisonabike 11 min 51 sec ago
At least today it's a case of "more haste, less speed" (as that was replaced by steroids, EPO, blood doping...)...
- Hirsute 49 min 7 sec ago
"The paste inside is crafted from 100% Fairtrade Arabica beans and sweetened with organic Swiss beet sugar. " Why would I want sugar ?
- RafaDy 1 hour 15 min ago
Is he returning it? 30 days returns policy at Ribble.
- joe9090 2 hours 3 min ago
Bus driver couldnt be bothered to look.
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 39 min ago
Yes, that's exactly what it's supposed to be as we were talking about why if you apply mathematical principles to the phrase "That's three times...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 7 min ago
A good saving no doubt, especially if you're working on rrp for the groupset and wheels, but with 105 Di2 available from multiple retailers for ...
- anotherflat 3 hours 16 min ago
So that's an increase in KSI per mile, if falls are 5 and 6% but miles cycled has decreased 7%, increases of 2% and 1% killed / seriously injured....
- Benthic 3 hours 42 min ago
There's no need for foul language.
- AidanR 3 hours 55 min ago
It is astonishing how cheap you can get bikes for on eBay if you're happy with rim brakes!
Add new comment
57 comments
My usual response is "Did it have stabilisers?"
Personally if I was posting utter shite like that on the internet I would first of all make sure that nobody could find my email, home address and mobile phone number on a publicly accessible website, lest an angry mob descend and point out the bollocks I was posting.
I would also not want to hire as a professional photographer someone whose observational skills were so clearly lacking (in case the angry mob need another clue beyond a username).
Is there more to this story than meets the eye? Although my sympathies are entirely with the cyclist and good luck to him, £90k seems an extraordinary sum for a broken arm without, apparently, any long-term serious consequences (I'm inferring this from the fact that the victim was off work for eight weeks as he could not lift things, implying that he then was OK to work). A claims website picked at random states that serious fractures with good/predicted good recovery should get £14K-£30k, serious fractures with significant disability £30k to £45k and "serious fractures causing long term disability but just short of amputation" £70k-£100k. Why would the defendant's lawyers offer what would appear to be maybe five times the usual tarrif and even then agree to add £15k on top? Either the victim was more seriously injured than it appears from the article or the defendant has some very good reasons for keeping it out of court.
Its highly unlikely the "defendant has a choice" once the insurance company is involved the insured has no control over what they do with the court case as technically it's the insurance company that's picking up the tab. I've had an insurance company settle against my wishes. There may have been skeletons of some kind lying around but the would not have made the ultimate decision to settle.
Two things I take from this article. Firstly : "The cyclist had been waiting for traffic signals to change, and started moving off as they changed, but the driver turned left across his path, knocking him off his bike."
A good example to justify ASLs. I am assuming there wasn't one here. It may explain why some cyclists, in this situation, choose to move in front of the first car at the lights. This act of self preservation seems to annoy motorists and it means that if you are taken out it's because of an intentional action rather than an incompetent one. A tough call nowadays.
Secondly, why no mention of any prosecution by the police.
There was one, which probably means she was fully encroached in it.
She really wouldn't have been the only motorist to have done that...
It would also be nice if councils who got all this money for active travel could spare some of it to repaint their ASLs, IMO (I'm looking at you, Bristol City Council!).
No point in painting ASL if they are not enforced though.
Plenty of point - it's only a small percentage of drivers who ignore them. Everyone who does obey them makes cyclists a little safer.
I'd put it as a sizeable minority who ignore them (given a chance, they have to be at the front of the queue (and not amble gambled, run the red light...)) and quite a percentage who don't even know there are rules about them.
I would say it is in double figures at least in percentages going from experience. And until I started cycling, I didn't know the rules on them thinking that if there is no bikes, then it is fine to go in them so is suspect most are in the same boat. It is another reason I'm up for having driving tests mandatory every 10 years to maintain a car license.
It's been a little disheartening to find
none cyclingnon-cycling friends and family that have no idea what ASLs are, or know what they are but think that if they get there before cyclist, they are fair game.One or two that were outraged to find that they could be fined for deliberatly occupying an ASL! Cue for "Red Face" and "Road Tax".
I try not to pick up on typos, but this one gets my goat, probably because it's not really a typo. Creeping across the web is "none" in place of a prefixed "non-". Aargh! With apologies.
Other than that, I agree that there is too much ignorance out there.
True, but it would help (and would cost pennies, relatively speaking).
The excuse of, Oh I didn't realise!, which is created by worn out markings, would at least no longer be available.
Absolutely. And to help the poor drivers, many of whom appear to have problems with their vision, this one is even painted green.
Secondly, why no mention of any prosecution by the police?
Because offences against cyclists are not seen as 'real offences' by the police. Some will see that as a 'good thing', in the hope that it keeps 'the Rats of the Road' off the road. Those same people probably think the reluctance of the police (all right! I agree I can really only speak of Lancashire) to proseccute any traffic offence is also a good thing which allows respectable put-apon motorists to press on without fear from any pettifogging so-called 'laws' getting in their way. Needless to say, there was no response whatsoever from Lancashire Constabulary, and Royal Mail wasn't interested either- neither consider this to be a 'proper offence', so there's no hope for NaOiLs (Not an Offence in Lancashire) like 'close passing of cyclists'.
Didn't realise, my arse...
You would definitely realise mine, and for a long time after.........
Well, a reasonable result, even if it would have been infinitely preferable if the cyclist hadn't had to claim, but what about the law? No mention of the police, a court case or any kind of legal involvement at all; why not? The driver has admitted fault and any prosecution would be an open and shut case; no defence is possible other than mitigation.
But if she doesn't get prosecuted, gets a criminal record and possibly loses her licence, she'll do it again tomorrow, but the cyclist might not survive next time.
Simon should really proof read his articles before putting them up.::EDIT::
He fixed the article.
180k then !
So not £90k. £75,000 plus costs. Less whatever the ATE policy cost the injured party, and whatever success fee the lawyer took out of the £75k.
Curious, isn't it. Guideline figure of £51k, £75k offered, then that was pushed up to £90k.
My understanding of the way no win, no fee works is that the winning lawyers claim their costs from the other side - and that's how they make a profit.
To an extent. Although I am aware of double/treble/quadruple dipping based on how they set up their business model.
They expect to have their full costs paid by the Defendant. These costs can be VERY high, often for only routine letters and reports in a case that goes nowhere near a court. £15k for settling a case on a pre-action protocol with cookie-cutter letters is outrageous and typical.
They can charge the successful claimant a "success fee" - a cut of the compensation recovered. Depending upon the field and the strength of the case, this can be up to 50% of the compensation - although 10-20% is more typical.
The Claimant will be advised to take out "after the event" insurance to cover them from the (pretty remote) chance of paying the Defendant's legal costs. The lawyers might well have financial ties to the insurance company - for example, earning a commission on the sale of the policy.
And the lawyers might have financial ties to any expert that reports on the case, such as owning the agency that provides the expert evidence. In my view, in breach of the SRA rules, but it still happens. This increases the cost to the defendants (and is often completely hidden from defendant and claimant both).
How do I know this to be true? I deal with such no-win, no-fee outfits five days a week. The decent ones charge me about £2000 per claim they present; the shysters will claim £20,000 for the same amount of work (and that's just the costs - not the success fee, the ATE policy fee or a cut of the expert's fee).
And these figures impact all sorts of other things. For example, the cost of our car and house insurance.
How do motor insurance claims affect house insurance costs? I would have thought they'd be reasonably separated and I wouldn't expect no-win-no-fee lawyers to get involved in many house insurance claims.
Same company's if they make a loss on car insurance they may very well up their house insurance margins to cover.
Possible, though that seems like it would make their house insurance less competitive against companies that don't do that.
Pages