Road traffic accident claim

joe stodge

A few weeks back, my wife's friend was driving into work.

She was at a signal controlled crossroads in raheny, she had the green to proceed across the junction. As she was on the way across a cyclist broke the red to her left and hit the side of her car, he went up over the bonnet braking the windscreen and damaging the the roof,the bonnet and the the roof support.

An ambulance and fire brigade were called for him, he turned out to be fine in the end, her car ended up the worst off.

The Gardai were also at the accident and took witness statements all saying he was at fault because he broke the lights.

On Monday she revived a letter off her insurance provoder saying that the cyclist had lodged a claim for damages to his bike and "injuries" caused against her. His reasoning for the claim, he's a cyclist and should be given the right of way.

Seriously, what is wrong with people. Cause an accident and expect compensation, anyone else had anything similar happen to them involving someone who caused an accident?

Dravokivich

WHat a chancer. if it's confirmed she had right of way, there should be nothing coming out of that other guy but, "Fúck, I'm an idiot." Her insurance company are just notifying her that he tried right? They aren't going to take this guy seriously are they?

Seve OB

joe stodge wrote: »

A few weeks back, my wife's friend was driving into work.

She was at a signal controlled crossroads in raheny, she had the green to proceed across the junction. As she was on the way across a cyclist broke the red to her left and hit the side of her car, he went up over the bonnet braking the windscreen and damaging the the roof,the bonnet and the the roof support.

An ambulance and fire brigade were called for him, he turned out to be fine in the end, her car ended up the worst off.

The Gardai were also at the accident and took witness statements all saying he was at fault because he broke the lights.

On Monday she revived a letter off her insurance provoder saying that the cyclist had lodged a claim for damages to his bike and "injuries" caused against her. His reasoning for the claim, he's a cyclist and should be given the right of way.

Seriously, what is wrong with people. Cause an accident and expect compensation, anyone else had anything similar happen to them involving someone who caused an accident?

She should put her own claim in against the scumbag for the damage to her car and the stress he has caused her.

i use the word scumbag very lightly. it's to good for him.

CramCycle

joe stodge wrote: »

On Monday she revived a letter off her insurance provoder saying that the cyclist had lodged a claim for damages to his bike and "injuries" caused against her. His reasoning for the claim, he's a cyclist and should be given the right of way.

I can't believe they even bothered notifying her, typical claim culture you see emerging. If she has witnesses, let him fire away and let him get destroyed in court by any reasonable solicitor. He will end up with solicitors bills through the wazoo. TBF, the insurance company should have dealt with it by explaining his stupidity clearly.

joe stodge

The insurence provider also noted he has had 3 previous road traffic accident claims, they are investigating to see what the circumstances were.

She also ended up out of pocket, time spent getting the car fixed, cost of getting the car Fixed and a fire brigade and ambulance bill. She's still waiting to get paid for claiming off her insurence for this, as he was a cyclist he had none.

joe stodge

stevieob wrote: »

She should put her own claim in against the scumbag for the damage to her car and the stress he has caused her.

i use the word scumbag very lightly. it's to good for him.

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

AnonoBoy

joe stodge wrote: »

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

Pocket money! Sue him for his pocket money!

tin79

joe stodge wrote: »

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

She can take him to court for the damage caused though cant she?

joe stodge

tin79 wrote: »

She can take him to court for the damage caused though cant she?

From what I've been told by her, no she can't. But I always thought that it was possible myself.

kaimera

****ing prat.

Get some info from the guards that took the statements, a name/badge number and send a letter back to insurance pretty much telling them to ignore the ****, refer to garda x or y for statements.

Hope it works out for the missus.

MarkR

I hate cyclists like this. I can't understand how someone can damage your vehicle, and not have to pay for it? I know they don't have insurance, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility surely?!

Fratton Fred

joe stodge wrote: »

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

His parents insurance might cover him as well.

Regardless of insurance though, she has every right to make a claim, the only thing in doubt is his ability to pay.

Artful_Badger

joe stodge wrote: »

From what I've been told by her, no she can't. But I always thought that it was possible myself.

That just cannot be true. He caused damage to her car and caused the need to call the Gardai and ambulance through his own negligent and illegal actions by running the red light. He HAS to be liable for damages.

The only difference living at home and being broke should make is that it will just take him longer to pay for those damages.

gramar

joe stodge wrote: »

The insurence provider also noted he has had 3 previous road traffic accident claims, they are investigating to see what the circumstances were.

She also ended up out of pocket, time spent getting the car fixed, cost of getting the car Fixed and a fire brigade and ambulance bill. She's still waiting to get paid for claiming off her insurence for this, as he was a cyclist he had none.

..and this is why I've said for years that cyclists on public roads should have a minimum of 3rd party insurance and to be honest I can't believe everyone else doesn't think the same......

tallaghtmick

Post this in the cycling forum for the lulz:D

Gatling

I remember reading something similar ,where a cyclist broke a light and ended up being hit by a car despite all the witnesses saying the cyclists was in the wrong the guards sided with him and explained to the driver your in the the car you can't complain your surrounded by metal and so on where the cyclist only has a helmet ,you didn't take due care to prevent the accident

BMJD

The cyclist wasn't injured because the aura created by his sense of self-importance protected him. He should be compensated to the tune of fifty trillion US Dollars immediately.

Red Kev

tin79 wrote: »

She can take him to court for the damage caused though cant she?

joe stodge wrote: »

From what I've been told by her, no she can't. But I always thought that it was possible myself.

Your friend can sue him, no matter how much or how little money he has. Your friend needs proper legal advice, you're not going to get it on AH.

Gatling wrote: »

I remember reading something similar ,where a cyclist broke a light and ended up being hit by a car despite all the witnesses saying the cyclists was in the wrong the guards sided with him and explained to the driver your in the the car you can't complain your surrounded by metal and so on where the cyclist only has a helmet ,you didn't take due care to prevent the accident

Guards have no say in the matter if they didn't actually witness it themselves, if they say otherwise it's bollox. I had a car hit my van, Guards said she wasn't at fault, I just let them talk away, got her details and claimed through her insurance company.


OP : Get proper legal advice, tell her to ring her insurance company and her solicitor as well. If I was her I'd sue for damage to my car and time wasted.

Banjo String

I got rammed from the back last year on a long, straight Road, I was turning right. Had been parked with indicator flashing for a few mins, when suddenly I heard the screech, then bang.

My vehicle was jolted into the path of oncoming vehicles narrowly missing a truck.

There was no doubt who was at fault,and I was advised to make a claim

It was a week from Christmas, but I was grand.

Hate the claim mentality in Ireland at times.

Daqster

I hate cyclists, vast majority seem to use the rules of the road only when theu favour what they wish to do.

On a bus yesterday heading down Dame St and was standing with many others as getting off at next stop, bus was packed, and as we were just coming to the junction where Parliament St is on your left, a cyclist twat comes flying up Parliament St clearly showing no signs of stopping (bus was in the bus lane pf Dame St) and sure enough when he goes the red light and as the bus driver has no clue of this gonna keep going straight or left but just not with enough room for both of us, he slams on the break and we all went flying. Two old ladies and a guy on a crutch ended up on the floor with another dozen or so of us almost joining them. Bus driver was clearly shaken also.

Pinch Flat

Cyclist myself and see no reason why he can claim against her. He broke the law and that's it. Not going to get into a cyclist versus motorists debate, there's equal quantities of tools in both modes of transport.

Cyclists aren't obliged to have insurance (some do voluntarily). Her only option it would appear is to sue him personally for the damage to her car.

tin79

joe stodge wrote: »

From what I've been told by her, no she can't. But I always thought that it was possible myself.

I think she can. He unlawfully damaged her property. Worth speaking to Citizens advice or a solicitor.

CramCycle

joe stodge wrote: »

From what I've been told by her, no she can't. But I always thought that it was possible myself.

It is possible, and I really hope if she has the time that she pushes the Gardai to make a criminal prosecution as well. Stupidity/Ignorance is not an excuse for his behaviour. I was taken to court as a cyclist for a road traffic accident, the other party though used the Garda as a witness, who got up and said he wasn't there, I used the car that was behind her who witnessed me getting hit, and the lady in the apartment block beside the scene who was having a cigarette on her balcony as witnesses. If I hadn't the witnesses I could have been taken for a couple of grand.

Greenmachine

Sorry to hear about this happening to your friend. A friend was hit once on his bicycle by a car. Obviously I was there so can't comment on the circumstance. In his case the driver admitted responsibility, brought him to the hospital, paid his hospital bills and for his bicycle to be repaired. My friend was happy with this. Wish there were more people like that. The driver and my friend the cyclist. Some people just have drowned themselves in a sense of compensation entitlement.

Possibly your friends wife could sue the cyclist, but IIRC correctly they would have to take a civil case. The above is not legal advice. They should speak to their insurance and possibly a solictor.

tritium

Agree with a previous post, contact the guards and make a complaint in relation to this. Little sh1t should be done for criminal damage.

Unless its likely to cost you more in the long run you may also want to consider during the cyclist for what this has cost your wife. Definitely sit down with a solicitor

tails_naf

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

mikemac1

Wait, your wife's friend got bills for the ambulance and the fire brigade?

I didn't know an ambulance costs money and I also thought only commercial businesses get a bill from the fire brigade.

But it seems they swiftly sent out bills and she paid.

suicide_circus

I cycle around dublin city centre a fair bit, i would say 90% of my fellow cyclists break red lights without a second thought. I make a point of stopping at all reds much to other cyclists annoyance as they tut and have to go round me on order to go through the red. Then the light changes and I catch and overtake them.

Fighting Irish

I hate hearing this stuff considering my area is just after getting fu(ked over with bike lanes

filbert the fox

Would the country be saved by on the spot fines for this behaviour?:D

AnonoBoy

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I hate hearing this stuff considering my area is just after getting fu(ked over with bike lanes

People are c*nts no matter how many or how few bike lanes there are in an area.

In fact science has proven the two are in no way linked at all.

humanji

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

Eh, aren't you the bad guy in this situation? I think you really were liable to pay for the damages to the other car. Just because they used a no win no fee solicitor doesn't mean they're just chancing their arm. If they couldn't afford the repair bill or any medical bills, they're certainly going to freak out when an angry man threatens to sue them if they don't keep quiet.

AnonoBoy

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

Wait... you said the front car wasn't hit and then you said it was only scratches.

Which is it?

Ashbx

tallaghtmick wrote: »

Post this in the cycling forum for the lulz:D

Oooh that would be a dangerous move....ive been on the receiving end of a cyclist forum argument and never again will I doubt a cyclist! ha ha!

Ashbx

tails_naf wrote: »

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - not with a cyclist, but with a similarly minded 'chancer' looking to profit from the accident.

I was the third car in a line that ended up rear-ending (luckily at pretty low speed) when the front car stopped to turn right. the front car was not actually hit, and turned anyway without knowing what had happened behind. Of the three cars involved, we called the guards, surveyed the damage - which was small - the middle car had it worst, and the front car only scratches. no one hurt - so all's well and we decided to fix our own.

Note: the cars were bunched togther more than usual as 2 lanes had just merged to one. Not a great place for a right turn - but that's rural roads for you!

6 months later we got a letter from a solicitor for the car in front (the car whcih only had scratches). It was asking for me to admit liability and that I would be taken to court for damages and for causing the accident and injuries- as I guess the rule is the 'car behind is at fault'. We looked up the insurance company and it was one of those 'no win - no fee' crowds. I imagine the person in front thought they had nothing to loose and lots to gain. I was very worried at the time.

As we had exchanged details after the crash, my infuriated dad called up the person suing and said simply and calmly - "it may cost you nothing if you loose the case - but if you do I will counter-sue for you bringing a frivolous case, and I've plenty of resources to see it through".

Never heard from the person again. I Was never more proud of my father for calling that person out.

As far as I am aware (now dont quote me), you defo would have won that case because the first car should have been sueing the second car...not you! The second car has all right to sue you though. You did hit into the back of them after all! So basically, the first car can sue the second, the second car can sue you but unfortunately, as nothing hit the back of you, you cannot sue anyone (although jugding by the sounds of it you had no intention to).

A few years back a car was coming out of a turn on my left and I was driving down a main road (mt. Merrion Road). The car had yielded to let past (presumably) but obviously changed her mind last minute and tried to quickly pull out infront of me! Of course, my brakes jammed when I tried to stop and ended up going into the back of her and it was all my fault because I hit into the back of her....regardless if she pulled out infront of me or if i had right of way or anything. Thankfully the woman didnt sue but the guards told me that if she had, I would have been liable. They really need to get rid of this "if you hit into the back of someone, you are liable" rule. Each car crash should be individually investigated!!!

Glad to hear you didnt get dragged into it all! Really wasnt your fault and not fair for you to get the blame!

Spring Onion

Fratton Fred wrote: »

His parents insurance might cover him as well..

What? Do your parents cover these misleading posts?

Mr. Nice

joe stodge wrote: »

a fire brigade and ambulance bill.

Why did she get/pay fire brigade and ambulance bills?

anncoates

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

Pinch Flat

anncoates wrote: »

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

I would say all road users are guilty of this - with increasing levels of consequence, depending on the mass and speed of the vehicle.

Corkbah

joe stodge wrote: »

She can't claim against him, he has no insurence.

If a cyclist owns a house and has home insurence, that can be claimed off. But this lad is early 20's and lives with his parents.

yes she can claim against him !! … and she can get a civil court judgement against him so he has to pay out over a number of years.

OP - tell the insurance company you do not (NOT) want this claim to go through and try to bring it all the way to court if you can, he is 100% in the wrong and is more than likely taking an action using a "no win-no fee" solicitor …. the only thing he doesn't realise is that when he looses he may not have to pay his own solicitor and he will have to pay your legal fees as well as compensation.

sounds to me like he's gotten advice from a stranger in the pub - compo culture alive and well.

OP - you need to keep up contact with the insurance company and stress how important it is that they do not give this guy a payout.

Birroc

Be very careful OP, this may not work out like it "should". It all depends on the case the cyclist makes and how willing your insurance company is to settle. Insurance companies generally pick their battles and might collect all the details to support your case but will then backtrack and just settle depending on the costs and risk assessment if court proceedings are likely. If we are talking loose change here (< €5000), the insurance company could well choose to settle which is bad for the driver because they will have a claim against them and therefore increased premiums.

anncoates

Pinch Flat wrote: »

with increasing levels of consequence, depending on the mass and speed of the vehicle.

Ah, the old slyly implied chestnut: basically, that sh_i_tty, inconsiderate road behaviour is somehow more justifiable because you are riding a bicycle and not an articulated lorry.

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Wait, your wife's friend got bills for the ambulance and the fire brigade?

I didn't know an ambulance costs money and I also thought only commercial businesses get a bill from the fire brigade.

But it seems they swiftly sent out bills and she paid.

Yeah of course there are charges, domestic too

Mint Aero

Dear Mr. Insurance Company:

Attached is a letter that I received on December 02, 2013. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

Very truly yours,

Joe Stodge.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

anncoates wrote: »

In fairness, cyclists can cite Smug Lifestyle Immunity Clause #435.1 that absolves them of any kind of prosaic considerations like obeying traffic lights, right-of-way and due care.

Cyclists are still part of society, you will have to deal with all sorts of people if you're mixing with society.

Coincidently, cyclists aren't the only ones absolved of considerations such as obeying rights of way and due care - sounds a lot like anyone manovering pushchairs too.

Anyway - typical claim culture in Ireland now, sue everyone. My brother was in a crash there almost two years ago, they were both in the wrong and when the guards came at the time they asked everyone if they were okay and if anyone needed the hospital. Everyone was grand. The two lads in the other car were laughing and joking around waiting for the guards to arrive (and who wouldn't call them).

The next day my brothers friend seen the guy driving the other car walking around town with a neck brace on him and limping, dragging a leg behind him.

A few days later my brother gets a letter informing him your man is injured and he will be making a claim against his insurance.

About two days later, there's your man up on a ladder painting his father in laws house , of which my brother took lots of photos and sent them into his insurance company. Hasn't been a word about it since

nelly17

I was once involved in an accident where by a cyclist was crossing the road and did not see me and cycled out in front of me (as confirmed in his statement to the Garda), I hit him and there was a few injuries on his part. In the end it went to court and got settled between his solicitor and the insurance company on the day - although you are not in the wrong when driving the insurance companies tend not to take the chance and would rather settle. Its just a matter of how much they are willing to settle for IMO. I could be wrong but thats the experience I have had.

tails_naf

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Wait... you said the front car wasn't hit and then you said it was only scratches.

Which is it?

Sorry for the confusion -
There were 4 cars altogether - one which stopped to make the right turn, and successfully did so without being hit at all.
The car behind it came to a sudden halt, and was hit by the next car, and then I ran into the back of that. So there were 3 cars involved in the 'crash'. The first of those only had scratches - and it was that person that came back 6+ months later with a 'personal injury and damages claim'.

The belated injury claim was clearly rubbish given that the level of damage indicates any impact was very minor. They went fishing pure and simple - and we didn't take the bait.

CramCycle

Ashbx wrote: »

Thankfully the woman didnt sue but the guards told me that if she had, I would have been liable.

Unless you were speeding and there was no doubt it was your fault the Garda was in the wrong. Don't always trust the first "opinion" you hear.

tails_naf wrote: »

The belated injury claim was clearly rubbish given that the level of damage indicates any impact was very minor. They went fishing pure and simple - and we didn't take the bait.

Both you and the car in front (unless you shunted it into the car in front) were in the wrong. Basic road safety, it's a pity he was scared off as he was in the right, even it was to teach you that you shouldn't be driving.

Pedro K

CramCycle wrote: »

it's a pity he was scared off as he was in the right, even it was to teach you that you shouldn't be driving.

Not necessarily a pity. Yes the op was in the wrong, but was only liable for damages to the second car. The one s/he hit, because the second car had already hit the first car according to the info given.

Also, there is an absolutely sickening claim culture on the rise in Ireland. It is not to 've encouraged unless someone actually is injured.

ardle1

joe stodge wrote: »

A few weeks back, my wife's friend was driving into work.

She was at a signal controlled crossroads in raheny, she had the green to proceed across the junction. As she was on the way across a cyclist broke the red to her left and hit the side of her car, he went up over the bonnet braking the windscreen and damaging the the roof,the bonnet and the the roof support.

An ambulance and fire brigade were called for him, he turned out to be fine in the end, her car ended up the worst off.

The Gardai were also at the accident and took witness statements all saying he was at fault because he broke the lights.

On Monday she revived a letter off her insurance provoder saying that the cyclist had lodged a claim for damages to his bike and "injuries" caused against her. His reasoning for the claim, he's a cyclist and should be given the right of way.

Seriously, what is wrong with people. Cause an accident and expect compensation, anyone else had anything similar happen to them involving someone who caused an accident?

Just a quick question, what fcukin weight was he huh?

SV

Ah say this is a joke and you're making it up, cyclists annoy the shíte out of me enough as it is without knowing this type exist