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.