- 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
- stonojnr 3 hours 44 min ago
it feels a conveniant donkey to put the tail on imo, and Im not saying some members didnt quit BC because of the Shell thing, but Im not entirely...
- espressodan 4 hours 20 min ago
I'm never convinced how helmets with built in cameras and lights can be acceptable safe. Sounds like a good way to get a camera embedded in your...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 28 min ago
Did I mention that it costs £580?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 28 min ago
Yeah - and one of the passengers had the gall to say that the *driver* had taken a wrong turn!...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 45 min ago
Don't worry! They've got plenty of others they can use!...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 1 min ago
Well what is that way? Are you suggesting that every bend on every descent can be barriered over a 180km mountain stage?
- slappop 9 hours 14 min ago
Hopefully it'll still be allowed for recreational use.
- Bungle_52 10 hours 6 min ago
Well Gloucestershire are getting better. I'm being told whether or not action is to be taken, but not what action, within a few days of each report...
- Surreyrider 12 hours 35 min ago
Churnalism nowadays - mostly clickbait stuff and regurgitation in the local rags/comics and beyond.
- DogOfOB 12 hours 47 min ago
I'm glad the barrier wasn't damaged. Whew, close one there! \s
Add new comment
43 comments
It's worth pointing out that "most" (nearly all) household contents insurance policy cover you for your personal liability and that includes cycling on the road (but not racing). This will cover the cost of defending a claim against you (solicitors costs) and also the cost of any payment of damages to a third party. Most policies will give you cover for between 5-10 million.
I was a liability handler for a number of years for a large household insurer. In that time we had two claims against cyclist, the first we defend without any payment being made to the third party (a motorist) the other case was found in favour of our insured and the cyclist who had been injuries in the accident end up with a nice fat damages cheque.
The "no member-on-member claims" rule is there to stop claims arising from racing incidents.
In a race (pretty much any discipline but let's use Road as an example), there can be incidents - touch of wheels, rider hitting a pothole, whatever it may be. See it all the time on TV even at TdF level.
So it happens and in the vast majority of cases it's a "racing incident". One of those things that, if you race often enough, you will experience at some point.
At local level, without the benefit of TV Motos, helicopter cameras etc, it's often impossible to tell exactly what happened. Rider A swerves, Rider B brakes to avoid, Rider C bounces off him and meanwhile the chain reaction causes Rider J to crash as a result of that. No-one will know who is to blame. And the rule exists to prevent those kind of impossible claims arising. You'd never get a race result, it would be "held pending investigation" until all the lawyers had taken their £££ and if you go down that route then race fees would be stratospheric.
That's why the rule exists - not necessarily conflict of interest (although that does come into it) but simply because it's unworkable. If a definite case can be proved, the injured party can still go through a third party lawyer so it's not a big deal.
Quite a few things in this story dont add up ( the specific diagnosis the other cyclist made about her injuries), etc etc. Not enough real information (outside of her injuries) for this to be anything but someone bleating on in a newspaper.
Calling for mandatory cycle insurance is just dumb, and you might as well just say that helmets, hiviz, licensing and trouser clips (tucking your trousers in your sock is just gauche and obviously the sign of a commie) should be as well.
Sometimes it's best when the police are NOT doing anything:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-police-probed-after-c...
I bet it was her fault tbh
How this story has made it into this site is beyond me.
Whats to investigate? Miss Burrows doesnt actually say what law has been broken.
If its a civil claim for the other cyclist negligence was he entirely at fault for the incident or is there partial blame?
He(the other cyclist) may feel Miss Burrows was partially or even wholly to blame.
The insurance she should have had is personal accident cover which she and anyone else can if they feel this risk is sufficient.
Had both cyclist had third party liability this claim would undoubtly end up with both insurers paying 50% of whatever damages arose both parties would be claiming and the mandatory insurance some are suggesting would be getting more expensive..
Sad times when cyclists start claiming against each other, no wonder they are holding off on presumed liability as it will be a crash for cash bonus week.
What?
I am a bloody road user. If another road user injures me or damages my vehicle I have a right to be compensated. I'm not in a big club of car drivers when I'm driving with people feeling all sad because a numpty car driver is sued by another car driver. Why is that different for cyclists?
And crash for cash only works where you are pretty certain the other party is insured. And its much more difficult to do these days now thatb the scam is out of the bag. That's why your car insurance premium went down this year.
Are you saying that if another cyclist crashed into you and put you in hospital broke your expensive bike you would not want to be compensated.
Are you saying that if another cyclist crashed into you and put you in hospital broke your expensive bike you would not want to be compensated.
I am a British Cycling member and recently was knocked off my bike by another British Cycling member who to his credit immediately admitted the accident was his fault. I suffered various injuries and even worse a broken bike. I reported the incident to British Cycling and they stated that even though I have legal assistance I could not use this as the other party was also a British Cycling member and that this would cause a conflict of interest. I was advised to get myself a solicitor and claim against British Cycling. I have now had to get a solicitor who charges 25% of any compensation I receive. I am really frustrated the other party admitted liability to British cycling immediately after the accident and I have had an admission of liability from British Cycling's insurer however it has been 4 months since the accident and have not received any payment to cover the damage caused. I am a British Cycling supporter and think the work they do on our behalf is excellent but not being able to use their legal assistance against another member is a crazy rule as chances are that if another cyclist crashes into you and they have insurance they will also be a British cycling member.
Hmm, that is indeed a problematic situation, and likely to arise again. British Cycling should certainly re-think their legal position on this.
In my case, the other party's insurer was BC, mine CTC.
I agree that is crazy. Not because of the conflict of interest. That is fair enough. The same lawyer can't act for both parties in a dispute. But car insurance companies must get this day in and day out. It's quite possible for an individual lawyer either an in house lawyer or an outsourced lawyer to be paid by British Cycling to act on your behalf. And it would be quite simple especially as the other cyclist admitted liability. I actually think that British cycling should get this sorted pdq.
I'm confused by this bit:
"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."
But she had in fact suffered a fractured tibia and a broken rib following the incident in July.
I can understand the injuries not being fully apparent at the time, but to think it was a torn ligament is a bit of a specific diagnosis.
...and also: if we do get to a society where there are loads more bikes, and fewer motors around, this kind of thing will happen more.
Which would you rather have: the average cyclists or the average driver?
Insurance: might as well if you ride regularly, I have it myself via British Cycling.
Should it be compulsory? Nope. Little point for occasional and recreational riders, barrier to cycling. Can still sue in absence of insurance, and capacity to damage others far below capabilities behind the wheel of a car. The fact that insurance comes included in my BC membership for £30ish a year tells you insurance company's assessment of the likelihood of payout / costs involved.
It might be worth pointing out that the "Police said there was no evidence" bit normally applies in cases where cyclists are hit by, guess what, motor vehicles.
And in those cases there will be problems anyway until there is presumed liability if the driver where a pedestrian or cyclist is involved, never mind any kind of criminal law action.
Without any evidence and each one having one word against the other it's never realistically gonna work suing the other party. This is the one of the reasons I have front and rear mounted bikecams, not just cars but other cyclists.
The amount of fair weather cyclists once the weather warmed up was noticeable as most of them seem to have a death wish (not shoulder checking when changing lanes or pulling around the sides of cars etc...)
I've "sued" someone through the Small Claims Court.
It doesn't cost a lot and you don't need a lawyer.
They didn't have insurance, but I recovered the money anyway. Its called "enforcing the judgement".
http://www.howtotakesomeonetocourt.info/joomla/enforcing-the-judgement.html
Once you have won your claim, there are several things you can do to recover the money, e.g. instructing bailiffs on your behalf or placing a court order against their property.
Whether you'll win it or not is another matter.... but the insurance point is a non-issue.
Its required for cars because they can cause 100,000's of pounds worth of damage, which most people can't afford to pay.
Absolutely right. Bike insurance needn't be compulsory. (not saying 3rd Party liability insurance isn't a good idea especially if you ride a lot ) But for most cyclists it's utterly irrelevant. I have it because it not only covers me should someone claim that I causede a car crash (unlikely but possibly expensive). but more importantly because it also provides legal assistance for me to sue people that damage me or my bike (much more likely).
And although you are right about the £100,000s of pounds worth of damage that actually not the main cost element. Occasionally people are killed and disabled. These cases bring compo claims in the millions. Wipe out a well paid young father in his thirties and his family will be due not only the life insurance that will be claimed back from your insurance but also loss of earnings and expected earnings for 40 odd years. Higher than that even if you put someone like that in a condition that they needed special 24 hour assistance for the rest of their life say for 50 years at £2500 a week. Tens of millions.
Hmmm would the Police have refused to do anything if this was a pedestrian who'd been hit by a cyclist?
Where in this write-up are you seeing any statement of the police's refusal to investigate?
It sounds like they cannot due to no CCTV or witnesses, quite a different scenario.
I'm happy to bash the often ineffectual Met when they deserve it but in this case there's no indication it's warranted.
yes if there was no evidence that anyone had done anything wrong. What could they do? Enlighten me! How would that work?
Ah yes your honour I am the responsible officer in this case. I didn't see it but was called afterwards. When I arrived at the scene the pedstrian was lying half on the road and half on the footway as was the cyclist and their bike. The cyclist says that the pedestrian walked into the road in front of him without looking and that this happened on the road. The pedestrian claims she was on the footway and was hit by the cyclist on the footway. There were no witnesses and no CCTV. I didn't know which of them to believe but I was concerned that I had to get someone for something so I did a roadside eeny meeny miney mo test This convinced me that the cyclist was a bloody liar (I also noticed that his eyes were a bit close together) So despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of his guilt I decided to come here and waste everybody's time your honour.
Ah thats fab mate
Can i just add the first part of the definition of an rtc "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle / mechanically propelled vehicle on a road".
A bike might get classed as a vehicle but its not a motor vehicle therefore this is not a reportable rtc.
Insurance is not neccesarily desirable or easily done because it requires you to determine what a cyclist is. Does it apply to only road users? Path users? Are parents required to insure their children?
For the casual user of a bike path adding insurance is a barrier to recreational use and health.
I second the above... you get insurance, any insurance to protect yourself against such civil actions being taken against up you... you do not insure yourself to provide means for someone to pursue you in a civil case.
If this was the case, I can assure you that the insurance industry would be finished within days!
Whilst hugely unfortunate, I think this is an example that occasionally bad things happen... life's not fair etc.
I think you have to be realistic, if there are no witnesses, and no CCTV, how can a criminal case be mounted? And for what? Was this a case of 'furious cycling', or whatever... what would be the correct criminal charge for such a collision?
If it had happened in a car, a criminal case would either be based around careless or dangerous driving I guess, is the lady saying that in her opinion the other cyclist was guilty of either of these two?
And then... what if the Police did pursue this, what is her aim? Is it to get a menace off the streets? If so, as no licence is required to cycle, no licence can be revoked, so the only thing that would stop this menace from continuing his menacing, is a custodial sentence. That is simply not going to happen.
So maybe its about teaching the person a lesson, and I am sure a fine and conviction will do this, but I am sure the level of fine and punishment dished out by a criminal court is not going to leave the victim satisfied.
Basically what I am getting at is that this is, has always been, and should always be a civil claims case.
I am sure this is something she will have investigated already, and I should imagine, regrettably, that much like the Police have said there is nothing they can do, the chances of a civil action being successful are equally slim. Not because of lack of insurance (although I am sure her lack of insurance is a factor in limiting her ability to build a significant case in the first place), but because the lack of relevant evidence available for the appropriate sum of compensation that required.
I guess the lesson for me, is to have good insurance for yourself, so you have someone that is duty bound to have your back in these circumstances.
A very unfortunate situation... my sympathies are with the lady, but equally, I can see no good way out of this.
I agree with much of this I just wanted to focus on this bit
"If it had happened in a car, a criminal case would either be based around careless or dangerous driving I guess, is the lady saying that in her opinion the other cyclist was guilty of either of these two?"
If it happened between two cars and there was no evidence or witnesses the situation would be the same. (though with cars there is much more impact and forensic evidence to go on) But if there was no evidence or it was inconclusive The police wouldn't be able to do anything at all Even with insurance and even with an injury claim it would still be incumbent on the injured party to prove the liability of the other party. Albeit on the balance of probabilities. But with no evidence at all to go on and if the other party doesn't fess up then nothing can be done.
What you need to watch out for is the counter claim. If you are a lawyer defending a liability claim then the best tactic if it's possible is to enter a counter claim.
If you are suing someone in a case like this then you had better make sure you are squeeky clean. And it's worth considering the other persons potential loss. If some eejit on a bike cut you up and you both ended up in a ditch with bust up bikes. You may want to sue. So you go ahead and put in a claim for new front wheel of your Halfords special. Meanwhile they say it's your fault and they put in a claim for a new frame and wheelset for Pinarello Dogma 2. That was a can of worms were you were better off not opening. The judgement might be 50:50. They Jugement is that they pay you £50 and you pay them ££4000.
Third party liability is always a good idea. Just join CTC or British Cycling and you get it free with your membership though other people provide it as well.
Fair point indeed, but I can tell you from my own experience that a persistent and determined lawyer acting for an injured party can compel the police to investigate even an apparently 50/50 accident where there are no witnesses or third-party evidence, and may succeed in getting a very substantial settlement against the party allegedly at fault. Membership of CTC qualifies you for such lawyerly services (also, I believe, British Cycling).
I would add that the CTC's insurance also indemnifies the insured against having to meet the cost of any such award to the injured party.
What exactly would the police investigate? The lawyers for CTC or BC may well ensure that the police haven't just no-crimed the incident prematurely. But if it is the case that there is no evidence either way then lawyers just stamping their feet won't cut any mustard.
I know that Hollywood is an increasingly powerful cultural influence and of course their maverick lawyer would drive an old classic car, drink too much and live on a boat and they would find the missing evidence by a stroke of genuis. But back here in London, sometimes there just isn't a happy ending.
One written statement was taken in the first instance. Several months later, Met police asked for a further and more detailed written statement, even though both parties had been rendered unconscious by the accident. This second statement was, as I recall, shared with the claimant's lawyer and played in to the eventual outcome.
Pages