Video: Manchester cyclist hit by taxi – footage being used as evidence in civil action

as for the 'contraversal' wearing of a camera, you can get the same thing for your car, and some insurance companies love them, as it makes sorting out the claim easier,

I say film 'em all, as long as you do not publicise the reg no's ( due to possible cloning), its your only proof if there is no cctv ( and sometimes even then as the CCTV operators have a habit of 'loseing footage of bike incidents( I can only guess why))

[[[[[ What to do with the expensive velo, as I clamber into the ambulance? Sling it over the shoulder, cyclo-cross style? Just wondering..

Irrespective of which area in life one relates to - there is really no such thing as an accident. The word is a 'Cop-out' and actually and more correctly the 'Accidents' are really incidents of one kind or another.
The actual scenario/situation that ensues is as a result of a Cause and Effect.
People that drive any vehicle in a professional capacity and especially those that earn an income from it should be held fully accountable for their actions.
This incident could so easily have been a fatality or a serious maiming of the cyclist as it happens it was neither (at present).
Bruising and soft tissue/muscle damage can take several days to manifest and often result in longer term underlying injuries that could not possibly have been detected at the scene of the incident/RTA. READ RTI - Road Traffic Incident.
The sooner that the description is changed to reflect reality - the better.
I am a cyclist of many many many years and have also lost bikes to totally negligent drivers - I am now 69yrs young and really do not know how long I will continue putting the rest of my days of riding at the mercy of some of the people that drive and or ride motorcycles.
The real scary thing is fast approaching - totally 'Pissed Paralytic' people behind the wheel of motor vehicles and YES that includes Buses and Taxis.
Not all booze is obvious,that is why Vodka is the default for most alcoholics.

I wonder what the real motive was behind avoiding intervention with/by the Insurance Company?
One would like to think that all aspects of the drivers entitlement/legality of being on the road and especially as a Private Hire Taxi service have been examined by the police and his insurers!!!!!

Have to controversially agree with calling emergency care if you are knocked off, particularly if that motorist turns out to be uninsured (and we all know the scary statistics there).

Why?

1: As above the police will have a harder time ignoring it.

2: Government will have more statistics to massage and ignore showing the reality of cycling in this hole of a country.

3: Unfortunately but true any resultant damages claim will have more weight attached to it, particularly if injuries are present rather than you being a hero and then going back in the early hours to sit amongst the weekends alcohol victim admissions.

4: If the playful rascal that knocked you off is uninsured and the MIB are involved you have a stronger position when they try to offer you a reduced sum in comparison to a claim against an insured party.

The MIB don't like you to know that they must still pay the same level of damages as there appears to be some kind of inference that you should be grateful for anything at all.

This was subject to a legal argument where fortunately a decent judge decided that the victim shouldn't be further shafted purely because compensation was coming from the pocket of the MIB as opposed to an insurance company.

The MIB attempted to have this quietened but the judge refused so make sure any MIB claim is fair and equal to equivalent routes.

5: Finally, government has demonstrated it is content to support at all and any cost that cars must be king, along with a pretty clear display of commitment towards obesity, congestion and mounting road maintenance costs.

They won't listen to reason, or follow common sense, or heed advice from numerous experts whilst steadfastly choosing to protect and safeguard the apparent 'right' of everyone (however lethal they are) to drive instead of looking to protect individuals who choose a selfless, peaceful, healthy and advanced transport choice.

They will listen to money - so, let's make every little knock and needlessly dangerous act as expensive as possible. The entire system is fuelled by profit, as long as the insurers pay less out than they get in each year it's a fools playground and why should they let the deaths of hundreds per year get in the way of profit?

Campaigns are politely acknowledged and repeatedly ignored. There are other ways to force intervention.

Flippin ek where did that car come from!

I am normally the first person to say rules of the road aside the cyclist is the first person responsible for their own safety i.e. Even with the right of way be careful and ready to slow down at junctions etc. But in this case the poor sod was half way across the exit side of the side road and he did give a quick check before carrying on after the other car pulled out in front of him. He was well T boned.
This should surely be driving in a manner to endanger life or what ever the charge is. To be told the cops aren't interested is just well! Words escape me.

Hope the civil case goes well and good luck with the recovery.

Forget the video camera - if you really don't want vehicles to pull out on you - then fit blinding flashing headlights. It gets in their face - and makes them actually pay attention to you.

It all depends on which policman you get, some are very good and some don't give a shit; which is sad because it gives them all a bad name.

Is it only me wondering how, without the camera, it would've been the cyclist's word against the driver's, given that there was hardly a lack of witnesses?

regarding that ambulance. Call it. I have two reasons for saying this. I was hit by a car back in 1978. Nasty bang bike buggered windscreen broken by me hitting it female driver screaming because she thought she must have killed me. I dodn't call an ambulance but one duly arrived along with the cops, but being a teenager I thought it was pointless a bang on my knee was all I had. I was practically ordered into the ambulance by the police on the instruction of the ambulance guy. 2 hours later in hospital my knee was about the size of an elephants and was technicoloured.

The second instance was that back in the day I was assaulted outside a night club. Being a proud fellah I stayed upright but I naively took details and reported it to the police, who were just not interested. Years later I had a mate who was a copper and he told me that had an ambulance been called they can;t ignore it. They have to account for it.

Now I abhorr the practice but this is a bit like professional football. Gamely staying on your feet when fouled gets you nothing. Not even recognition that you are an honest player. Going down like a sack of spuds and staying there does.

Sad as it may seem. That what I recommend cyclists do when knocked over. Go down (you probably are though) and stay down and if you ever want to make anything of it get an ambulance called, get it in it and be admitted to A&E. because if you don't the police assume you're OK when you may not be.

Does anybody else ever get the urge to just keep riding in a straight line by hopping up on to a cars bonnet and riding across it as the driver sticks it out over a cycle lane?

I've resisted so far but it's so very, very, tempting some days.

Interestingly enough both the Peugeot and the Honda driver both also break the law. Both show Callous disregard for the rules of the road in failing to give way to the cyclist, neither gain anything by their actions showing again one of the major problems with people behind the wheel, impatiences.

Usual 'pushy' motorists at commuting time. What part of 'I'm going to be well ahead of you shortly when you join the massive queue ahead' do you not understand. Had some mummy and her f#cking brats practically forcing her way through this morning.

It's an accident in as much as it was unintentional.

I assume the driver was looking to the right to see if there was any oncoming traffic. Its the same kind of scenario as a nose-to-tail accident; moronic drivers not paying enough attention to the immediate threat, which is directly in front of them.

Its that 'accident' word again. No such thing on the road.

I hope this cyclist's civil action results in a decent compensation payout for the damage to him and his bike.

The police seem to be extremely hit and miss, almost depends who you speak to and what mood they're in.

If examinations were conducted in the same way one day you'd be awarded a first and the next a 2:2 (And that you can guarantee would be resolved pretty quickly).

There appears to be no joined up thinking, shared policies and far too often a level of contempt for anyone not using a car that borders on professional incompetence and dereliction of duty.

We need an all party intervention on motoring and all of its well documented flaws as no single party dares to touch 'the hard pushed motorist' resulting in the kind of crap that sees a court fine a killer driver £85.00 for taking a life whilst just weeks later fining another individual £1500.00 for causing undue distress to a squirrel.

The CPS stand by this with a brazen #uck you and see no reason to question why a human life is not even worth 20% of a squirrels.

So, when you've 'only' been knocked off its hardly surprising the entire 'authoritative' chain displays a level of interest akin to asking an X Box addict if they'd like to play with a bit of string.

I've never been able to understand why someone with an HGV licence, a hazardous goods licence and every driving licence under the sun but who has to sit a separate test to take passengers, i.e drive a bus. However if you have a licence for a car you can buy a licence from the local council and take passengers in a taxi. There should be an advanced test for taxi drivers with regular reassessments. This should be the case for anyone who earns a living by driving.

All the more reason for Strict Liability, we should have it here.

'Under a "strict liability" law, motorists would be held responsible in the civil courts for all accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians - unless they can prove they were not to blame'

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24719458

All the more reason for Strict Liability, we should have it here.

'Under a "strict liability" law, motorists would be held responsible in the civil courts for all accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians - unless they can prove they were not to blame'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24719458