Near Miss of the Day 233: A pass so close it broke the cyclist's handlebar mirror

inicholson wrote:

Make a claim on his insurance for the cost of replacing your broken mirror.
It's petty but when he comes to insurance renewal time he'll find his premium jumps because he's had a claim against him.

How would/could you go about doing this? How would you find their insurers?

Mb747 wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Make a claim on his insurance for the cost of replacing your broken mirror.
It's petty but when he comes to insurance renewal time he'll find his premium jumps because he's had a claim against him.

How would/could you go about doing this? How would you find their insurers?

https://www.askmid.com/

Mb747 wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Make a claim on his insurance for the cost of replacing your broken mirror.
It's petty but when he comes to insurance renewal time he'll find his premium jumps because he's had a claim against him.

How would/could you go about doing this? How would you find their insurers?

You would make a claim through your own insurer. Most club riders need to have 3rd party insurance as provided by Cycling UK/CTC or British Cycling or some independent cover. 

Being insured yourself will make a claim a whole lot easier.

bikeman01 wrote:

Mb747 wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Make a claim on his insurance for the cost of replacing your broken mirror.
It's petty but when he comes to insurance renewal time he'll find his premium jumps because he's had a claim against him.

How would/could you go about doing this? How would you find their insurers?

 

You would make a claim through your own insurer. Most club riders need to have 3rd party insurance as provided by Cycling UK/CTC or British Cycling or some independent cover. 

Being insured yourself will make a claim a whole lot easier.

you can cliam on house insurance, I did and got myself a whole new bike after some twat deliberatley ran it over on a no through road while I was changing a tube!

pockstone wrote:

Just watched it again with the sound up. (Don't want to scare the wife when I watch these!)

Just as with the Jeremy Vine incident...a toot means deliberate. Definitely an assault, coupled with failure to stop.

Jeremy Vine van incident - bad driving, inconsiderate of consequences and a danger to cyclist as just didn't care and could have lifted foot rather than hit horn

This incident - deliberate decision to intimidate cyclist, aware of consequences and very dangerous to cyclist as pre-meditated close pass misjudged and very nearly resulted in what would have been serious injury to the cyclist - no on coming vehicles as an excuse (not that should be), had to wait for cyclist at roundabout so saw them....just malice 

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

But the overtake took place on the exit, which is not illegal.

Panslanepaul wrote:

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

But the overtake took place on the exit, which is not illegal.

Have another look, it was definitely in the zig zag after the crossing which is illegal. Also immediately after there are dual solid white lines.

freespirit1 wrote:

Panslanepaul wrote:

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

But the overtake took place on the exit, which is not illegal.

 

Have another look, it was definitely in the zig zag after the crossing which is illegal. Also immediately after there are dual solid white lines.

It's only illegal to overtake on the approach zig-zags not the exit ones, they are there to regulate parking.

Double post

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

Sadly not so. The law only applies to motor vehicles. Read The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/28/made

Which is quite a stunning exception given the overtakes I and I'm sure other cyclists get on crossings.

aegisdesign wrote:

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

Sadly not so. The law only applies to motor vehicles. Read The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/27/made and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/28/made

Which is quite a stunning exception given the overtakes I and I'm sure other cyclists get on crossings.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, as the motor vehicle did overtake on the zig-zags.  The fact that the bicycle was there and the first reg you quote says that it doesn't apply to bicycles is irrelevant, or at least, that's the way I read it.  I don't think either reg you quote says that it is permitted to overtake on the zig-zags to pass a cyclist.

burtthebike wrote:

Not quite sure what you're saying here, as the motor vehicle did overtake on the zig-zags. 

I'm saying it's not illegal.

28(1)(a) applies within the zig-zags but the law only states motor vehicles overtaking other motor vehicles. It doesn't mention bicycles.

28(1)(b) might apply *if* the lead vehicle (it doesn't say motor vehicle although in 27(1) it explicity rules out bicycles in the rule about stopping) is stationary and complying with a signal. Ergo, even if stationary, car drivers can still overtake bicycles.

burtthebike wrote:

The fact that the bicycle was there and the first reg you quote says that it doesn't apply to bicycles is irrelevant, or at least, that's the way I read it.  I don't think either reg you quote says that it is permitted to overtake on the zig-zags to pass a cyclist.

Whereas I think it's highly relevant. It also applies to horses of course if the law explicitly is only about 'motor vehicles'. ie. no restrictions on overtaking horses or indeed restrictions on horse riders overtaking cars. 

And IIRC it's been argued to allow overtakes after the crossing as the law mentions the 'approaching vehicle' in relation to the crossing. There was a law change to clarify it only applied to the lead vehicle, moving or stationary, as motorcyclists were caught out filtering through stationary queues. Post the change they still aren't allowed to overtake the lead car or the car approaching the crossing but can filter up behind it.

It looks like a badly written law to me and should apply to all vehicles. But it's one of those laws that I bet nobody pays much attention to, like the no overtaking cyclists on a solid white if they're doing more than 10mph law, which I get at least a dozen times a day.

aegisdesign wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Not quite sure what you're saying here, as the motor vehicle did overtake on the zig-zags. 

I'm saying it's not illegal.

28(1)(a) applies within the zig-zags but the law only states motor vehicles overtaking other motor vehicles. It doesn't mention bicycles.

28(1)(b) might apply *if* the lead vehicle (it doesn't say motor vehicle although in 27(1) it explicity rules out bicycles in the rule about stopping) is stationary and complying with a signal. Ergo, even if stationary, car drivers can still overtake bicycles.

burtthebike wrote:

The fact that the bicycle was there and the first reg you quote says that it doesn't apply to bicycles is irrelevant, or at least, that's the way I read it.  I don't think either reg you quote says that it is permitted to overtake on the zig-zags to pass a cyclist.

Whereas I think it's highly relevant. It also applies to horses of course if the law explicitly is only about 'motor vehicles'. ie. no restrictions on overtaking horses or indeed restrictions on horse riders overtaking cars. 

And IIRC it's been argued to allow overtakes after the crossing as the law mentions the 'approaching vehicle' in relation to the crossing. There was a law change to clarify it only applied to the lead vehicle, moving or stationary, as motorcyclists were caught out filtering through stationary queues. Post the change they still aren't allowed to overtake the lead car or the car approaching the crossing but can filter up behind it.

It looks like a badly written law to me and should apply to all vehicles. But it's one of those laws that I bet nobody pays much attention to, like the no overtaking cyclists on a solid white if they're doing more than 10mph law, which I get at least a dozen times a day.

Thank you for the clear and comprehensive explanation.  As you say, a bad law.

I'm sure it will be addressed in the government's review.

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

http://willcycle.blogspot.com/2017/12/when-police-fail-you.html

Perhaps the only way to get Cambs police to take dangerous overtaking seriously.

freespirit1 wrote:

Lodge a complaint and appeal it pronto. The overtake within the zig - zag on the pedestrian crossing is illegal.

This.  Do it now and hopefully ruin that f******rs christmas.