A Dorset cyclist has won £90,000 in compensation from a motorist who knocked him off his e-bike, resulting in the rider sustaining a triple fracture to his left arm.
The driver of the Audi A1 car turned across the path of the cyclist, a 41 year old man, at Penn Hill in Poole on 30 May this year.
According to Coles Miller, the law firm that represented the cyclist, the 39-year-old female motorist drove away, apparently not realising what had happened.
However, another driver chased her down and she stopped further along the road.
The cyclist had been waiting for traffic signals to change, and started moving off as they changed, but the driver turned left across his path, knocking him off his bike.
He was treated at Poole Hospital, where he needed to have a metal plate inserted in his left elbow. He also suffered cuts and bruises, as well as a fractured finger that needed pinning.
Peter Graves, senior injury executive at Coles Miller, said: “We obtained the police report. After discussions with the driver’s insurer, we were able to secure a full admission of liability.”
At the time of the incident, the cyclist was on furlough from his job as a baker, but his injuries meant that he was unable to work for eight weeks due to restricted movement and being unable to lift trays from the oven.
“The judicial compensation guidelines for a severe disabling elbow injury suggested a maximum award of £51,460 compensation for the injuries suffered,” Mr Graves said.
“But before we submitted any losses, the defendant made an offer of £75,000 in full and final settlement of our client’s claim.
“This offer was more than adequate to fully compensate our client but we were able to negotiate further and agree an overall figure of £90,000 which the client decided to accept.”
57 thoughts on “£90,000 compensation for Dorset cyclist left-hooked by driver”
So not £90k. £75,000 plus
So not £90k. £75,000 plus costs. Less whatever the ATE policy cost the injured party, and whatever success fee the lawyer took out of the £75k.
Curious, isn’t it. Guideline
Curious, isn’t it. Guideline figure of £51k, £75k offered, then that was pushed up to £90k.
My understanding of the way no win, no fee works is that the winning lawyers claim their costs from the other side – and that’s how they make a profit.
To an extent. Although I am
To an extent. Although I am aware of double/treble/quadruple dipping based on how they set up their business model.
They expect to have their full costs paid by the Defendant. These costs can be VERY high, often for only routine letters and reports in a case that goes nowhere near a court. £15k for settling a case on a pre-action protocol with cookie-cutter letters is outrageous and typical.
They can charge the successful claimant a “success fee” – a cut of the compensation recovered. Depending upon the field and the strength of the case, this can be up to 50% of the compensation – although 10-20% is more typical.
The Claimant will be advised to take out “after the event” insurance to cover them from the (pretty remote) chance of paying the Defendant’s legal costs. The lawyers might well have financial ties to the insurance company – for example, earning a commission on the sale of the policy.
And the lawyers might have financial ties to any expert that reports on the case, such as owning the agency that provides the expert evidence. In my view, in breach of the SRA rules, but it still happens. This increases the cost to the defendants (and is often completely hidden from defendant and claimant both).
How do I know this to be true? I deal with such no-win, no-fee outfits five days a week. The decent ones charge me about £2000 per claim they present; the shysters will claim £20,000 for the same amount of work (and that’s just the costs – not the success fee, the ATE policy fee or a cut of the expert’s fee).
And these figures impact all sorts of other things. For example, the cost of our car and house insurance.
Richard D wrote:
How do motor insurance claims affect house insurance costs? I would have thought they’d be reasonably separated and I wouldn’t expect no-win-no-fee lawyers to get involved in many house insurance claims.
Same company’s if they make a
Same company’s if they make a loss on car insurance they may very well up their house insurance margins to cover.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Possible, though that seems like it would make their house insurance less competitive against companies that don’t do that.
180k then !
180k then !
Didn’t realise, my arse…
Didn’t realise, my arse…
Captain Badger wrote:
You would definitely realise mine, and for a long time after………
Simon should really proof
Simon should really proof read his articles before putting them up.::EDIT::
He fixed the article.
Well, a reasonable result,
Well, a reasonable result, even if it would have been infinitely preferable if the cyclist hadn’t had to claim, but what about the law? No mention of the police, a court case or any kind of legal involvement at all; why not? The driver has admitted fault and any prosecution would be an open and shut case; no defence is possible other than mitigation.
But if she doesn’t get prosecuted, gets a criminal record and possibly loses her licence, she’ll do it again tomorrow, but the cyclist might not survive next time.
Two things I take from this
Two things I take from this article. Firstly : “The cyclist had been waiting for traffic signals to change, and started moving off as they changed, but the driver turned left across his path, knocking him off his bike.”
A good example to justify ASLs. I am assuming there wasn’t one here. It may explain why some cyclists, in this situation, choose to move in front of the first car at the lights. This act of self preservation seems to annoy motorists and it means that if you are taken out it’s because of an intentional action rather than an incompetent one. A tough call nowadays.
Secondly, why no mention of any prosecution by the police.
There was one, which probably
There was one, which probably means she was fully encroached in it.
She really wouldn’t have been
She really wouldn’t have been the only motorist to have done that…
It would also be nice if councils who got all this money for active travel could spare some of it to repaint their ASLs, IMO (I’m looking at you, Bristol City Council!).
brooksby wrote:
No point in painting ASL if they are not enforced though.
Plenty of point – it’s only a
Plenty of point – it’s only a small percentage of drivers who ignore them. Everyone who does obey them makes cyclists a little safer.
I’d put it as a sizeable
I’d put it as a sizeable minority who ignore them (given a chance, they have to be at the front of the queue (and not amble gambled, run the red light…)) and quite a percentage who don’t even know there are rules about them.
I would say it is in double
I would say it is in double figures at least in percentages going from experience. And until I started cycling, I didn’t know the rules on them thinking that if there is no bikes, then it is fine to go in them so is suspect most are in the same boat. It is another reason I’m up for having driving tests mandatory every 10 years to maintain a car license.
ktache wrote:
It’s been a little disheartening to find
none cyclingnon-cycling friends and family that have no idea what ASLs are, or know what they are but think that if they get there before cyclist, they are fair game.One or two that were outraged to find that they could be fined for deliberatly occupying an ASL! Cue for “Red Face” and “Road Tax”.
Bishop0151 wrote:
I try not to pick up on typos, but this one gets my goat, probably because it’s not really a typo. Creeping across the web is “none” in place of a prefixed “non-“. Aargh! With apologies.
Other than that, I agree that there is too much ignorance out there. 😉
Grahamd wrote:
True, but it would help (and would cost pennies, relatively speaking).
The excuse of, Oh I didn’t realise!, which is created by worn out markings, would at least no longer be available.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Absolutely. And to help the poor drivers, many of whom appear to have problems with their vision, this one is even painted green.
Secondly, why no mention of
Secondly, why no mention of any prosecution by the police?
Because offences against cyclists are not seen as ‘real offences’ by the police. Some will see that as a ‘good thing’, in the hope that it keeps ‘the Rats of the Road’ off the road. Those same people probably think the reluctance of the police (all right! I agree I can really only speak of Lancashire) to proseccute any traffic offence is also a good thing which allows respectable put-apon motorists to press on without fear from any pettifogging so-called ‘laws’ getting in their way. Needless to say, there was no response whatsoever from Lancashire Constabulary, and Royal Mail wasn’t interested either- neither consider this to be a ‘proper offence’, so there’s no hope for NaOiLs (Not an Offence in Lancashire) like ‘close passing of cyclists’.
Is there more to this story
Is there more to this story than meets the eye? Although my sympathies are entirely with the cyclist and good luck to him, £90k seems an extraordinary sum for a broken arm without, apparently, any long-term serious consequences (I’m inferring this from the fact that the victim was off work for eight weeks as he could not lift things, implying that he then was OK to work). A claims website picked at random states that serious fractures with good/predicted good recovery should get £14K-£30k, serious fractures with significant disability £30k to £45k and “serious fractures causing long term disability but just short of amputation” £70k-£100k. Why would the defendant’s lawyers offer what would appear to be maybe five times the usual tarrif and even then agree to add £15k on top? Either the victim was more seriously injured than it appears from the article or the defendant has some very good reasons for keeping it out of court.
Its highly unlikely the
Its highly unlikely the “defendant has a choice” once the insurance company is involved the insured has no control over what they do with the court case as technically it’s the insurance company that’s picking up the tab. I’ve had an insurance company settle against my wishes. There may have been skeletons of some kind lying around but the would not have made the ultimate decision to settle.
This is the response from the
This is the response from the driver, as published in the comments section of the local paper:
monabachellwrote: “Some of you are making a lot of assumptions about this incident. First off I am the driver. I’ve never been in a car accident in my life, never had a speeding ticket or so much as a warning. I drive carefully all the time. I was in the car with my husband coming back from Tesco. We were in the turning lane to to turn left , with our indicator on, we turned left , didn’t see a cyclist anywhere near us. AFTER we had already turned into Canford Cliffs road we felt a bump to the back of the car, assuming it may have been my paddle board that had come loose in the boot, I drove a bit further to a safe spot to get out and fix it. At that time a man pulled up behind us telling us a cyclist had come off his bike. I immediately jumped out of the car ran down and tried with everything I had to help, I was absolutely destroyed by the whole incident with worry over this man. I asked the police to please update me and let me know if he’s ok. I even offered to go to hospital but was advised against it. We saw no cyclist at all. I’m a very careful driver. I think unfortunately what happened is where he was on an electric bike he was out of view and then suddenly hit the back panel of my car as it was turning onto the road. The damage to my car was on the car back passenger side of the car. I had already turned when he hit me. It is very unfortunate and very much an accident. I feel awful that the poor young man had to be in pain and suffer any long term damage to his arm. I never gave any trouble to the insurance company at all, I gave my account of the events and I’m guessing a settlement has been made. Maybe before you start judging people you should think that not everyone is a wreckless driver and sometimes accidents happen. If I saw him That day before I turned I would own up to it, neither of us saw him. I live just down the street and we look out for cyclist there all the time. I ride a bike there myself. Either way I’m glad he was able to come out of hospital and back to work. Without a helmet I was very worried he may have been hurt more. And if he reads this , I’m so sorry it’s happened. Regardless of how or whatever. It’s never nice when someone gets hurt. I’m glad you’re ok. And that’s the most important thing, and I’m glad you’ve received some compensation to help you through what must have been and will continue to be a very difficult time, I’m sure”.
Make of that what you will.
Must ride must ride wrote:
Thanks for finding that, but what I make of it isn’t printable.
The dig about not wearing a
The dig about not wearing a helmet is particularly contemptible. What a piece of work! “I obeyed all traffic laws, turned left and a cyclist rode into the back of me so my insurance company gave him £90k.” Yep, always been my experience with insurance companies, they’re just desperate to give away money.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Even more contemptible than the “I ride a bike myself” line? I believe that the standard comeback to which was “well, that was obviously a VERY long time ago.”
Richard D wrote:
Even more contemptible than the “I ride a bike myself” line? I believe that the standard comeback to which was “well, that was obviously a VERY long time ago.”— Rendel Harris
Fair point, call it a score draw.
Richard D wrote:
Even more contemptible than the “I ride a bike myself” line? I believe that the standard comeback to which was “well, that was obviously a VERY long time ago.”
— Rendel HarrisMy usual response is “Did it have stabilisers?”
Personally if I was posting
Personally if I was posting utter shite like that on the internet I would first of all make sure that nobody could find my email, home address and mobile phone number on a publicly accessible website, lest an angry mob descend and point out the bollocks I was posting.
I would also not want to hire as a professional photographer someone whose observational skills were so clearly lacking (in case the angry mob need another clue beyond a username).
Her claim just doesn’t stand
Her claim just doesn’t stand up. No cyclist is going to deliberately ride into the side of a motor vehicle. I’m a driver too and I do understand that your vision can be restricted from the driver’s seat at times. But I can’t see any scenario in which the incident would’ve occurred in which she wasn’t at fault. And let’s face it, that the insurance company paid out strongly suggests this to be the case.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Perhaps he didn’t notice her indicator?
Using an indicator doesn’t
Using an indicator doesn’t give you priority. The cyclist had priority as he was going straight ahead.
Must ride must ride wrote:
No I don’t accept that, no cyclist in their right mind would continue on without adjusting their speed if they saw an indicator on a car ahead. Obviously, it’s only her word to say her indicator was on, perhaps it’ wasn’t.
wingmanrob wrote:
You are Socraticycless and ICMFP.
That is a blatantly stupid
That is a blatantly stupid reply.
If she had one on. Looking at
If she had one on. Looking at the Google Street View* it isn’t a left turn lane but a lane that is straight on AND left turn. There is an ASL at the lights and an advisory bike lane all along the road. As the cyclist states he was waiting along the car I wonder if the ASL was filled by it.
Anyway, I doubt the insurance company would want to pay out that much for something that wasn’t her fault.
*The street view vehicle has two cars ahead of it. One is encroached on the ASL on the red and the other is very close to encroaching on the left hand side. Neither have really left room for cyclists at all.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think this is key to the payout. Someone has posted the drivers’ explanation from the original article. In this the driver states that she was in a left turn lane, implying that the cyclist that was going ahead somehow rode into the back of her while encroaching on the left turn lane.
For the insurance to throw money at the settlement I suspect that she was guilty of a few aggravating factors;
She says that she indicated the turn. I’m prepared to accept that as true, but a cylcist alongside the car may not have visibility of those indicators. I’ve also seen countless drivers indicate only as they commit to the turn, rather than in advance of the turn.
Possibly encroaching on the ASL, denying the use by the cyclist. Had the cyclist had the use of the ASL this incident couldn’t have happened how it did, if at all.
Negligently unaware of the vulnerable road user, highly visible, to her immediate left. She claims that she didn’t see the cyclist, but that can only be explained by not looking. Alternatively, the insurance company suspected she was aware of the cyclist and either assumed that the cyclist would be following her round the left turn, or assumed that she would beat them around the turn. Either being negligent, and making her entirely responsible.
Her claim to be a good driver who has never had an accident should perhaps be reappraised to; she is an OK driver who has probably narrowly avoided similar accident by good fortune, or the reactions of others.
At least she took responsibility and didn’t fight the claim.
At least she took
At least she took responsibility and didn’t fight the claim
Did she? I wonder what would have happened if the other driver hadn’t followed her.
The time elapsed from incident to payout is a good indicator of what sort of “fight” there was. And her preferences would have had very little to do with determining this.
As you say, insurance companies don’t pay out at any level without good reason.
Perhaps it’s none of our business, but to me it doesn’t add up.
Bishop0151 wrote:
I’ve seen people argue that drivers waiting at red lights should not wait with their indicators on when but only apply them as the lights change.
In my view this is fatal to cyclists who will arrive at the junction with no idea the driver on their right is about to turn left, once the indicators go on the cyclist may well not see them, and if the vehicle is an HGV the rear will take a line through where the cyclist was giving them no escape.
wycombewheeler wrote:
That really grinds my gears too.
If you know that you intend on turning and it’s not ambiguous then why not use your indicators?
Maybe there should be some supplementary rule in the Highway Code – you must not make a turn unless you have been indicating for at least 2 seconds. I’d also like to see that applied to parked cars pulling out onto the road.
It’s one of the reasons I prefer to be in front of other traffic at lights – even if it means going over the white stop line (e.g. where there’s no ASL).
You hit the nail on the head.
You hit the nail on the head. Insurance firms are always reluctant to pay out. The company would not have done so without very good reason.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Insurance companies are just scared of the Evil Cycling Lobby. They know when to just shut up and pay up.
wingmanrob wrote:
Or, like most drivers, she didn’t indicate until the lights changed, by which time the cyclist was already moving.
wingmanrob wrote:
we all know that isn’t true because Audis don’t have indicators!
PRSboy wrote:
I believe that it is BMWs that have non-functioning indicators fitted as standard. Audis appear to have a different system fitted, one that gives the driver little opprtuntity to have any regard for other road users. Audi bought the technology off Mercedes, who have an even more highly refined version of the system fitted to all their cars.
Richard D wrote:
I think you’ll find that both Audi and BMW drivers have indicators fitted, but they’re just concerned about resale value if they’re used.
PRSboy wrote:
mine does
OldRidgeback wrote:
Someone isn’t telling the truth here. I know that junction well and there isn’t a ‘left turning lane’ as described. It’s straight on OR left turn. If the cyclist was actually waiting for the lights to change (in the bike box) then the driver should most certainly have seen him and he would have been in front of the cars. However in that circumstance the cyclist would have been hit by the front/side of the car. Instead he apparently hit the rear of the car.
The most likely explanation to me is that the cyclist was filtering to the left of the vehicles, possibly at some speed on the e-bike, when the lights changed and the vehicles ahead moved off. The cyclist carried on filtering on the left, assuming that the cars were going straight ahead (as the vast majority do at that junction), quite possibly because no cars were indicating left. The driver turned left ahead of the cyclist and he didn’t have time to brake or take avoiding action and thus hit the rear of the car.
The driver appears to be at fault for not checking her wing mirror before turning but I’m not convinced that the cyclist was entirely blameless either (unless you consider it safe practice to filter at speed past vehicles moving off from traffic lights with a left turn immediately ahead).
I’ve almost been taken out by
I’ve almost been taken out by a driver when going straight on, when the driver assumed that it was a “left turn” filter lane.
Why the driver assumed that I don’t know. There was a 10′ long arrow painted on the road showing that the lane was for going left AND straight on, and 50 yards earlier there was a big sign, at least 10′ tall, pointing out that the right hand lane was for going straight on, and the left-hand lane was for going left or straight on.
From experience I’d say that drivers only see what they want to see, and that includes signs and road markings. Plus as most of them don’t want to see any cyclists we might as well be invisible to them too.
I don’t think that non
I don’t think that non cyclist car drivers look at the road surface that much.
As a non driving cyclist I am constantly scanning the roads for any defects, objects, or paint.
Joeinpoole wrote:
Maybe I’m more cynical than you, but the obvious explanation for me is that they were both waiting at the lights, as they both claim. But the cylist was waiting alongside the car, rather than in front, because the car was occupying the ASL. I say this because if the cyclist was in the ASL this accident couldn’t have happened, If they weren’t in the box, there would usually be a reason, the most common I’ve seen is that a car is already there.
As the lights changed the car has cut up the cylcist by trying to get around the corner before the cyclist set off, or has been negligently oblivious of the presence of the cyclist.
This is more plausable than the cyclist charging the juction hits a already left turning car. If only because the insurance company knew something that made them throw nearly twice the upper compensation recomendation at the claiment for a full and final “we will never talk about this again” settlement. Not something that insurance companies are know for, unless they think they are avoiding a potentially more epensve claim down the line. They had to have been convinced that their driver was entirely responsible in law.
90k!!! Wow. There must have
90k!!! Wow. There must have been something the insurance company knew of that isn’t reported in the media. Perhaps some dashcam footage from either the driver at fault or another motorist.
I hope the cyclist involved is well on the way to recovery.
What was the position of the
What was the position of the cyclist while waiting at the lights? Was the cyclist in front of the car or to the left of it? Or possibly some other positioning.
This also goes to show how dangerous traffic lights are and that they should not be installed IMO. I don’t have an answer or solution but I’d guess there is one somewhere. The use of them on roundabouts is particularly counter-productive.
Titanus wrote:
You do not have much sense at all it seems.