I was hit by a cyclist on a pavement (no cycle lane in the vicinity) in central Cardiff at the end of June and hit the ground with one heck of a thump. Cyclist was going fast, with bike laden with bags - said 'scuse me, scuse me' (poor English) on his approach and that typical dance (both the the one direction, then both to the other ensued). BANG. I should stress here it was a quiet Sunday evening in a part of the city with reduced traffic flow, open only to taxis and buses.
Having hit the ground with a big bang and with little padding to my jacket, I am sat here months later with a chip or two out of my right elbow, and my elbow clicks about 80% of the time when I extent my arm with a natural movement. I've also been lying awake between 3am and 4am in the past week due to the burning from the injury though frustratingly the Xray hasn't confirmed anything abnormal although the chip can be felt.
At the time it happened (possibly due to shock or anger or maybe rational thought to ensure his details were recorded along with the incident) I dialled 999 and the Police came, so it's logged somewhere. They seemed to tell him off but also told me this guy is homeless and (I think) known to them, and also that he has mental problems. Now, what if he'd hit some frail elderly person or a young child, instead of me - a 6ft 30yr old weighing in at 14 stone? Mind you - I could have had my skull fractured on the wall behind me.
SO - does anyone out there know where this leaves me with respect to any compensation (I'm guessing there's no chance, but it appears I need physio). Also, is it worth looking into one of those 'no win no fee' solicitors??
|
I'm afraid no chance probably sums it up.
If the guy is foreign/homeless/ill then pursuing him would be an uphill battle to nowhere since he is very unlikley to be insured, still less to have any personal resources to settle a claim. The no win on fee people probably offer "free introductory advice/interview" but this is really meant to filter out cases that won't pay for them , you will be filterd out for the reasons above.
Also unlikley that Criminal Injurues Scheme would help as the scheme is focussed on crimes of violence.
|
...Also unlikley that Criminal Injurues Scheme would help as the scheme is focussed on crimes of violence...
True.
A long shot - might be worth checking if the cyclist was cautioned by the police for careless riding, or somesuch.
That would help the OP prove the cyclist's actions were directly responsible for his injuries - an assault by any other name.
Edited by ifithelps on 26/09/2009 at 15:23
|
|
|
|
compensation (I'm guessing there's no chance but it appears I need physio).
Presumably you'll get any necessary physio through the NHS, albeit probably more slowly than going private?
Sounds like you were pretty unlucky - commiserations.
|
As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian I can relate to and empathise with all points of view here. Ultimately the problem, as is almost always the case, is one of selfishness coupled with stupidity.
Some cyclists are guilty of it, some motorists are and indeed some pedestrians are too.
Some motorists park or drive in cycle lanes. Some fail to give sufficient care to cyclists when they are on the road. Some cyclists wilfully impede traffic or cause danger to pedestrians. Some pedestrians walk in cycle lanes.
Common sense has become a rare characteristic it would seem.
|
|
I had some jobsworth council highways contractor shout at me from the back of a moving works van slowly laying cones for riding on the 'pavement'. My irritation at this unwarranted comment was compounded by the fact that I was actually cycling on a designated cycle path at the time (part of greenwheel in Peterborough). I was quick to stop and give him a few choice opinions on his general intelligence level and what not.
|
Would that education took precedence over regulation. A mass recognition of our shared space is all that is really required. In the perfect society of course....
Ho hum.
|
|
Our ever-decreasing shared space. Every time I go out for a blast there are other people on the road, dammit!!
|
First visit back to this forum since my original post 'cos I've been away for the weekend motorcycling in Mid-Wales
Where SWMBO had her altercation is really quite a narrow pavement, about 6 feet. There are railings along the edge of the kerb and also railings round a private bar's table area. It's quite a bottleneck for pedestrians, especially with prams, etc. The woman should have been off and pushing her machine if she felt unsafe on the road...there's no law that says you have to ride it.
The cycle lane is actually on the road but is always blocked by parked cars...quite legally out of the rush periods.
Ted
|
6 feet is wider than most cycle lanes. The minimum recommended width is 5 feet, but nearly all cycle lanes are narrower than that.
My experience is that if there's a short 'cyclists dismount' section on a shared path due to the narrowness of the path, I'd rather, when pushing a pram, pass a cyclist ON his bike, travelling at slow speed, than one who has dismounted and is blocking most of the pavement with his body and his bike.
People cycling at high speed are a slightly different issue, but saying 'get off and use up more of the restricted width of this pavement' doesn't do anything to enhance people's ability to get by.
|
6 feet is the width of the pavement, the cycle lane is on the other side of the safety fence, painted on the carriageway.....they should not be on the pavement, period !
I would rather have a cyclist on foot pushing the bike, even with the extra width than some idiot weaving through the mums and kids who use this busy footpath
Ted
|
On the whole I'm a bike militant but here I agree with Ted.
Ideally the cyclist should get the training etc required so she's confident enough to ride on the road. Anyone lacking that confidence and resorting to the pavement should dismount and push.
|
> 6 feet is the width of the pavement, the cycle lane is on the other side of the safety fence, painted on the carriageway.....they should not be on the pavement, period !
Well yes, my point was that the 'narrow' pavement you're describing is actually wider than most cycle lanes, which despite their narrowness are still routinely encroached upon by 10-ton vehicles travelling at high speeds.
And whereas you think the cyclist trying to go about their business should get into the cycle lane (which you've already said is unusable), where s/he presumably does not feel confident or safe, to face drivers who may well tell him/her to 'get off the road'.
> I would rather have a cyclist on foot pushing the bike, even with the extra width than some idiot weaving through the mums and kids who use this busy footpath
If you're really worried about the safety of the mums and kids, you'd be better off trying to reduce the number of cars on the road.
Cyclists *deliberately* ride on the pavements, no motorists do; despite this you're 50 times more likely to be injured by a car on the pavement than by a cyclist, see Hansard: tinyurl.com/yqej3k
And the number of pedestrains killed by cyclists ranges between zero and two per year - a risk as small as you can hope to get, in statistical terms.
In busy Central London cyclists and pavements won't mix well, but in your average small town, a bit of shared space is not going to cause the downfall of civilization.
|
The other thing of course is that road users break the law constantly, particularly with respect to speeding, trying to be pious about other 'annoying' laws that don't affect you is a little hypocritical IMO. While I would hope that a blindeye be turned to someone doing 80mph on the M25 i good conditions, I would expect someone doing 50mph past a school to be charged.
Equally, while someone cycling at high speed on a pavement is a menace, 100 metres of low-speed cycling on a pavement to connect two sections of cycle path is not something I would worry about.
|
|
|
The cycle lane is actually on the road but is always blocked by parked cars...quite legally out of the rush periods. Ted
I accept that I don't know the location you describe but might observe that if the cycle lane (and the safety of non-motorists) 'mattered' then perhaps this might not be legal cf red routes for buses ?
There was an interesting piece on the radio this morning (as I was driving) about Bristol "Cycling City" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mx6bc - I think it was basically saying that cycle lanes are at best poorly planned. Suggested that the biggest influence on cycling safety (or perceived safety) was slowing cars down and cyclist / driver training.
|
|
On-road cycle lanes IMO are quite dangerous. A confident cyclist is much safer out in the middle of the lane, moving over to let vehicles overtake as appropriate, than a timid cyclist who is only enticed on the road by the reassurance of a cycle lane.
|
Only saw one invisible suicidal diagonally-across-the-road one in the car tonight. Several quite competent London cyclists. Had to cross to the other side of Adelaide Road to overtake a cyclist overtaking a stationary bus though. They know you won't run over them so they just go. OK in my book if they are there before you as this one was.
A cyclist, not even a fast one, can keep up with a car in a lot of places and leave it behind when things are bad.
It was very carp coming back across town. Three temporary traffic lights just for a start (if you don't know about those, don't ask), then the canal bridge in Great Western Road, an important artery to me, suddenly blocked for reasons unknown. I had wondered what all the youths in Visas and things were doing trying to come the wrong way up the cobbles in the dogleg behind Harrow Road nick. Anyway that meant yet another detour and temporary light or two. Followed by an attempt to give me a heart attack by whoever put a road closed notice up at the end there.
My heart! My heart!
Just as well I can't afford a driver though. I'd miss so much sitting there reading.
|
This reminds me of my trip to the beach on the one hot August weekday (shouldn't people be at work I thought). Got as far as the A249/M2 junction where the M2 was clearly stationary. So I thought 'I can do better than that', and punch things into the tomtom, and head off to the nearby A2. Also stationary.
So I go back and punch more things into the tomtom, setting up diversions, avoiding certain roads, and soon enough I'm heading along a nice quiet road to nowhere (in the wrong direction). Due to numerous diversions, Tomtom sends me up a byway (one of those churned up tracks that will destroy the underside of anything other than a proper Land Rover). Oops, I turn round in someone's drive. He comes out, I wave cheerily.
Head off again setting up even more diversions on the satnav. Am now going along through tiny Kent villages, at no great speed but with considerable purpose. Whereupon I come across 'Road closed'. Argh. There is now no other route, the lack of roads in the wilds of Kent means that this closed road was the only one - apart from back onto the M2/A2 I'd taken great trouble to try and avoid. I ended up sitting in a cornfield for a few minutes, not very happy with it all, but eventually conceded I had no choice but to go back to the M2.
When I eventually got back there via various Tomtom Special narrow roads it turns out that the delay was probably only 15 minutes in the first place.
Later on there was a bit where the A road had been diverted due to construction of a shopping centre. Tomtom was telling me to go straight ahead, which was signposted 'no through traffic', the signs took me right. I followed the signs, and ended up in a 30 minute queue. The old A-road I assume was still there and would have been much quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
