What to do?

audrey said:

Quoted message said:

It takes (much) less than a minute to negotiate a
roundabout. Would the time of the accident have been
recorded that precisely and accurately? Of course not.

No, but, it may show that he did not use his phone at all
during the relevant time period.

Correct but that wasn't the point to my reply to the
curious doctor.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Dr Curious said:

Quoted message said:

> If there were indeed a possibily that you were making a
> phone call at the time of the accident, then the first
> thing to do would be to contact the phone company and
> find out whether that was the case.

It takes (much) less than a minute to negotiate a
roundabout. Would the time of the accident have been
recorded that precisely and accurately? Of course not.

No but the fact that he never made any call during his
bike ride up until that point would be.

Yes that would help, but the other way around is unlikley
to hinder.

Even if he doesn't get the phone logs now, if any action is
taken against the driver, one would expect the driver (or
their solicitors) to be getting them. I don't really see
what the OP has to lose by getting the information now.
However, I am not a lawyer, he needs to see a lawyer for
proper advice.

Audrey

--

email = audmacd aaatttt hhhottt mmmaailll dddoottt ccccoommm

Colin Blackburn said:

Quoted message said:

But presumably you'd be able to remember if you'd made a
call and finished it *prior* to entering the roundabout
- because I'd hope that you'd actually pulled over and
stopped to *make* it...

Not necessarily. The OP stated he had no recollection of
the accident. The memory loss may not be confined to the
immediate time of the accident.

I don't remember much after leaving work, but given the
roundabout in question literally just round the corner from
work, that may not be too suprising.

Had I been making any calls, I would have finsihed
them before I left (and probalby would have used the
work's phone).

I find the claim somewhat puzzling, unless of course the
driver made it up in an attempt to pass blame.
--
Chris Johns

Chris Johns said:

I don't remember much after leaving work, but given the
roundabout in question literally just round the corner
from work, that may not be too suprising.

Had I been making any calls, I would have finsihed
them before I left (and probalby would have used the
work's phone).

I find the claim somewhat puzzling, unless of course the
driver made it up in an attempt to pass blame.

It's possible. But this is why you need a solicitor. They
are in a much better position, once they have evidence such
as the witness statements and phone records, to make such a
serious allegation against the driver.

Colin

Chris Johns said:

I find the claim somewhat puzzling, unless of course the
driver made it up in an attempt to pass blame.

It's possible you were scratching your ear, or something,
which looked like you were on the phone. I know I've been
about to castigate motorists for being on the phone when
they're not.

Quite how this alleviates the proportion of blame on the
motorist, I'm not sure.

--
Mark.

Chris Johns wrote:

[snip roundabout & unconsciousness]

Been there, done that.

Quoted message said:

I did tell the police that using the phone while cycling
wasn't something that I'd consider doing. The only time
someone has called me while I have been cycling I pulled
over at the next safe place and took the call there.

If you have never used a phone while cycling, it would be
perverse to suggest that the first and only time you did so
you got knocked off and can't remember it.

In the case of criminal liability it should in any case not
make any difference what you were doing anyway, assuming the
driver hit you through failing to cede right of way when
entering (the most common cause of this kind of crash and
injury on roundabouts). So it should make no difference
whatsoever to the prosecution of the driver.

That's just my lay opinon, of course.

When it comes to civl liability, the driver would need to
offer some proof that you were on the phone. Which might
prove difficult for him. In that circumstance if he wants to
claim contributory negligence, the burden of proof will be
on him to prove it, especially if the witness does not
corroborate his claim (unless that's changed since I was
last hit, which I don't think it has). Making phone calls
while cycling round roundabouts would be highly unusual
behaviour for any cyclist, and the court may well be
sceptical about such a claim. But do get the phone company
logs if you can.

Maybe the driver meant *he* was on the phone - far more
likely! ;-)

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

"Chris Johns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0407061305260.23928-100000@charlotte...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

No, what counts is what's on the Phone Company log. And
prior to that, the impression you may have inadvertantly
given the Police - as you gave in your post. That you
may indeed have been using one at the time.

I did tell the police that using the phone while cycling
wasn't something that I'd consider doing. The only time
someone has called me while I have been cycling I pulled
over at the next safe place and took the call

there.

Quoted message said:

They still haven't got a statement out of me - this is one
of the reasons I want to get things moving one way or
another, but I don't want to go

and

Quoted message said:

chase them up without knowing what I want to do.

As you're 100% confident you weren't using the phone then
probably the first thing to do would be to try and get a
copy of the phone log yourself. If you explain the
position, that you may want to institute proceedings and
that you're maybe considering representing yourself then
they should comply. Armed with this evidence, you should
then maybe next go to the Police and enquire about the
independant witness, and whether the Police intend to
prosecute the driver as a result.

Because if they do, then it might be in your interests to go
to a solicitor with a view to seeking damages, but maybe
only after seeing how the case turns out. If the Police
don't seek to prosecute, then while it's still possible for
you to sue for damages - found on a balance of probabilty
rather than beyond reasonable doubt, you have to balance the
likely costs against the possibility of losing the case,
never mind the amount you're likely to recover.

Whereas if you go to the solicitor first, they will charge
you extra for obtaining information which can easily get for
yourself. Also there's no mad hurry to iniate proceedings,
as even cases brought under the Criminal Injuries
Compensation scheme have a two year time limit. Also once
any criminal case has been heard, this will enable the
solicitor to give you better advice on the spot, without
racking up hefty bills. A delay in the criminal case, might
also give you a reasonable excuse for delaying bringing a
civil case.

Curious

Quoted message said:

Yes - maybe to troll I should add that I wasn't wearing a
h****t... 🙂
--
Chris Johns

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407061037240.23821-100000@charlotte>,

Chris Johns said:

The police have said the driver claims I was using my
phone at the time

As Peter and Simon said, that can be verified.

If it proves to be nonsense, then a verifyably lying driver
won't look too good in court. OTOH maybe another explanation
might be Plod confusing yours with another incident.

Quoted message said:

(I find this rather hard to believe, as amongst other
things the phone was with me in the hospital when I got
there, if I had been using it it would surley have ended
up in the ditch?)

Not necessarily, if some helpful person had collected
whatever of your stuff had got scattered at the scene. When
my phone got scattered yesterday (from inside my pannier
when the latter got dislodged on a big bump), it was I who
collected it up.

Quoted message said:

Regardless, I need to let them know if I want them to
prosecute the driver or not, or just to make a civil case,
I'm not quite sure of the best plan really - what are the
implication of doing either?

IANAL.

Quoted message said:

I need to chase to the police on this, they were meant to
call me some time ago but haven't. They do have a witness
(who probably knows more than me!).

Have you not spoken to your witness?

--
Nick Kew

audrey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:fs3le0h40mu3eu0tkdn0t5pf9m7udpqt2h@
4ax.com:

Quoted message said:

Even if he doesn't get the phone logs now, if any action
is taken against the driver, one would expect the driver
(or their solicitors) to be getting them.

Surely the phone company would tell anyone asking for such
information, other than the police and the phone owner, to
get lost (and the police *should* need a warrant for it).
Even if they are a solicitor they have no right to such
information.

Graeme

in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407061037240.23821-100000@charlotte>, Chris

Johns (') said:

I was recently (around a month ago) knocked off my bike on
a rondabout. As a result of the head injuries caused by
hitting the road, I don't really recall anything about it.

The police have said the driver claims I was using my
phone at the time (I find this rather hard to believe, as
amongst other things the phone was with me in the hospital
when I got there, if I had been using it it would surley
have ended up in the ditch?)

Regardless, I need to let them know if I want them to
prosecute the driver or not, or just to make a civil case,
I'm not quite sure of the best plan really - what are the
implication of doing either?

I need to chase to the police on this, they were meant to
call me some time ago but haven't. They do have a witness
(who probably knows more than me!).

I agree with other posters that using a phone while riding a
bike is a bloody stupid thing to do, but

(i) as others have pointed out, your phone company can
easily clear this up; and
(ii) even if you were on the phone this does not relieve the
motorist of his responsibility to avoid you.

So you have a case against the motorist regardless, although
it will be much stronger if your phone company can confirm
your phone wasn't in use at the time of the accident.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for
us to do but pick up the pieces.

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't mention
any, and the OP claims not to be able to remember
anything.

Oh, do read the post.

The original poster wrote, in the original post '...They do
have a witness (who probably knows more than me!).'

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ There's nae Gods, an
there's precious few heroes but there's plenty on the dole
in th Land o th Leal; And it's time now, tae sweep the
future clear o th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

in message <[email hidden]>, Colin Blackburn

(') said:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:39:58 GMT, Velvet
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Not necessarily. The OP stated he had no recollection of
the accident. The memory loss may not be confined to the
immediate time of the accident.

The only time I've had memory loss following a (motorcycle)
accident, I can remember very clearly what happened up to
the moment of impact, but although I was apparently lucid,
coherent and organised in the three or four hours after the
impact I can remember nothing of this.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't
mention any, and the OP claims not to be able to
remember anything.

Oh, do read the post.

Oh do read the thread !

Dear, oh dear, oh dear !

< quote >

Quoted message said:

at 11.51 am "Dr Curious" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected by audrey.

As according to the OP there was a witness in addition to
the driver.

</quote>

Nevertheless its nice to see that you agree that had the OP
indeed been using a mobile phone while riding around a
roundabout on a bike that would have been a bloody stupid
thing to do.

Nice to have that final confirmation.

Despite the fact that anyway, he denies doing any such
thing.

Which was nice.

Curious

Quoted message said:

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ There's nae Gods, an
there's precious few heroes but there's plenty on the
dole in th Land o th Leal; And it's time now, tae sweep
the future clear o th lies o a past that we know wis
never real.

Dr Curious said:

What, so you mean there may have been a possibilty you
were indeed using a mobile phone while negotiating a
roundabout on a bike?

Given that the only reason you doubt the driver's account
is that the phone was recovered.

As a matter of interest is this something you do often?

It's not illegal per se for pedal cyclists. You could be
shown to be CWDC&A, obviously.

In article said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't
mention any

That's a curious interpretation of "They do have a witness
(who probably knows more than me!)."

"Alan Braggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dr

Curious said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't
mention any

That's a curious interpretation of "They do have a witness
(who probably knows more than me!)."

And how exactly would you interpret the following?

___________________________________________________________-
_____________

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pdlqr1-
[email hidden]... at [2.35 p.m]

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't
mention any, and the OP claims not to be able to
remember anything.

Oh, do read the post.

Oh do read the thread !

Dear, oh dear, oh dear !

< quote >

Quoted message said:

at 11.51 am "Dr Curious" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected by audrey.

As according to the OP there was a witness in addition to
the driver.

</quote>

<snip>

Curious

Quoted message said:

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ There's nae Gods, an
there's precious few heroes but there's plenty on the
dole in th Land o th Leal; And it's time now, tae sweep
the future clear o th lies o a past that we know wis
never real.

___________________________________________________________-
______________

Can I take it then, that originality isn't exactly
your forté?

Curious

In article said:

"Alan Braggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Dr

Curious said:

Acording to the OP there were no independant witnesses
apart from the driver, at least the police didn't
mention any

That's a curious interpretation of "They do have a
witness (who probably knows more than me!)."

And how exactly would you interpret the following?

By reading it later.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:46:50 GMT, Chris Johns <[email hidden]> wrote
(more or less):

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

No, what counts is what's on the Phone Company log. And
prior to that, the impression you may have inadvertantly
given the Police - as you gave in your post. That you may
indeed have been using one at the time.

I did tell the police that using the phone while cycling
wasn't something that I'd consider doing. The only time
someone has called me while I have been cycling I pulled
over at the next safe place and took the call there.

They still haven't got a statement out of me - this is one
of the reasons I want to get things moving one way or
another, but I don't want to go and chase them up without
knowing what I want to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Troll? Why thank you

Just insurance. You know how it is.

Yes - maybe to troll I should add that I wasn't wearing a
h****t... 🙂

Good - then you didn't unecessarily increase your chances of
being in the accident due to risk-compensation, and you
didn't increase your chance of receiving major brain trauma
caused by forced rotation of your skull around your neck.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If, however, you are uncertain whether or not you were on
the phone whilst cycling then it is quite clear that you
sometimes *do* use the phone whilst cycling and you are
therefore a [censored].

I met one of these this evening coming home from work. On
the (mandatory) cycle path, wrong side of the road, coming
at me fairly quickly, on the phone. But HE was safe enough,
of course, as he was wearing a rather fetching helmet. I
don't think he even saw me 'till we passed each other. A
real [censored]......

tony R.