Car Accident

[MN]

Hi,

Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
claims she did see me on the footpath.

Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
english is only slightly better.

-M.N

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.

Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.

And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.

> Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.

Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.

> The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.

> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.

> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).

You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
as you can ever be with the legal system.

> I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.

Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.

Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.

> The driver was the only occupant of the
> car and does have comprehesive insurance.

Best to just deal with their insurance company
if you can find out who the insurance company is.

> However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.

And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.

Contact the insurance company yourself if you
can find out who the insurance company is.
If you cant, use the small claims system.

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.

Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.

And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.

> Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.

Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.

> The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.

> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.

> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).

You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
as you can ever be with the legal system.

> I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.

Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.

Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.

> The driver was the only occupant of the
> car and does have comprehesive insurance.

Best to just deal with their insurance company
if you can find out who the insurance company is.

> However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.

And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.

Contact the insurance company yourself if you
can find out who the insurance company is.
If you cant, use the small claims system.

[The Raven]

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.

A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.

> The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company.

Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor will
be interested to see what it says.

> The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath.

Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
irrelevant.

> This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.

It's not that "obvious".

> Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.

That's for your solicitor to argue.

> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).

Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
injury?

> I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.

If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.

> The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.

Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
company, along with your police report etc.

Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
another word to them without advice.

Regards
--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.

A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.

> The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company.

Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor will
be interested to see what it says.

> The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath.

Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
irrelevant.

> This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.

It's not that "obvious".

> Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.

That's for your solicitor to argue.

> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).

Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
injury?

> I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.

If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.

> The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.

Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
company, along with your police report etc.

Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
another word to them without advice.

Regards
--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[RossB]

If the driver was at fault, then you should obviously stand your ground
and insist on compensation. I assume you have all their details - name,
address, registration no., etc? You should also report the accident to
the police separately, and give your side of the story. Go to the same
police station if you can and make sure the driver and her husband know
you have done so. Put a copy of the quote in a letter to them demanding
payment of a specific sum and let them know that if you don't receive
payment within 7 days you reserve the right to take legal action. If you
have heard nothing after 7 days, you can look at a small claims court
action - contact your local court who may have some information as to
how to go about this.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[RossB]

If the driver was at fault, then you should obviously stand your ground
and insist on compensation. I assume you have all their details - name,
address, registration no., etc? You should also report the accident to
the police separately, and give your side of the story. Go to the same
police station if you can and make sure the driver and her husband know
you have done so. Put a copy of the quote in a letter to them demanding
payment of a specific sum and let them know that if you don't receive
payment within 7 days you reserve the right to take legal action. If you
have heard nothing after 7 days, you can look at a small claims court
action - contact your local court who may have some information as to
how to go about this.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[MN]

Thanks for the reply,

The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
the insurance company at all.

Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.


"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> MN > wrote in
> message ...
>
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
>
> Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
>
> And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
>
> > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
>
> Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
>
> > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
>
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
wern't
> > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> as you can ever be with the legal system.
>
> > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
>
> Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
>
> > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
>
> Best to just deal with their insurance company
> if you can find out who the insurance company is.
>
> > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
>
> Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> can find out who the insurance company is.
> If you cant, use the small claims system.
>
>

[MN]

Thanks for the reply,

The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
the insurance company at all.

Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.


"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> MN > wrote in
> message ...
>
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
>
> Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
>
> And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
>
> > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
>
> Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
>
> > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
>
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
wern't
> > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> as you can ever be with the legal system.
>
> > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
>
> Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
>
> > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
>
> Best to just deal with their insurance company
> if you can find out who the insurance company is.
>
> > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
>
> Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> can find out who the insurance company is.
> If you cant, use the small claims system.
>
>

[MN]

Thanks for the reply,

I was the one that made the initial police report. I would rather not use a
solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost. The total
cost of the repairs is only $500. Also if it went to small claims I thought
a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "MN" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> > enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> > night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a
car
> > pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
> bonnet
> > slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
and
> > the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
> on
> > the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack
with
> my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> > hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
>
> A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.
>
> > The next day
> > she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if
I
> > was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that
since
> I
> > had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
> when
> > I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
> smashed
> > from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
> depending
> > on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500)
for
> > my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
> them
> > today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
> police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> > contact their insurance company.
>
> Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor
will
> be interested to see what it says.
>
> > The reason for this is that he now claims I
> > was riding on the footpath.
>
> Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
> irrelevant.
>
> > This is obviously not true considering the speed
> > I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
>
> It's not that "obvious".
>
> > Also how could the driver
> > know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
> now
> > claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> That's for your solicitor to argue.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any
expeience
> > in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
> injury?
>
> > I
> > estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.
>
> > The driver was the only
> > occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she
can
> > barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> > english is only slightly better.
>
> Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
> company, along with your police report etc.
>
> Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
> police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
> get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
> another word to them without advice.
>
> Regards
> --
> The Raven
> http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>
>

[MN]

Thanks for the reply,

I was the one that made the initial police report. I would rather not use a
solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost. The total
cost of the repairs is only $500. Also if it went to small claims I thought
a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "MN" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> > enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> > night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a
car
> > pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
> bonnet
> > slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
and
> > the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
> on
> > the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack
with
> my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> > hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
>
> A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.
>
> > The next day
> > she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if
I
> > was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that
since
> I
> > had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
> when
> > I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
> smashed
> > from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
> depending
> > on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500)
for
> > my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
> them
> > today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
> police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> > contact their insurance company.
>
> Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor
will
> be interested to see what it says.
>
> > The reason for this is that he now claims I
> > was riding on the footpath.
>
> Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
> irrelevant.
>
> > This is obviously not true considering the speed
> > I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
>
> It's not that "obvious".
>
> > Also how could the driver
> > know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
> now
> > claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> That's for your solicitor to argue.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any
expeience
> > in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
> injury?
>
> > I
> > estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.
>
> > The driver was the only
> > occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she
can
> > barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> > english is only slightly better.
>
> Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
> company, along with your police report etc.
>
> Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
> police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
> get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
> another word to them without advice.
>
> Regards
> --
> The Raven
> http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> ** since August 15th 2000.
>
>
>

[Gary K]

Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
car" is doomed to fail for them.

Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent and getting 2nd info
from the police is even more irrelevent. Go to a solicitor, just for an
hour consultation, wont cost much. What he will tell you u can relay
back to the husband (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this
point) which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him. You can
potentially get thousands out of them if they mess with you.


Rod Speed > wrote:

> MN > wrote in
> message ...
>
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
>
> Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
>
> And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
>
> > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
>
> Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
>
> > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
>
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> as you can ever be with the legal system.
>
> > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
>
> Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
>
> > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
>
> Best to just deal with their insurance company
> if you can find out who the insurance company is.
>
> > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
>
> Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> can find out who the insurance company is.
> If you cant, use the small claims system.

[Gary K]

Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
car" is doomed to fail for them.

Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent and getting 2nd info
from the police is even more irrelevent. Go to a solicitor, just for an
hour consultation, wont cost much. What he will tell you u can relay
back to the husband (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this
point) which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him. You can
potentially get thousands out of them if they mess with you.


Rod Speed > wrote:

> MN > wrote in
> message ...
>
> > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
>
> Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
>
> And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
>
> > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
>
> Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
>
> > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
>
> > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
>
> You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> as you can ever be with the legal system.
>
> > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
>
> Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
>
> Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
>
> > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
>
> Best to just deal with their insurance company
> if you can find out who the insurance company is.
>
> > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
>
> And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
>
> Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> can find out who the insurance company is.
> If you cant, use the small claims system.

[Paul]

MN wrote:

> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the
> policy holder is the one that needs to make the claim.

I had a smash a month ago where a girl pulled out of a petrol bowser
into my car as I was leaving the servo. She said I was in the wrong,
but I knew she was (she pulled off from a stationary position into
the moving traffic). Her insurance company is Allianz. I basically
sent a written report (by fax) of what happened, and her details,
direct to Allianz, and they did what they called a "without prejudice
inspection". They agreed that she was in the wrong and I got a cheque
for $1800 (the amount of a quote I got for repairs to my car) about two
weeks later. So no, you don't have to wait for the insured party to
contact their insurance company before claiming.

> They are refusing to contact the insurance company at all.

As you've seen, the insurance company will contact them, if they don't.

> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath
> story to the insurance company is it likely they will then just
> refuse the claim.

My girl claimed I was wrong, but her company disagreed with her.
Relax -- as Rod said in another post, you'll win, based on the fact
that they were pulling out without due care.

[Paul]

MN wrote:

> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the
> policy holder is the one that needs to make the claim.

I had a smash a month ago where a girl pulled out of a petrol bowser
into my car as I was leaving the servo. She said I was in the wrong,
but I knew she was (she pulled off from a stationary position into
the moving traffic). Her insurance company is Allianz. I basically
sent a written report (by fax) of what happened, and her details,
direct to Allianz, and they did what they called a "without prejudice
inspection". They agreed that she was in the wrong and I got a cheque
for $1800 (the amount of a quote I got for repairs to my car) about two
weeks later. So no, you don't have to wait for the insured party to
contact their insurance company before claiming.

> They are refusing to contact the insurance company at all.

As you've seen, the insurance company will contact them, if they don't.

> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath
> story to the insurance company is it likely they will then just
> refuse the claim.

My girl claimed I was wrong, but her company disagreed with her.
Relax -- as Rod said in another post, you'll win, based on the fact
that they were pulling out without due care.

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Thanks for the reply,

> I was the one that made the initial police report. I would rather not use
> a solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost.

Yeah, I wouldnt use one either with such a clearcut case.

Its a very simple and straightforward matter, particularly
when you know who the insurance company is.

You can reconsider the solicitor if the insurance
company tells you to bugger off etc, but I would
use the small claims system myself in that case,
assuming that your state's small claims system
will consider that sort of road accident.

> The total cost of the repairs is only $500.
> Also if it went to small claims I thought
> a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

Correct. The solicitor can be used to issue a letter of
demand to the insurance company and is a bit more
likely to get the insurance company to just pay up tho.
And he will certainly charge you a substantial fee too.

> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "MN" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> > > enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> > > night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a
> car
> > > pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
> > bonnet
> > > slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> and
> > > the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
> > on
> > > the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack
> with
> > my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> > >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> > > hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> >
> > A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.
> >
> > > The next day
> > > she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if
> I
> > > was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that
> since
> > I
> > > had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
> > when
> > > I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
> > smashed
> > > from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
> > depending
> > > on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500)
> for
> > > my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
> > them
> > > today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
> > police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> > > contact their insurance company.
> >
> > Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor
> will
> > be interested to see what it says.
> >
> > > The reason for this is that he now claims I
> > > was riding on the footpath.
> >
> > Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > > This is obviously not true considering the speed
> > > I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> >
> > It's not that "obvious".
> >
> > > Also how could the driver
> > > know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
> > now
> > > claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > That's for your solicitor to argue.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any
> expeience
> > > in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
> > injury?
> >
> > > I
> > > estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.
> >
> > > The driver was the only
> > > occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she
> can
> > > barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> > > english is only slightly better.
> >
> > Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
> > company, along with your police report etc.
> >
> > Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
> > police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
> > get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
> > another word to them without advice.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > The Raven
> > http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> > ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> > ** since August 15th 2000.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Thanks for the reply,

> I was the one that made the initial police report. I would rather not use
> a solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost.

Yeah, I wouldnt use one either with such a clearcut case.

Its a very simple and straightforward matter, particularly
when you know who the insurance company is.

You can reconsider the solicitor if the insurance
company tells you to bugger off etc, but I would
use the small claims system myself in that case,
assuming that your state's small claims system
will consider that sort of road accident.

> The total cost of the repairs is only $500.
> Also if it went to small claims I thought
> a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

Correct. The solicitor can be used to issue a letter of
demand to the insurance company and is a bit more
likely to get the insurance company to just pay up tho.
And he will certainly charge you a substantial fee too.

> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "MN" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> > > enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> > > night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a
> car
> > > pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
> > bonnet
> > > slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> and
> > > the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
> > on
> > > the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack
> with
> > my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> > >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> > > hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> >
> > A road accident involving an injury needs police involvement.
> >
> > > The next day
> > > she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if
> I
> > > was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that
> since
> > I
> > > had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
> > when
> > > I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
> > smashed
> > > from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
> > depending
> > > on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500)
> for
> > > my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
> > them
> > > today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
> > police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> > > contact their insurance company.
> >
> > Ask him for a reference number for said police report, you're solicitor
> will
> > be interested to see what it says.
> >
> > > The reason for this is that he now claims I
> > > was riding on the footpath.
> >
> > Interesting seeing as he wasn't there so anything he has to say is
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > > This is obviously not true considering the speed
> > > I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> >
> > It's not that "obvious".
> >
> > > Also how could the driver
> > > know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
> > now
> > > claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > That's for your solicitor to argue.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any
> expeience
> > > in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > Do you really need to sue her or just get compensation for the damages and
> > injury?
> >
> > > I
> > > estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > If she is at fault, as you claim, who cares what the damage is to her car.
> >
> > > The driver was the only
> > > occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she
> can
> > > barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> > > english is only slightly better.
> >
> > Your solicitor will probably file a claim directly with their insurance
> > company, along with your police report etc.
> >
> > Ask them for their insurance details, file an accident report with the
> > police (technically it should be reported anyhow as there was an injury),
> > get some legal advice, contact their insurance company, and don't say
> > another word to them without advice.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > The Raven
> > http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
> > ** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
> > ** since August 15th 2000.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Thanks for the reply,

> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression
> that the policy holder is the one that needs to make the claim.

Its more complicated than that. Strictly speaking you're sposed
to deal with the guilty party yourself when you arent just claiming
on your own insurance and letting them go after the guilty party,
but most insurance companys will see sense if you approach them
directly. Not all tho, quite a few will just tell you to bugger off.

In which case you should use the small claims system.

> They are refusing to contact the insurance company at all.

OK, threaten them with the small claims system
and see if that brings them to their senses.

> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story
> to the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim.

I doubt it when you make it clear to the insurance company
that that cant be true given the distance from your work
to home etc and where the accident actually happened.

Sounds like you didnt call the cops to the accident.

That wasnt a terrific idea, because it would then
have been clear that you couldnt have been riding on the
footpath to have got the headlight fragments on the road etc.

Illegal in some states to not call the cops
when physical injury has occured too.

> If they did I assume suing the the insurance
> company would be harder to win.

They'll likely realise that the guilty party is
trying to find any excuse to get them off.

That doesnt mean that they will automatically just
pay the claim tho, the worst of them have a hell of
a capacity to attempt to bluff right up to the courthouse
steps, just to minimise their payouts etc.


> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > MN > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> >
> > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> >
> > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> >
> > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> >
> > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> >
> > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
> wern't
> > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> >
> > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> >
> > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> >
> > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> >
> > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> >
> > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> >
> > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> >
> > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > If you cant, use the small claims system.
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

MN > wrote in
message ...

> Thanks for the reply,

> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression
> that the policy holder is the one that needs to make the claim.

Its more complicated than that. Strictly speaking you're sposed
to deal with the guilty party yourself when you arent just claiming
on your own insurance and letting them go after the guilty party,
but most insurance companys will see sense if you approach them
directly. Not all tho, quite a few will just tell you to bugger off.

In which case you should use the small claims system.

> They are refusing to contact the insurance company at all.

OK, threaten them with the small claims system
and see if that brings them to their senses.

> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story
> to the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim.

I doubt it when you make it clear to the insurance company
that that cant be true given the distance from your work
to home etc and where the accident actually happened.

Sounds like you didnt call the cops to the accident.

That wasnt a terrific idea, because it would then
have been clear that you couldnt have been riding on the
footpath to have got the headlight fragments on the road etc.

Illegal in some states to not call the cops
when physical injury has occured too.

> If they did I assume suing the the insurance
> company would be harder to win.

They'll likely realise that the guilty party is
trying to find any excuse to get them off.

That doesnt mean that they will automatically just
pay the claim tho, the worst of them have a hell of
a capacity to attempt to bluff right up to the courthouse
steps, just to minimise their payouts etc.


> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > MN > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> >
> > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> >
> > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> >
> > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> >
> > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> >
> > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
> wern't
> > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> >
> > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> >
> > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> >
> > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> >
> > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> >
> > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> >
> > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> >
> > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > If you cant, use the small claims system.
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

Gary K > wrote in message
. au...

> Contrary to what someone without knowledge
> says, cycling is a low risk activity

Complete pack of lies as far as a road accident producing
personal injury is concerned. Just because a bike rider has
very little protection when someone inevitably does something
stupid. And its completely impossible to eliminate that real risk.

> with slightly less risk of death than car driving.

Thats just totally bogus statistics. If you only count death
in car accidents in a builtup area, and dont count those
on the open highway, the risk of death is MUCH higher
per vehicle mile with bike riding that with a car, for exactly
the same reason, minimal protection for the bike rider
when someone inevitably does something stupid.

A car accident that just produces damaged metal
can very easily result in the death of a bike rider.

> Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very
> visible at night as any who drives at night can testify.

Have fun explaining how she managed to run into the bike rider.

> Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible
> than a car" is doomed to fail for them.

Wota ****ing ******. Even motorbikes are much less
visible than cars and everyone who drives much has got
a rude surprise when one has shown up unexpectedly.

> Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent

Wrong again. It should have been obvious to the cops
whether the bike was actually being ridden on the
footpath if they had been called to the accident scene.

> and getting 2nd info from the police is even more irrelevent.
> Go to a solicitor, just for an hour consultation, wont cost much.

Much cheaper to approach the insurance company directly
first and only consider a solicitor if they tell you to bugger off.

> What he will tell you u can relay back to the husband
> (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this point)
> which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him.

And if the insurance company just pays
the claim, he's completely irrelevant.

> You can potentially get thousands
> out of them if they mess with you.

Only by risking substantial money on legal parasites.


> Rod Speed > wrote:
>
> > MN > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> >
> > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> >
> > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> >
> > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> >
> > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> >
> > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> >
> > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> >
> > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> >
> > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> >
> > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> >
> > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> >
> > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> >
> > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > If you cant, use the small claims system.

[Rod Speed]

Gary K > wrote in message
. au...

> Contrary to what someone without knowledge
> says, cycling is a low risk activity

Complete pack of lies as far as a road accident producing
personal injury is concerned. Just because a bike rider has
very little protection when someone inevitably does something
stupid. And its completely impossible to eliminate that real risk.

> with slightly less risk of death than car driving.

Thats just totally bogus statistics. If you only count death
in car accidents in a builtup area, and dont count those
on the open highway, the risk of death is MUCH higher
per vehicle mile with bike riding that with a car, for exactly
the same reason, minimal protection for the bike rider
when someone inevitably does something stupid.

A car accident that just produces damaged metal
can very easily result in the death of a bike rider.

> Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very
> visible at night as any who drives at night can testify.

Have fun explaining how she managed to run into the bike rider.

> Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible
> than a car" is doomed to fail for them.

Wota ****ing ******. Even motorbikes are much less
visible than cars and everyone who drives much has got
a rude surprise when one has shown up unexpectedly.

> Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent

Wrong again. It should have been obvious to the cops
whether the bike was actually being ridden on the
footpath if they had been called to the accident scene.

> and getting 2nd info from the police is even more irrelevent.
> Go to a solicitor, just for an hour consultation, wont cost much.

Much cheaper to approach the insurance company directly
first and only consider a solicitor if they tell you to bugger off.

> What he will tell you u can relay back to the husband
> (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this point)
> which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him.

And if the insurance company just pays
the claim, he's completely irrelevant.

> You can potentially get thousands
> out of them if they mess with you.

Only by risking substantial money on legal parasites.


> Rod Speed > wrote:
>
> > MN > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> >
> > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> >
> > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> >
> > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> >
> > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> >
> > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> >
> > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> >
> > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more interested
> > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they wern't
> > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they agreed
> > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday.
> > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no lights
> > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> >
> > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> >
> > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> >
> > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> >
> > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> >
> > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> >
> > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> >
> > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> >
> > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> >
> > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> >
> > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > If you cant, use the small claims system.

[Max]

Find yourself a lawyer. Ask Bicycle SA if they have a lawyer they
recommend. I went through a similar thing a couple of years ago,
although I had more injuries.

MN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Max]

Find yourself a lawyer. Ask Bicycle SA if they have a lawyer they
recommend. I went through a similar thing a couple of years ago,
although I had more injuries.

MN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Peter]

In article >, MN
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me.

This is normal in Adelaide. As many people who have come here since I
moved here, it's referred to as 'European rules'. Cars pull out in
front of you even if you're in a car. Everytime I get in a car in this
city I am scared to death.

<snip>

> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.

How nice.

> The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright.

Did they admit guilt?

> However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying.

A driver has a duty of car for all vehicles on the road. The lights
thing can go to causation and should you go to court you might get a
reduced payout, but it doesn't make negate their negligence.

> They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident.

Good on ya.

> So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today.

Don't forget your medical costs.

> The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company.

Uhmmm a police officer has no right giving out legal advice over a
tort.

> The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath.

If you were on the footpath how did the car hit you?

> This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.


sounds like someone's telling porkies. You could see a lawyer who can
right a very polite letter to them.

>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.

I had an incident where the woman refused to acknowledge she ran a red
light.. even when a witness told her she had. The insurance company
agreed with me.

Firstly some basics (obviously only knowing your side of the story).

Duty of Car - all vehicles has a duty of care to all others around
them. The driver when pulling out of a side street has the duty to
ensure they can do so safely.

What can you do? as suggested above I'd visit a lawyer who will write a
letter of demand. You could just claim on her insurance if you have
that information.

If you want you can sue for Negligence AND battery. The beauty of
battery is that you don't even need damages. But this may be taking
things too far.

[Peter]

In article >, MN
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me.

This is normal in Adelaide. As many people who have come here since I
moved here, it's referred to as 'European rules'. Cars pull out in
front of you even if you're in a car. Everytime I get in a car in this
city I am scared to death.

<snip>

> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.

How nice.

> The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright.

Did they admit guilt?

> However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying.

A driver has a duty of car for all vehicles on the road. The lights
thing can go to causation and should you go to court you might get a
reduced payout, but it doesn't make negate their negligence.

> They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident.

Good on ya.

> So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today.

Don't forget your medical costs.

> The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company.

Uhmmm a police officer has no right giving out legal advice over a
tort.

> The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath.

If you were on the footpath how did the car hit you?

> This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.


sounds like someone's telling porkies. You could see a lawyer who can
right a very polite letter to them.

>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.

I had an incident where the woman refused to acknowledge she ran a red
light.. even when a witness told her she had. The insurance company
agreed with me.

Firstly some basics (obviously only knowing your side of the story).

Duty of Car - all vehicles has a duty of care to all others around
them. The driver when pulling out of a side street has the duty to
ensure they can do so safely.

What can you do? as suggested above I'd visit a lawyer who will write a
letter of demand. You could just claim on her insurance if you have
that information.

If you want you can sue for Negligence AND battery. The beauty of
battery is that you don't even need damages. But this may be taking
things too far.

[Peter]

In article >, MN
> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply,
>
> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> the insurance company at all.

No you can make a claim on their policy.

>
> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.

If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow. Quite
frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd most likely get a
settlement considering the small costs.

[Peter]

In article >, MN
> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply,
>
> The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> the insurance company at all.

No you can make a claim on their policy.

>
> Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.

If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow. Quite
frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd most likely get a
settlement considering the small costs.

[The Raven]

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> I was the one that made the initial police report.

Did they charge the driver or apportion any blame?

> I would rather not use a
> solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost. The
total
> cost of the repairs is only $500.

Yes, I could see that but a decent solicitor (cough) who gives 1st meetings
free might steer you in the right direction.

> Also if it went to small claims I thought
> a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> I was the one that made the initial police report.

Did they charge the driver or apportion any blame?

> I would rather not use a
> solicitor because I am worried about how much it is going to cost. The
total
> cost of the repairs is only $500.

Yes, I could see that but a decent solicitor (cough) who gives 1st meetings
free might steer you in the right direction.

> Also if it went to small claims I thought
> a solicitor wasn't allowed in anyway.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Zig]

MN wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>

If I was you I'd go *directly* to the police.
In ANY traffic accident where a person is injured, the police must be notified.
Australian Road Rules. Rule 287 part(3)
The driver (or the driver’s representative) must also give the driver’s required
particulars, within the required time, to a police officer if:
(a) anyone is killed or *injured* in the crash; or

Added to that, she has committed an offence by not giving way to traffic (you)
from the right and needs to be told so officially langage problems or not.

If you are not already a member sign up with a group like BISA
http://www.bisa.asn.au/join.html
They offer:
"...Benefits for Members
* FREE Third party insurance cover
* FREE initial legal advice on all cycling matters...."
The insurance is not so helpful at the moment but they will give RELEVANT advice
on your legal options (not like some of the opinions you'll get here)

Good luck.
Zig

[Zig]

MN wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>

If I was you I'd go *directly* to the police.
In ANY traffic accident where a person is injured, the police must be notified.
Australian Road Rules. Rule 287 part(3)
The driver (or the driver’s representative) must also give the driver’s required
particulars, within the required time, to a police officer if:
(a) anyone is killed or *injured* in the crash; or

Added to that, she has committed an offence by not giving way to traffic (you)
from the right and needs to be told so officially langage problems or not.

If you are not already a member sign up with a group like BISA
http://www.bisa.asn.au/join.html
They offer:
"...Benefits for Members
* FREE Third party insurance cover
* FREE initial legal advice on all cycling matters...."
The insurance is not so helpful at the moment but they will give RELEVANT advice
on your legal options (not like some of the opinions you'll get here)

Good luck.
Zig

[Sambo]

"Peter" > wrote in message news:140920031753019855%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net...
> In article >, MN
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply,
> >
> > The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> > holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> > the insurance company at all.

> No you can make a claim on their policy.

Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.

> > Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> > the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> > they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.

> If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow.
> Quite frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd
> most likely get a settlement considering the small costs.

And it makes more sense to use the small claims system if you can.

[Sambo]

"Peter" > wrote in message news:140920031753019855%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net...
> In article >, MN
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply,
> >
> > The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> > holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> > the insurance company at all.

> No you can make a claim on their policy.

Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.

> > Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> > the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> > they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.

> If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow.
> Quite frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd
> most likely get a settlement considering the small costs.

And it makes more sense to use the small claims system if you can.

[John Doe]

I have worked in public liability situations. Insurance companies are very
fast to settle small claims unless they think they really can win in court.
What tends to happen is that if its a small claim then they like to settle
quickly to decrease the likelihood you will get someone in your ear telling
you that your back must really be sore and get a couple of Dr Nicks in on
the game.

I would go that direction before consulting legal advice. If you are just
in it for a fair amount then I would do that. I expect you got yourself
thouroughly checked out by your Doctor. You dont want to be stuck with any
future problems. You should do this before signing any waivers. Its a real
shame you didnt call the police.

Pete

[John Doe]

I have worked in public liability situations. Insurance companies are very
fast to settle small claims unless they think they really can win in court.
What tends to happen is that if its a small claim then they like to settle
quickly to decrease the likelihood you will get someone in your ear telling
you that your back must really be sore and get a couple of Dr Nicks in on
the game.

I would go that direction before consulting legal advice. If you are just
in it for a fair amount then I would do that. I expect you got yourself
thouroughly checked out by your Doctor. You dont want to be stuck with any
future problems. You should do this before signing any waivers. Its a real
shame you didnt call the police.

Pete

[Gags]

I was hit earlier in the year......similar situation but I was only doing
about 35 km/h and it was the middle of the day. I ended up with big bruise
on my calf where the car's bumper hit me, a bigger bruise on my bum where I
hit the road, and a slightly sore neck and back. I didn't report it to the
police (wasn't aware that I had to ) as the guy was pretty cool about it and
immediately signed a statement admitting that it was entirely his fault and
that he would pay any damages. He paid for my bike to get fixed and a new
helmet (head hit the ground pretty hard) and I was pretty happy to let it go
at that. My bruises and the soreness in my back and neck were all gone
within a couple of weeks (I probably have had worse playing footy)

I have since had a few mates tell me that I should have just layed on the
road and faked an injury to my back/neck so that I could have then
subsequently sued the guy. Although it might sound like a quick and easy
way to a payout, I was pretty glad that I didn't pursue that path because
apart from being dishonest, I would hate to be one of these guys who ends up
on A Current Affair or something when a truck drives past my house and
"accidently" drops a bag of cement which I then throw on my shoulder and put
in the shed. I told these guys that it was a bull**** attitude to take but
I think that it is one that is prevalent in todays society (These guys also
reckon that if they were waiting to cross the road when that accident
happened on Hoddle St (two trams and a bus collided), they would have run to
get on one of the vehicles so that they could then have gotten off holding
their necks..............

I am not suggesting that MN is just looking for easy money (appears he was
only after money for bike and watch repairs), but it is my opinion that if
he is after compensation for injuries, that the amount should be
commensurate with the extent of the injuries. I am pretty well against
these "legalOs" who work on a "No win, no fee" basis as I believe they
convince the victims of accidents to claim for more than is necessary and
fair. (When I was in Canberra there were some pretty dodgy looking
advertisments for this type of legal representation).

Anyway, I'll get off the soapbox now.

Gags

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> I have worked in public liability situations. Insurance companies are
very
> fast to settle small claims unless they think they really can win in
court.
> What tends to happen is that if its a small claim then they like to settle
> quickly to decrease the likelihood you will get someone in your ear
telling
> you that your back must really be sore and get a couple of Dr Nicks in on
> the game.
>
> I would go that direction before consulting legal advice. If you are just
> in it for a fair amount then I would do that. I expect you got yourself
> thouroughly checked out by your Doctor. You dont want to be stuck with
any
> future problems. You should do this before signing any waivers. Its a
real
> shame you didnt call the police.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Gags]

I was hit earlier in the year......similar situation but I was only doing
about 35 km/h and it was the middle of the day. I ended up with big bruise
on my calf where the car's bumper hit me, a bigger bruise on my bum where I
hit the road, and a slightly sore neck and back. I didn't report it to the
police (wasn't aware that I had to ) as the guy was pretty cool about it and
immediately signed a statement admitting that it was entirely his fault and
that he would pay any damages. He paid for my bike to get fixed and a new
helmet (head hit the ground pretty hard) and I was pretty happy to let it go
at that. My bruises and the soreness in my back and neck were all gone
within a couple of weeks (I probably have had worse playing footy)

I have since had a few mates tell me that I should have just layed on the
road and faked an injury to my back/neck so that I could have then
subsequently sued the guy. Although it might sound like a quick and easy
way to a payout, I was pretty glad that I didn't pursue that path because
apart from being dishonest, I would hate to be one of these guys who ends up
on A Current Affair or something when a truck drives past my house and
"accidently" drops a bag of cement which I then throw on my shoulder and put
in the shed. I told these guys that it was a bull**** attitude to take but
I think that it is one that is prevalent in todays society (These guys also
reckon that if they were waiting to cross the road when that accident
happened on Hoddle St (two trams and a bus collided), they would have run to
get on one of the vehicles so that they could then have gotten off holding
their necks..............

I am not suggesting that MN is just looking for easy money (appears he was
only after money for bike and watch repairs), but it is my opinion that if
he is after compensation for injuries, that the amount should be
commensurate with the extent of the injuries. I am pretty well against
these "legalOs" who work on a "No win, no fee" basis as I believe they
convince the victims of accidents to claim for more than is necessary and
fair. (When I was in Canberra there were some pretty dodgy looking
advertisments for this type of legal representation).

Anyway, I'll get off the soapbox now.

Gags

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> I have worked in public liability situations. Insurance companies are
very
> fast to settle small claims unless they think they really can win in
court.
> What tends to happen is that if its a small claim then they like to settle
> quickly to decrease the likelihood you will get someone in your ear
telling
> you that your back must really be sore and get a couple of Dr Nicks in on
> the game.
>
> I would go that direction before consulting legal advice. If you are just
> in it for a fair amount then I would do that. I expect you got yourself
> thouroughly checked out by your Doctor. You dont want to be stuck with
any
> future problems. You should do this before signing any waivers. Its a
real
> shame you didnt call the police.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Seppo Renfors]

MN wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

Interesting that you don't tell the usual details - eg who had right
of way?

>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.


I would take it to a Small Claims Court. Let them deal with the
insurance company. The insurance company can claim a right to have the
case subrogated to them - being the insurers. They may defend the case
on behalf of their client - however first before they can do so they
HAVE to admit liability and merely argue quantum. If they DON'T admit
liability they have no business in the case at all. You need to seek
reimbursement for any out of pocket medical costs, loss of wages, and
something for pain and suffering I would think, as well as for the
repair of the bike.

The cost is $60 to lodge a Civil (Small Claim) Action. This has to be
in a Court closest to where the accident occurred - the Magistrates
Court in the City in this case.

The likelihood of success..... who knows, you haven't said if you had
to give way or not. That said, you managing to get in front of the car
before being hit lends weight to you "being in the right" - this
doesn't mean 100% right. It will be a major or minor % of the total,
that depends on the day and exactly what happened.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Seppo Renfors]

MN wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

Interesting that you don't tell the usual details - eg who had right
of way?

>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.


I would take it to a Small Claims Court. Let them deal with the
insurance company. The insurance company can claim a right to have the
case subrogated to them - being the insurers. They may defend the case
on behalf of their client - however first before they can do so they
HAVE to admit liability and merely argue quantum. If they DON'T admit
liability they have no business in the case at all. You need to seek
reimbursement for any out of pocket medical costs, loss of wages, and
something for pain and suffering I would think, as well as for the
repair of the bike.

The cost is $60 to lodge a Civil (Small Claim) Action. This has to be
in a Court closest to where the accident occurred - the Magistrates
Court in the City in this case.

The likelihood of success..... who knows, you haven't said if you had
to give way or not. That said, you managing to get in front of the car
before being hit lends weight to you "being in the right" - this
doesn't mean 100% right. It will be a major or minor % of the total,
that depends on the day and exactly what happened.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Seppo Renfors]

Peter wrote:
>
> In article >, MN
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply,
> >
> > The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> > holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> > the insurance company at all.
>
> No you can make a claim on their policy.
>
> >
> > Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> > the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> > they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.
>
> If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow. Quite
> frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd most likely get a
> settlement considering the small costs.

Don't bet on it! Just finished suing Yellow Cabs in Adelaide on behalf
of my son (who was rear ended while stationary). They initially
agreed, then refused to pay full amount of repair (on instruction from
the purported insurance Co no doubt) - a portion being the muffler
replacement cost. The difference was $234 total between the offer and
amount sought. They lost.....

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Seppo Renfors]

Peter wrote:
>
> In article >, MN
> > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply,
> >
> > The insurance company is AAMI. I was under the impression that the policy
> > holder is the one that needs to make the claim. They are refusing to contact
> > the insurance company at all.
>
> No you can make a claim on their policy.
>
> >
> > Also what happens if they give their he was riding on the footpath story to
> > the insurance company is it likely they will then just refuse the claim. If
> > they did I assume suing the the insurance company would be harder to win.
>
> If you sued them, they'd just bring in the insurers anyhow. Quite
> frankly with such a small cost, if you did sue, you'd most likely get a
> settlement considering the small costs.

Don't bet on it! Just finished suing Yellow Cabs in Adelaide on behalf
of my son (who was rear ended while stationary). They initially
agreed, then refused to pay full amount of repair (on instruction from
the purported insurance Co no doubt) - a portion being the muffler
replacement cost. The difference was $234 total between the offer and
amount sought. They lost.....

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Phil Allison]

"Seppo Renfors" > wrote in message
...


> I would take it to a Small Claims Court. Let them deal with the
> insurance company. The insurance company can claim a right to have the
> case subrogated to them - being the insurers.


** That is not subrogation.


> They may defend the case on behalf of their client - however first before
they can do so they
> HAVE to admit liability and merely argue quantum.


** What rot.

The insurers are obliged by the policy to defend the insured - or else
deny the policy for some reason.


> If they DON'T admit liability they have no business in the case at all.


** See above.



............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Seppo Renfors" > wrote in message
...


> I would take it to a Small Claims Court. Let them deal with the
> insurance company. The insurance company can claim a right to have the
> case subrogated to them - being the insurers.


** That is not subrogation.


> They may defend the case on behalf of their client - however first before
they can do so they
> HAVE to admit liability and merely argue quantum.


** What rot.

The insurers are obliged by the policy to defend the insured - or else
deny the policy for some reason.


> If they DON'T admit liability they have no business in the case at all.


** See above.



............ Phil

[Rod Speed]

Septic Renfors > wrote in
message ...
> MN wrote

>> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
>> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40
>> at night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
>> a car pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
>> bonnet slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel.
>> Myself and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed
>> upside down on the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing
>> a backpack with my work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

> Interesting that you don't tell the usual details - eg who had right of way?

Too obvious to need mentioning.

No wonder that senior judge took such a spectacular
dump on you for our endless amusement.

>> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
>> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
>> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
>> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
>> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
>> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
>> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
>> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
>> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
>> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
>> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
>> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
>> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
>> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
>> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
>> claims she did see me on the footpath.

>> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
>> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
>> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
>> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
>> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
>> english is only slightly better.

> I would take it to a Small Claims Court.
> Let them deal with the insurance company.

They wont bother with the insurance company, only with the wogs.

> The insurance company can claim a right to have
> the case subrogated to them - being the insurers.

Wrong. As always.

> They may defend the case on behalf of their client -
> however first before they can do so they HAVE to admit
> liability and merely argue quantum. If they DON'T admit
> liability they have no business in the case at all.

> You need to seek reimbursement for any out of pocket
> medical costs, loss of wages, and something for pain and
> suffering I would think, as well as for the repair of the bike.

Dont need to if you dont think that is reasonable.

> The cost is $60 to lodge a Civil (Small Claim) Action.
> This has to be in a Court closest to where the accident
> occurred - the Magistrates Court in the City in this case.

> The likelihood of success..... who knows,
> you haven't said if you had to give way or not.

Too obvious to need mentioning.

No wonder that senior judge took such a spectacular
dump on you for our endless amusement.

> That said, you managing to get in front of the car before being hit
> lends weight to you "being in the right" - this doesn't mean 100% right.

Wrong. As always with the situation being discussed.

> It will be a major or minor % of the total, that
> depends on the day and exactly what happened.

Wota ****ing ******.

[Rod Speed]

Septic Renfors > wrote in
message ...
> MN wrote

>> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
>> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40
>> at night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
>> a car pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
>> bonnet slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel.
>> Myself and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed
>> upside down on the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing
>> a backpack with my work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.

> Interesting that you don't tell the usual details - eg who had right of way?

Too obvious to need mentioning.

No wonder that senior judge took such a spectacular
dump on you for our endless amusement.

>> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
>> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
>> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
>> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
>> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
>> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
>> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
>> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
>> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
>> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
>> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
>> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
>> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
>> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
>> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
>> claims she did see me on the footpath.

>> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
>> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
>> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
>> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
>> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
>> english is only slightly better.

> I would take it to a Small Claims Court.
> Let them deal with the insurance company.

They wont bother with the insurance company, only with the wogs.

> The insurance company can claim a right to have
> the case subrogated to them - being the insurers.

Wrong. As always.

> They may defend the case on behalf of their client -
> however first before they can do so they HAVE to admit
> liability and merely argue quantum. If they DON'T admit
> liability they have no business in the case at all.

> You need to seek reimbursement for any out of pocket
> medical costs, loss of wages, and something for pain and
> suffering I would think, as well as for the repair of the bike.

Dont need to if you dont think that is reasonable.

> The cost is $60 to lodge a Civil (Small Claim) Action.
> This has to be in a Court closest to where the accident
> occurred - the Magistrates Court in the City in this case.

> The likelihood of success..... who knows,
> you haven't said if you had to give way or not.

Too obvious to need mentioning.

No wonder that senior judge took such a spectacular
dump on you for our endless amusement.

> That said, you managing to get in front of the car before being hit
> lends weight to you "being in the right" - this doesn't mean 100% right.

Wrong. As always with the situation being discussed.

> It will be a major or minor % of the total, that
> depends on the day and exactly what happened.

Wota ****ing ******.

[Megan Webb]

You did report the crash to the police?
Any witnesses? (not that having witnesses is any help at times...)

Start a log of everything that has happend. Write in it when you
call/speak with police/motorist/doctors etc. Anything to do with the
crash. You _will_ need this if there is any problems - like court
cases. Note down what is said.

Don't rely on the cops helping. They will have their own log and be
sure that what they tell you and what they record in theirs can be
different.

good luck.



"MN" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N

[Megan Webb]

You did report the crash to the police?
Any witnesses? (not that having witnesses is any help at times...)

Start a log of everything that has happend. Write in it when you
call/speak with police/motorist/doctors etc. Anything to do with the
crash. You _will_ need this if there is any problems - like court
cases. Note down what is said.

Don't rely on the cops helping. They will have their own log and be
sure that what they tell you and what they record in theirs can be
different.

good luck.



"MN" > wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N

[rickster]

"Gags" > wrote in message >...
>[snip]

>
> I have since had a few mates tell me that I should have just layed on the
> road and faked an injury to my back/neck so that I could have then
> subsequently sued the guy.

In Victoria, you can't sue a motorist, you sue the TAC, as the driver
is covered by TAC insurance, and those guys have lawyers coming out of
their ass. You don't want to play funny buggas with them, 'cos in my
experience, they'll nail you.

I am not sure what the situation is in other states. I think you've
done the right thing (except for going to the cops, ALWAYS go to the
police). Thank God/Buddah/etc that your OK.

[rickster]

"Gags" > wrote in message >...
>[snip]

>
> I have since had a few mates tell me that I should have just layed on the
> road and faked an injury to my back/neck so that I could have then
> subsequently sued the guy.

In Victoria, you can't sue a motorist, you sue the TAC, as the driver
is covered by TAC insurance, and those guys have lawyers coming out of
their ass. You don't want to play funny buggas with them, 'cos in my
experience, they'll nail you.

I am not sure what the situation is in other states. I think you've
done the right thing (except for going to the cops, ALWAYS go to the
police). Thank God/Buddah/etc that your OK.

[Luther Blissett]

If you were hit on the way home from work then you will be covered for
your injuries by workers compensation. Tell your employer, who should
inform his insurer. That way you can get your ankle checked out properly
and get physiotherapy if required. You only get one body, so you should
look after it properly. You may have to settle for bike damages
separately, but you should tell compo before you commence any legal
action on your own.

- Mark

[Luther Blissett]

If you were hit on the way home from work then you will be covered for
your injuries by workers compensation. Tell your employer, who should
inform his insurer. That way you can get your ankle checked out properly
and get physiotherapy if required. You only get one body, so you should
look after it properly. You may have to settle for bike damages
separately, but you should tell compo before you commence any legal
action on your own.

- Mark

[Peter]

In article >, Sambo
> wrote:
> > No you can make a claim on their policy.
>
> Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.
>

Rodbot.. if you're going to tell me I'm wrong then perhaps you can
actually state why instead of agreeing with me in your next sentence.
Or are you just used to telling people they're wrong, like a reflex
action???

[Peter]

In article >, Sambo
> wrote:
> > No you can make a claim on their policy.
>
> Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.
>

Rodbot.. if you're going to tell me I'm wrong then perhaps you can
actually state why instead of agreeing with me in your next sentence.
Or are you just used to telling people they're wrong, like a reflex
action???

[John Doe]

: these "legalOs" who work on a "No win, no fee" basis as I believe they
: convince the victims of accidents to claim for more than is necessary and
: fair.

The dodgys are everywhere. I was certainly not giving him an opinion that
he should do anything dodgy but I was hit by a truck (albeit low speed but I
was bruised and scratched up). I went straight away and got a medical. It
was all clear so I only claimed for damage to the bike. What I was saying
is that he definitely should get a medical because he may have some problem
that may cost him thousands in the future. I also HATE HATE HATE those
dishonest solicitors and people that scam money for nothing.

Peter

[John Doe]

: these "legalOs" who work on a "No win, no fee" basis as I believe they
: convince the victims of accidents to claim for more than is necessary and
: fair.

The dodgys are everywhere. I was certainly not giving him an opinion that
he should do anything dodgy but I was hit by a truck (albeit low speed but I
was bruised and scratched up). I went straight away and got a medical. It
was all clear so I only claimed for damage to the bike. What I was saying
is that he definitely should get a medical because he may have some problem
that may cost him thousands in the future. I also HATE HATE HATE those
dishonest solicitors and people that scam money for nothing.

Peter

[Mike Doyle]

I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.

I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
(and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.
You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
means that you have written evidence of what happened.

Now...what can you do?

Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to
do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.
They insist its a privacy thing. Give this a go. Make sure you have
everything in writing.

Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a
chance to view the damage. Give them 10 days to pay up, or you will
take it to court.

Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.

If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince
the insrance company they were at fault.

In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform
NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of accident,
copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed it on to NRMA.
NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them
to represent him in court, but they refused to.

After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you
are resonable), and then make a claim in small claims court. That will
cost $100 or so, and they will be served. At this point they will pass
it on to their insurance company.

Good luck.

Mike

MN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Mike Doyle]

I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.

I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
(and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.
You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
means that you have written evidence of what happened.

Now...what can you do?

Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to
do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.
They insist its a privacy thing. Give this a go. Make sure you have
everything in writing.

Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a
chance to view the damage. Give them 10 days to pay up, or you will
take it to court.

Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.

If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince
the insrance company they were at fault.

In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform
NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of accident,
copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed it on to NRMA.
NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them
to represent him in court, but they refused to.

After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you
are resonable), and then make a claim in small claims court. That will
cost $100 or so, and they will be served. At this point they will pass
it on to their insurance company.

Good luck.

Mike

MN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[plonker shafter]

"Peter" > wrote in message news:150920031035459301%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net...
> In article >, Sambo
> > wrote:
> > > No you can make a claim on their policy.
> >
> > Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.
> >
>
> Rodbot.. if you're going to tell me I'm wrong
> then perhaps you can actually state why

I did, ****wit.

All the rest of your desperate attempt to bull**** your
way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs.

[plonker shafter]

"Peter" > wrote in message news:150920031035459301%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net...
> In article >, Sambo
> > wrote:
> > > No you can make a claim on their policy.
> >
> > Wrong. You can certainly make a claim on them via their insurance company tho.
> >
>
> Rodbot.. if you're going to tell me I'm wrong
> then perhaps you can actually state why

I did, ****wit.

All the rest of your desperate attempt to bull**** your
way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs.

[Andrew Morris]

Hi,

I would go and make a police report as well, to cover yourself off from the
legal angle.

Realistically, the police should be issuing a traffic infringement against
the motorist. Was the damage to her car on the front, or the side? That
can be an indication as to how you were hit...

Hope the ankle comes good soon....

Cheers,

Andrew
"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Andrew Morris]

Hi,

I would go and make a police report as well, to cover yourself off from the
legal angle.

Realistically, the police should be issuing a traffic infringement against
the motorist. Was the damage to her car on the front, or the side? That
can be an indication as to how you were hit...

Hope the ankle comes good soon....

Cheers,

Andrew
"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Jock]

Get the cops to charge the driver.
Lodge a CTP and Damages insurance claim
Write down all the details of the accident from time of accident to present
and on..
Document all calls, conversations, people you speak to (esp insco's)
You were in the right, however, you need to prepare for all the stupid and
unskilled motorists and pedestrians who crawl this earth. We are catering
to the lowest common denominator.
You will get damages paid probably for the car thing and if you have a scar
etc. you may get some 3rd party thing. - You won't buy a house but you might
get enough to replace those brown nicks!
Jock

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Jock]

Get the cops to charge the driver.
Lodge a CTP and Damages insurance claim
Write down all the details of the accident from time of accident to present
and on..
Document all calls, conversations, people you speak to (esp insco's)
You were in the right, however, you need to prepare for all the stupid and
unskilled motorists and pedestrians who crawl this earth. We are catering
to the lowest common denominator.
You will get damages paid probably for the car thing and if you have a scar
etc. you may get some 3rd party thing. - You won't buy a house but you might
get enough to replace those brown nicks!
Jock

"MN" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty
> enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago. Riding home at about 6.40 at
> night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide) a car
> pulled out of a side street straight into me. The middle of the cars
bonnet
> slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself and
> the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
on
> the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with
my
> work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
>
> Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the
> hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next
day
> she and her husband were around my house claiming they wanted to see if I
> was alright. However they were more interested in informing me that since
I
> had no lights it was my fault and they wern't paying. They soon shut up
when
> I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front light
smashed
> from the accident. So they agreed to either pay or claim insurance
depending
> on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for
> my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it to
them
> today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the
police
> told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or
> contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he now claims
I
> was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true considering the
speed
> I was travelling and the distance I ride everyday. Also how could the
driver
> know if one minute she claims I had no lights and she didn't see me but
now
> claims she did see me on the footpath.
>
> Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience
> in a similar situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her). I
> estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000. The driver was the
only
> occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance. However she can
> barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> english is only slightly better.
>
> -M.N
>
>

[Seppo Renfors]

Mike Doyle wrote:
>
> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.
>
> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
> (and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.
> You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
> the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
> driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
> means that you have written evidence of what happened.
>
> Now...what can you do?
>
> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to
> do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.
> They insist its a privacy thing.

THAT is a bluff!! A third party CAN make a claim against an insured -
or take the insurer to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Limited
(IEC) for investigation and determination (it will cost the insurer
$1400 to have the case investigated by them, win or lose)

http://www.iecltd.com.au

> Give this a go. Make sure you have
> everything in writing.
>
> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a
> chance to view the damage. Give them 10 days to pay up, or you will
> take it to court.

This may be a better option. Details are here:
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/index.html

The form is here:
http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
> to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
> official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.
>
> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince
> the insrance company they were at fault.
>
> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform
> NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of accident,
> copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed it on to NRMA.
> NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them
> to represent him in court, but they refused to.
>
> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you
> are resonable), and then make a claim in small claims court. That will
> cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee. A solicitor will
want over $100 to prepare a claim - A claim need not be prepared by a
solicitor. It isn't of great importance to the case in any event in a
small claims court.

> At this point they will pass
> it on to their insurance company.
>
> Good luck.

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Seppo Renfors]

Mike Doyle wrote:
>
> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.
>
> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
> (and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.
> You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
> the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
> driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
> means that you have written evidence of what happened.
>
> Now...what can you do?
>
> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able to
> do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.
> They insist its a privacy thing.

THAT is a bluff!! A third party CAN make a claim against an insured -
or take the insurer to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints Limited
(IEC) for investigation and determination (it will cost the insurer
$1400 to have the case investigated by them, win or lose)

http://www.iecltd.com.au

> Give this a go. Make sure you have
> everything in writing.
>
> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand. Give them a
> chance to view the damage. Give them 10 days to pay up, or you will
> take it to court.

This may be a better option. Details are here:
http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/index.html

The form is here:
http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
> to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
> official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.
>
> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only need to convince
> the insrance company they were at fault.
>
> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to inform
> NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of accident,
> copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed it on to NRMA.
> NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did say he wanted them
> to represent him in court, but they refused to.
>
> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand (to show you
> are resonable), and then make a claim in small claims court. That will
> cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee. A solicitor will
want over $100 to prepare a claim - A claim need not be prepared by a
solicitor. It isn't of great importance to the case in any event in a
small claims court.

> At this point they will pass
> it on to their insurance company.
>
> Good luck.

[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rod Speed]

Septic Renfors > wrote in
message ...
> Mike Doyle wrote

>> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.

>> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
>> (and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.

>> You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
>> the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
>> driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
>> means that you have written evidence of what happened.

>> Now...what can you do?

>> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able
>> to do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.

>> They insist its a privacy thing.

> THAT is a bluff!!

Not when they say they arent prepared to deal with you.

> A third party CAN make a claim against an insured

Complete and utter drivel. Legally its an issue between the two
partys to the accident. The insurance company can CHOOSE
to deal directly with the claimant, but they dont have to do that.

> or take the insurer to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints
> Limited (IEC) for investigation and determination

Wrong. They aint a party to the insurance policy.

> (it will cost the insurer $1400 to have the
> case investigated by them, win or lose)

They wont investigate it at all, just tell you to bugger off if the
insurance company chooses to not deal with the claimant directly.

> http://www.iecltd.com.au

>> Give this a go. Make sure you have everything in writing.

>> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand.
>> Give them a chance to view the damage. Give them
>> 10 days to pay up, or you will take it to court.

> This may be a better option. Details are here:
> http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/index.html

> The form is here:
> http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

>> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
>> to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
>> official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.

>> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only
>> need to convince the insrance company they were at fault.

>> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to
>> inform NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of
>> accident, copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed
>> it on to NRMA. NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did
>> say he wanted them to represent him in court, but they refused to.

>> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand
>> (to show you are resonable), and then make a claim in small
>> claims court. That will cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

> The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee.
> A solicitor will want over $100 to prepare a claim
> - A claim need not be prepared by a solicitor. It isn't of great
> importance to the case in any event in a small claims court.

>> At this point they will pass
>> it on to their insurance company.

>> Good luck.

[Rod Speed]

Septic Renfors > wrote in
message ...
> Mike Doyle wrote

>> I had a similar experiance on my motorbike about 12 months ago.

>> I know you don't wanna hear this, but you should have called the police
>> (and ambulance). You had just been in a car accident, bare skin VS car.

>> You were injured, possibly badly. If you are taken away by ambulance,
>> the police will almost always press charges. Generally it will be a Neg
>> driving charge against whoever was at fault. At the very least, it
>> means that you have written evidence of what happened.

>> Now...what can you do?

>> Some people are suggesting claiming on their policy. You may be able
>> to do this, but not all insurance companies will allow you to. NRMA won't.

>> They insist its a privacy thing.

> THAT is a bluff!!

Not when they say they arent prepared to deal with you.

> A third party CAN make a claim against an insured

Complete and utter drivel. Legally its an issue between the two
partys to the accident. The insurance company can CHOOSE
to deal directly with the claimant, but they dont have to do that.

> or take the insurer to the Insurance Inquiries and Complaints
> Limited (IEC) for investigation and determination

Wrong. They aint a party to the insurance policy.

> (it will cost the insurer $1400 to have the
> case investigated by them, win or lose)

They wont investigate it at all, just tell you to bugger off if the
insurance company chooses to not deal with the claimant directly.

> http://www.iecltd.com.au

>> Give this a go. Make sure you have everything in writing.

>> Secondly, write to the person with a letter of demand.
>> Give them a chance to view the damage. Give them
>> 10 days to pay up, or you will take it to court.

> This may be a better option. Details are here:
> http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/community/going_to_court/index.html

> The form is here:
> http://www.elodgement.courts.sa.gov.au

>> Generally at this point they have a choice of calling your bluff, going
>> to court alone, or going to their insurance company. Make the letter
>> official, and generally people will pass it on to their insurance company.

>> If they pass it on to the insurance company, you only
>> need to convince the insrance company they were at fault.

>> In my case, the driver refused to admit liability, and refused to
>> inform NRMA. I sent him a letter of demand with description of
>> accident, copy of police report, and quotes for repairs. He passed
>> it on to NRMA. NRMA paid without question. The lady at NRMA did
>> say he wanted them to represent him in court, but they refused to.

>> After 10 days, consider sending another letter of demand
>> (to show you are resonable), and then make a claim in small
>> claims court. That will cost $100 or so, and they will be served.

> The cost is $60 as I have said for lodgement fee.
> A solicitor will want over $100 to prepare a claim
> - A claim need not be prepared by a solicitor. It isn't of great
> importance to the case in any event in a small claims court.

>> At this point they will pass
>> it on to their insurance company.

>> Good luck.

[Dave Proctor]

Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
(Gary K) wrote:

>Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
>activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
>bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
>night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
>car" is doomed to fail for them.

Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
aware" when driving.

Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
non-existent.

=========

Dave

Don't Drink Drive....
It's A Laundry Detergent

[Dave Proctor]

Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
(Gary K) wrote:

>Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
>activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
>bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
>night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
>car" is doomed to fail for them.

Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
aware" when driving.

Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
non-existent.

=========

Dave

Don't Drink Drive....
It's A Laundry Detergent

[Peter]

In article >, Dave Proctor
> wrote:

> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> aware" when driving.

So am I... but tell you what.. I wish a lot more cyclists were car
aware. Some seem to take the attitude that the road rules don't apply
to them.

[Peter]

In article >, Dave Proctor
> wrote:

> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> aware" when driving.

So am I... but tell you what.. I wish a lot more cyclists were car
aware. Some seem to take the attitude that the road rules don't apply
to them.

[Gary K]

Dave Proctor > wrote:

> Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> (Gary K) wrote:
>
> >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> >car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> aware" when driving.
>
> Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> non-existent.
>

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.

[Gary K]

Dave Proctor > wrote:

> Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> (Gary K) wrote:
>
> >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> >car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
> Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> aware" when driving.
>
> Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> non-existent.
>

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" >
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> is no more dangerous than driving.



** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.





............. Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" >
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> is no more dangerous than driving.



** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.





............. Phil

[Rod Speed]

"Gary K" > wrote in message .au...
> Dave Proctor > wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> > (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> > >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> > >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> > >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> > >car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> > you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> > potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> > aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> > lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> > night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> > particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> > non-existent.

> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count.

Neither does your utterly bogus 'statistics'

> How many are dead at the end of the year does.

Not when you dont allow for the vast differences in the
situations in which the two modes are done they dont.

> Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

Utterly bogus when the main cause of death in cars is
on the open road and when you compare apples with
apples, hours of activity within builtup areas, the death
rate with bikes is MUCH higher than it is with cars.

[Rod Speed]

"Gary K" > wrote in message .au...
> Dave Proctor > wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> > (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> > >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> > >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> > >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> > >car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> > you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> > potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> > aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> > lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> > night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> > particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> > non-existent.

> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count.

Neither does your utterly bogus 'statistics'

> How many are dead at the end of the year does.

Not when you dont allow for the vast differences in the
situations in which the two modes are done they dont.

> Per hour of activity, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

Utterly bogus when the main cause of death in cars is
on the open road and when you compare apples with
apples, hours of activity within builtup areas, the death
rate with bikes is MUCH higher than it is with cars.

[Gary K]

Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.
Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
bad cyclist, its not the point anyway.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" >
> > >
> >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> > is no more dangerous than driving.
>
>
>
> ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
> ?
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
>
> They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

[Gary K]

Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.
Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
bad cyclist, its not the point anyway.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" >
> > >
> >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> > is no more dangerous than driving.
>
>
>
> ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
> ?
>
> Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
>
> They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
.au...
>
> Phil Allison > wrote:
> > "Gary K" >
> > >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
> > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
>
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.


>
> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.


** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.


> No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.


** Straw man.



>Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.


** Yawn.


>But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.


** Red herring.


> Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.


** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.


> Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
> bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway


** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.




............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
.au...
>
> Phil Allison > wrote:
> > "Gary K" >
> > >
> > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
> > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
>
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.


>
> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.


** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.


> No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.


** Straw man.



>Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.


** Yawn.


>But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.


** Red herring.


> Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.


** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.


> Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
> bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway


** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.




............ Phil

[Gary K]

hehe
Gee, great points u have there.. Nothing like an intelligent debate!
I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
U and speedfreak must be married.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" > wrote in message
> .au...
> >
> > Phil Allison > wrote:
> > > "Gary K" >
> > > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
> cycling
> > > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> > >
> >
> > > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> > >
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
> statistics ?
>
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
> ?
> > >
> > > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
> >
> > Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.
>
>
> ** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.
>
>
> > No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.
>
>
> ** Straw man.
>
>
>
> >Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.
>
>
> ** Yawn.
>
>
> >But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.
>
>
> ** Red herring.
>
>
> > Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.
>
>
> ** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.
>
>
> > Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
> > bad cyclist,
>
> its not the point anyway
>
>
> ** Sure isn't.
>
> Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
>
> Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

[Gary K]

hehe
Gee, great points u have there.. Nothing like an intelligent debate!
I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
U and speedfreak must be married.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" > wrote in message
> .au...
> >
> > Phil Allison > wrote:
> > > "Gary K" >
> > > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
> cycling
> > > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> > >
> >
> > > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> > >
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
> statistics ?
>
> > > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
> ?
> > >
> > > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
>
>
> >
> > Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.
>
>
> ** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.
>
>
> > No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.
>
>
> ** Straw man.
>
>
>
> >Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.
>
>
> ** Yawn.
>
>
> >But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.
>
>
> ** Red herring.
>
>
> > Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.
>
>
> ** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.
>
>
> > Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
> > bad cyclist,
>
> its not the point anyway
>
>
> ** Sure isn't.
>
> Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
>
> Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.
>
>
>
>
> ............ Phil

[Rod Speed]

Gary K > wrote in message
.au...

> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
> predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
> unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
> USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

Not in built up areas they aint, liar.


> Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> > "Gary K" >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
> >
> >
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
> > ?
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ............ Phil

[Rod Speed]

Gary K > wrote in message
.au...

> Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
> predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
> unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
> USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

Not in built up areas they aint, liar.


> Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> > "Gary K" >
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> > > many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> > > is no more dangerous than driving.
> >
> >
> >
> > ** Your claim is ambiguously worded.
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
> > ?
> >
> > Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?
> >
> > They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
.au...

> hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


> Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


> Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


> I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


> Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
.au...

> hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


> Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


> Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


> I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


> Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



............ Phil

[Gary K]

u missed one.
So you & speedfreak *are* married.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" > wrote in message
> .au...
>
> > hehe
>
> ** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.
>
>
> > Gee, great points u have there..
>
>
> ** So you top posted to avoid them.
>
>
> > Nothing like an intelligent debate!
>
>
> ** When have you ever had one ??????
>
>
> > I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.
>
>
> ** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.
>
>
> > Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
>
>
>
> ** You could not disturb a sick cat.
>
>
>
> ........... Phil

[Gary K]

u missed one.
So you & speedfreak *are* married.

Phil Allison > wrote:

> "Gary K" > wrote in message
> .au...
>
> > hehe
>
> ** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.
>
>
> > Gee, great points u have there..
>
>
> ** So you top posted to avoid them.
>
>
> > Nothing like an intelligent debate!
>
>
> ** When have you ever had one ??????
>
>
> > I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.
>
>
> ** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.
>
>
> > Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
>
>
>
> ** You could not disturb a sick cat.
>
>
>
> ........... Phil

[John Doe]

I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for their POV or
is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Pete

[John Doe]

I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for their POV or
is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Pete

[Ritch]

(Gary K) wrote in message >...
> Dave Proctor > wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> > (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> > >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> > >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> > >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> > >car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> > you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> > potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> > aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> > lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> > night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> > particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> > non-existent.
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> is no more dangerous than driving.

ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.

The likelihood of injury depends on the likelihood of an accident and
the likelihood of an injury conditioned on an accident occurring. Even
if the likelihood of an accident is the same for a cyclist and
motorist (perhaps due to equal skill and luck), the cyclist is more
likely to be injured as a result of an accident than the motorist...

I might also add that cyclists are more difficult to see on the road
than a car, particularly at night. Even with headlights, it is more
difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming cyclist in the same way as
it more difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming car that has only
one functioning headlight. More difficult - yes, impossible - no. Road
users still have to drive with due care and attention, which gets back
to the original poster...

The story reads as if the motorist did not drive with due care and
attention, the result of which was a collision that injured a cyclist
and damaged his bike.

Having consulted to an insurance company, the injured cyclist serves a
writ on the driver of the car, not the insurer. When you sue someone,
they call on their insurer to defend them or indemnify them. The
insurer provides indemnity to the driver or not as it decides its
liability. In my experience, the insurer will obtain legal advice as
to whether (a) the insured person is liable, or is likely to be found
liable by a court; and (b) whether the insurer is liable to indemnify
the insured. If the answer to (a) is no, then suing the driver
directly is unlikely to succeed. If the answer to (a) is yes and (b)
is no, then you will have to sue the driver directly and they are
likely to have to pay you. This could happen if the insurer refuses
cover because, say, the driver was intoxicated at the time of the
accident. If the answer to both parts is yes, then you should get a
speedy resolution in the form of a cheque from the insurer.

Sometimes the liability is split between the insured and the plaintiff
with the proportions determined by whose actions contributed the most
to the accident. If the car failed right of way and the cyclist was
complying with all of the rules of the road, then I believe the
liability would be 100/0 on the driver's side.

Just 2 cents.
Ritch

PS. I'm sure that qualified legal persons will probably say this is
all rubbish.

[Ritch]

(Gary K) wrote in message >...
> Dave Proctor > wrote:
>
> > Whilst undoubtedly under the effects of alcohol,
> > (Gary K) wrote:
> >
> > >Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> > >activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> > >bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> > >night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> > >car" is doomed to fail for them.
> >
> > Bull****. As someone who cycles about 40km per day (not a lot, I grant
> > you, but a lot more than some) I am more than aware of the
> > potentiality of a cyclist being out there. I am extremely "cyclist
> > aware" when driving.
> >
> > Having said this, I have still collected one cyclist (riding without
> > lights at night) and nearly collected at least three others, also at
> > night. It is quite often difficult to make out th cyclist,
> > particularly if the street lighting is either sub-standard or
> > non-existent.
> >
>
> "Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
> many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
> is no more dangerous than driving.

ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.

The likelihood of injury depends on the likelihood of an accident and
the likelihood of an injury conditioned on an accident occurring. Even
if the likelihood of an accident is the same for a cyclist and
motorist (perhaps due to equal skill and luck), the cyclist is more
likely to be injured as a result of an accident than the motorist...

I might also add that cyclists are more difficult to see on the road
than a car, particularly at night. Even with headlights, it is more
difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming cyclist in the same way as
it more difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming car that has only
one functioning headlight. More difficult - yes, impossible - no. Road
users still have to drive with due care and attention, which gets back
to the original poster...

The story reads as if the motorist did not drive with due care and
attention, the result of which was a collision that injured a cyclist
and damaged his bike.

Having consulted to an insurance company, the injured cyclist serves a
writ on the driver of the car, not the insurer. When you sue someone,
they call on their insurer to defend them or indemnify them. The
insurer provides indemnity to the driver or not as it decides its
liability. In my experience, the insurer will obtain legal advice as
to whether (a) the insured person is liable, or is likely to be found
liable by a court; and (b) whether the insurer is liable to indemnify
the insured. If the answer to (a) is no, then suing the driver
directly is unlikely to succeed. If the answer to (a) is yes and (b)
is no, then you will have to sue the driver directly and they are
likely to have to pay you. This could happen if the insurer refuses
cover because, say, the driver was intoxicated at the time of the
accident. If the answer to both parts is yes, then you should get a
speedy resolution in the form of a cheque from the insurer.

Sometimes the liability is split between the insured and the plaintiff
with the proportions determined by whose actions contributed the most
to the accident. If the car failed right of way and the cyclist was
complying with all of the rules of the road, then I believe the
liability would be 100/0 on the driver's side.

Just 2 cents.
Ritch

PS. I'm sure that qualified legal persons will probably say this is
all rubbish.

[John Doe]

: ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
: injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.
:


I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard... Has anyone
actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving deaths in an
urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity. I have never been
convinced one way or other. Everyone seems to be talking about accidents
where there are multiple cars involved... does anyone consider the numerous
high speed accidents involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete blocks and
the like which seem to be a favourite of young males.

Pete

[John Doe]

: ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
: injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.
:


I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard... Has anyone
actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving deaths in an
urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity. I have never been
convinced one way or other. Everyone seems to be talking about accidents
where there are multiple cars involved... does anyone consider the numerous
high speed accidents involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete blocks and
the like which seem to be a favourite of young males.

Pete

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
> deaths in an urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

Corse they have.

> I have never been convinced one way or other.

Your problem.

> Everyone seems to be talking about accidents where there
> are multiple cars involved... does anyone consider the numerous
> high speed accidents involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete
> blocks and the like which seem to be a favourite of young males.

Corse they do, particularly with highway fatalitys.

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
> deaths in an urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

Corse they have.

> I have never been convinced one way or other.

Your problem.

> Everyone seems to be talking about accidents where there
> are multiple cars involved... does anyone consider the numerous
> high speed accidents involving telegraph poles, houses, concrete
> blocks and the like which seem to be a favourite of young males.

Corse they do, particularly with highway fatalitys.

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...

> : ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
> : injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.
> :>
> I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
deaths in an
> urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.


** Wrong analysis.

You might as well research how many folk get their heads bitten off by
putting them in a lion's mouth - find it is exceedingly few and then
insanely conclude that the activity is a safe one.





............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...

> : ummm, I think that cycling is more dangerous (as in the likelihood of
> : injury per hour exposure) than driving a car.
> :>
> I think there are a lot of "I thinks" out there in this regard...

> Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
deaths in an
> urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.


** Wrong analysis.

You might as well research how many folk get their heads bitten off by
putting them in a lion's mouth - find it is exceedingly few and then
insanely conclude that the activity is a safe one.





............ Phil

[Tim Jones]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
. au...
> Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
<...>

Just to add to this part of the thread, and add in some actual statistics.

From
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/73F5696B10A8F71DCA2569D000164394?Open&Highlight=0,bicycle
(national 1992)

59% of people drive
0.6% of people ride a motorcycle or scooter
2% of people ride a bike

From
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/A9BED16C624281FECA2569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle)
(National fatality statistics)

46% of road fatalities are from car drivers
10% of road fatalities are from motorcyclists
2% of road fatalities are from cyclists

From
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/A9BED16C624281FECA2569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle)
(National hospitalisation statistics)

42% of road hospitalisations are from car drivers
12% of road hospitalisations are from motorcyclists
5% of road hospitalisations are from cyclists

So, if car driving, motorcycling and cycling had exact the same number of
people on the road (appart from the fact that less car drivers would
dramatically reduce the incident of cycling and motorcycling injuries), you
could expect per 100 road user deaths (of these three vehicle types), there
would be:

4.3 car driver deaths
90.5 motorcycle deaths
5.2 cycling deaths

Putting cycling deaths on par with car deaths.

Similarly, there would be:

3.1 car driver hospitalisations
86.2 motorcyclist hospitalations
10.7 cyclist hospitalations

Putting cyclists over three times more likely on average to sustain an
injury requiring hospitalisation.

Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
*******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which
(opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)

All the best,

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"Gary K" > wrote in message
. au...
> Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk
> activity with slightly less risk of death than car driving. Dont worry a
> bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at
> night can testify. Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a
> car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
<...>

Just to add to this part of the thread, and add in some actual statistics.

From
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/73F5696B10A8F71DCA2569D000164394?Open&Highlight=0,bicycle
(national 1992)

59% of people drive
0.6% of people ride a motorcycle or scooter
2% of people ride a bike

From
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/A9BED16C624281FECA2569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle)
(National fatality statistics)

46% of road fatalities are from car drivers
10% of road fatalities are from motorcyclists
2% of road fatalities are from cyclists

From
(http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/A9BED16C624281FECA2569D000164396?
Open&Highlight=0,bicycle)
(National hospitalisation statistics)

42% of road hospitalisations are from car drivers
12% of road hospitalisations are from motorcyclists
5% of road hospitalisations are from cyclists

So, if car driving, motorcycling and cycling had exact the same number of
people on the road (appart from the fact that less car drivers would
dramatically reduce the incident of cycling and motorcycling injuries), you
could expect per 100 road user deaths (of these three vehicle types), there
would be:

4.3 car driver deaths
90.5 motorcycle deaths
5.2 cycling deaths

Putting cycling deaths on par with car deaths.

Similarly, there would be:

3.1 car driver hospitalisations
86.2 motorcyclist hospitalations
10.7 cyclist hospitalations

Putting cyclists over three times more likely on average to sustain an
injury requiring hospitalisation.

Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
*******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers, which
(opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)

All the best,

Tim

[John Doe]

: > I have never been convinced one way or other.
:
: Your problem.
:

Not my problem. Dont really care. Just notice that a lot of people believe
common perception is fact. Like chickens are fed hormones... 80% of the
population believe that myth despite it being banned since the 60's and the
industry is heavily audited. Will be riding non the less. I also swim in
the open ocean without shark mesh or shark deterrent. I also go snow
boarding (high rate of injury) and skiing. I also water ski. If I get
killed.. well at least I have enjoyed myself.

I suppose I could wrap myself up in a false sense of security and die of
boredom.

[John Doe]

: > I have never been convinced one way or other.
:
: Your problem.
:

Not my problem. Dont really care. Just notice that a lot of people believe
common perception is fact. Like chickens are fed hormones... 80% of the
population believe that myth despite it being banned since the 60's and the
industry is heavily audited. Will be riding non the less. I also swim in
the open ocean without shark mesh or shark deterrent. I also go snow
boarding (high rate of injury) and skiing. I also water ski. If I get
killed.. well at least I have enjoyed myself.

I suppose I could wrap myself up in a false sense of security and die of
boredom.

[John Doe]

: > Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
: deaths in an
: > urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

: ** Wrong analysis.

I think you have made the wrong analysis of what I was saying. I said PER
HOUR of activity. Like deaths per 10000 hours of riding a bike in the same
environment as 10000 hours of driving a car. That is apples with apples.

Your correct analogy of the very few putting heads in lions mouths is indeed
correct but your should have read what I asked properly by arguing something
completely different. Personally, that is without any evidence but just
perception I guess it would be safer driving a car. Especially the way I
drive. Bottom line is... Dont care. I enjoy participating in more than
ping pong sports.

[John Doe]

: > Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
: deaths in an
: > urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.

: ** Wrong analysis.

I think you have made the wrong analysis of what I was saying. I said PER
HOUR of activity. Like deaths per 10000 hours of riding a bike in the same
environment as 10000 hours of driving a car. That is apples with apples.

Your correct analogy of the very few putting heads in lions mouths is indeed
correct but your should have read what I asked properly by arguing something
completely different. Personally, that is without any evidence but just
perception I guess it would be safer driving a car. Especially the way I
drive. Bottom line is... Dont care. I enjoy participating in more than
ping pong sports.

[John Doe]

: > Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
: > *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
: > which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
:
: Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
: get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
:

"A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly the reduction in the
number of deaths due to heart attack in men expending more than 2000
kilocalories of energy each week in identified physical activity
(Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar liar
pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a small excerpt
from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long read to get through
the whole thing as these studies tend to have to be. Its primary purpose
was to discover the pros and cons from using cycling as a mode of transport
on health benefits. The reason I went looking was because I heard the
results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated the average lifespan of
a cyclist was 10 years longer. I wish I had only written down the
reference. I will know better for next time. However, I could not find in
this study this sort of metric. On the other hand it makes no mistake that
it does make a difference.

If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study
here.
http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout

"Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity but very few people
consider the consequences of their sedentary lifestyle on health. The risk
of injury requiring hospital treatment as a result of cycling is around
0.005 per 100 hours; this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."

One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial
road. Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the +
side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents (does not distinguish
whether they need hospital treatment). Now am I going to stop my sons
playing soccer or football. Not likely because its fun and I believe
overall it is good for them.

[John Doe]

: > Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
: > *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
: > which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
:
: Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
: get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
:

"A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly the reduction in the
number of deaths due to heart attack in men expending more than 2000
kilocalories of energy each week in identified physical activity
(Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar liar
pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a small excerpt
from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long read to get through
the whole thing as these studies tend to have to be. Its primary purpose
was to discover the pros and cons from using cycling as a mode of transport
on health benefits. The reason I went looking was because I heard the
results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated the average lifespan of
a cyclist was 10 years longer. I wish I had only written down the
reference. I will know better for next time. However, I could not find in
this study this sort of metric. On the other hand it makes no mistake that
it does make a difference.

If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study
here.
http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout

"Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity but very few people
consider the consequences of their sedentary lifestyle on health. The risk
of injury requiring hospital treatment as a result of cycling is around
0.005 per 100 hours; this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."

One of their other stats distinguished between arterial vs. non arterial
road. Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot more on the +
side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents (does not distinguish
whether they need hospital treatment). Now am I going to stop my sons
playing soccer or football. Not likely because its fun and I believe
overall it is good for them.

[Glen F]

> I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for
> their POV or is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting. Some previous
efforts from the archive:

http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):

Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue from an
informed perspective rather than just trading opinions.

Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):

Cyclists: 0.41
Pedestrians: 0.80
MV occupants: 0.46
Motorcyclists: 7.66

Number of deaths from head injury per million hours (Vicroads 1990 and
Federal Office of Road Safety 1992):

Cyclists: 0.19
Pedestrians: 0.34
MV occupants: 0.17
Motorcyclists: 2.9

Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours (above, plus
Queensland Health Department)

Cyclists: 2.2
Pedestrians: 2.0
MV occupants: 1.6
Motorcyclists:18.0


And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):

There are biases in all stats. And it depends what you're comparing.

Say we're comparing cycle commuting with car commuting. A significant
bias will be the fact that more fatal car crashes occur on rural roads
than on urban roads (roughly a factor of 2:1, from memory). Allowing
that total vehicle occupant-hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1
(don't know the real number), then car commuting would be only about
half as dangerous as the average car occupancy risk stats you quoted.
And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess), that
would make cycle commuting about twice as dangerous as car commuting.

Then there's a travel-time bias. A recent Brisbane study showed that
cycle commuting was on average about 25% slower than car commuting.
Hence the exposure time commuting on the bike is a bit longer, so in
terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle commuting being
about 2.5 times as dangerous as car commuting.

The surprising thing, I guess, is that even after correcting for the
various biases as carefully as possible, cycle commuting still doesn't
come out all that dangerous, compared with lots of other things we do.

Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring the cardio-
vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle. If you cycle-commute, that,
by itself is more than enough exercise to define you as non-sedentary,
from a cardiologist's viewpoint. If you car-commute, are otherwise
sedentary (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight and
over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE. At least 10 times any
commuting road trauma risk.

[Glen F]

> I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for
> their POV or is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting. Some previous
efforts from the archive:

http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):

Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue from an
informed perspective rather than just trading opinions.

Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):

Cyclists: 0.41
Pedestrians: 0.80
MV occupants: 0.46
Motorcyclists: 7.66

Number of deaths from head injury per million hours (Vicroads 1990 and
Federal Office of Road Safety 1992):

Cyclists: 0.19
Pedestrians: 0.34
MV occupants: 0.17
Motorcyclists: 2.9

Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours (above, plus
Queensland Health Department)

Cyclists: 2.2
Pedestrians: 2.0
MV occupants: 1.6
Motorcyclists:18.0


And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):

There are biases in all stats. And it depends what you're comparing.

Say we're comparing cycle commuting with car commuting. A significant
bias will be the fact that more fatal car crashes occur on rural roads
than on urban roads (roughly a factor of 2:1, from memory). Allowing
that total vehicle occupant-hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1
(don't know the real number), then car commuting would be only about
half as dangerous as the average car occupancy risk stats you quoted.
And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess), that
would make cycle commuting about twice as dangerous as car commuting.

Then there's a travel-time bias. A recent Brisbane study showed that
cycle commuting was on average about 25% slower than car commuting.
Hence the exposure time commuting on the bike is a bit longer, so in
terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle commuting being
about 2.5 times as dangerous as car commuting.

The surprising thing, I guess, is that even after correcting for the
various biases as carefully as possible, cycle commuting still doesn't
come out all that dangerous, compared with lots of other things we do.

Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring the cardio-
vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle. If you cycle-commute, that,
by itself is more than enough exercise to define you as non-sedentary,
from a cardiologist's viewpoint. If you car-commute, are otherwise
sedentary (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight and
over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE. At least 10 times any
commuting road trauma risk.

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...

> : > Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
> : deaths in an urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.
>
> : ** Wrong analysis.

>
> I think you have made the wrong analysis of what I was saying.


** Not at all - you have missed the point.

There are many things that cannot be proved by statistics since NO
relevant stats exist.



I said PER
> HOUR of activity. Like deaths per 10000 hours of riding a bike in the
same
> environment as 10000 hours of driving a car. That is apples with apples.


** NO it is NOT.

Your stats show is the present situation with cyclists - fine.

The assertion that the figures prove the activity is as safe as car
travel is WRONG.


>
> Your correct analogy of the very few putting heads in lions mouths is
indeed
> correct but your should have read what I asked properly by arguing
something
> completely different.


** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth deaths ???

Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for them and
avoid it.





................... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
...

> : > Has anyone actually done any research into Cycling deaths vs driving
> : deaths in an urban/sub-urban environment per hour of activity.
>
> : ** Wrong analysis.

>
> I think you have made the wrong analysis of what I was saying.


** Not at all - you have missed the point.

There are many things that cannot be proved by statistics since NO
relevant stats exist.



I said PER
> HOUR of activity. Like deaths per 10000 hours of riding a bike in the
same
> environment as 10000 hours of driving a car. That is apples with apples.


** NO it is NOT.

Your stats show is the present situation with cyclists - fine.

The assertion that the figures prove the activity is as safe as car
travel is WRONG.


>
> Your correct analogy of the very few putting heads in lions mouths is
indeed
> correct but your should have read what I asked properly by arguing
something
> completely different.


** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth deaths ???

Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for them and
avoid it.





................... Phil

[John Doe]

: Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring the cardio-
: vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle.


I enjoyed your argument. At least it actually had some real numbers in it.
Some of the "tis-not" "tis-so" arguers though will still go on their merry
way. I will never be convinced by primary school argument. Thanks for
going to the effort.

I enjoy riding my bike on the road and many other "more dangerous sports"
than table tennis. I still think I have pretty good odds more dangerous or
not. Lets face it. I am Australian and I am willing to gamble. :-).

Pete

[John Doe]

: Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring the cardio-
: vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle.


I enjoyed your argument. At least it actually had some real numbers in it.
Some of the "tis-not" "tis-so" arguers though will still go on their merry
way. I will never be convinced by primary school argument. Thanks for
going to the effort.

I enjoy riding my bike on the road and many other "more dangerous sports"
than table tennis. I still think I have pretty good odds more dangerous or
not. Lets face it. I am Australian and I am willing to gamble. :-).

Pete

[Rod Speed]

Glen F > wrote in message
...

>> I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence
>> for their POV or is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

> Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting.
> Some previous efforts from the archive:

> http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):

> Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue
> from an informed perspective rather than just trading opinions.

Pity about your ear to ear dog **** on the relevance of this ****:

> Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):

> Cyclists: 0.41
> Pedestrians: 0.80
> MV occupants: 0.46
> Motorcyclists: 7.66

Completely useless when you aint comparing apples with apples with
cars and cyclists particularly the situations where the fatalitys occur.

The only valid statistic would be the number of FATAL
ACCIDENTS, not corpses, and only in builtup areas
where the vast bulk of the cyclist fatalitys occur.

AND fatalitys are pretty useless too. What most people
care about is injurys that require a hospital visit etc.

> Number of deaths from head injury per million hours
> (Vicroads 1990 and Federal Office of Road Safety 1992):

> Cyclists: 0.19
> Pedestrians: 0.34
> MV occupants: 0.17
> Motorcyclists: 2.9

Also completely useless for the same reasons.

> Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours
> (above, plus Queensland Health Department)

> Cyclists: 2.2
> Pedestrians: 2.0
> MV occupants: 1.6
> Motorcyclists:18.0

Also completely useless for the same reasons.

> And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):

> There are biases in all stats.

Yes, but there isnt any need for the stats to be
as flagrantly biased as that pathetic collection.

> And it depends what you're comparing.

Yep, and those above are obviously comparing apples and oranges
with cars and cyclists particularly when the outcome being counted
happens in quite different situations most of the time with both.

> Say we're comparing cycle commuting with car commuting.
> A significant bias will be the fact that more fatal car crashes
> occur on rural roads than on urban roads (roughly a factor
> of 2:1, from memory).

Its a lot higher than that. And in fact you get few
fatalitys with cars with commuting entirely in builtup areas.

> Allowing that total vehicle occupant-
> hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1

Its nothing like that either.

> (don't know the real number), then car commuting would be only about
> half as dangerous as the average car occupancy risk stats you quoted.

It is in fact much less than that with commuting entirely in builtup areas.

> And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess),

Stupid guess in fact.

> that would make cycle commuting about
> twice as dangerous as car commuting.

You've just plucked those silly numbers out of your arse.

AND what matters much more than just fatalitys is accidents
that require a hospital VISIT, not necessarily admission too.

Thats MUCH more common with commuting cyclists than
with car commuters, just because they have very little
protection when the inevitable happens and someone
does something stupid, like not noticing the cyclist etc.

> Then there's a travel-time bias. A recent Brisbane
> study showed that cycle commuting was on average
> about 25% slower than car commuting. Hence the
> exposure time commuting on the bike is a bit longer,

Thats wrong too. By definition those that commute over the
longer distances are rather less likely to use a bike to do it,
particularly in the capital citys that have the longest commutes.

> so in terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle
> commuting being about 2.5 times as dangerous as car commuting.

Just another silly number plucked out of your arse.

> The surprising thing, I guess, is that even after correcting for the
> various biases as carefully as possible, cycle commuting still doesn't
> come out all that dangerous, compared with lots of other things we do.

'the other things we do' are completely irrelevant when
considering the substantial increased risk of a trip to the
hospital if you choose to commute on a bike instead of the car.

> Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring
> the cardio-vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle.

There isnt much evidence that bike riding helps much on that.
And it makes a lot more sense to get that exercise more safely.

> If you cycle-commute, that, by itself is more than
> enough exercise to define you as non-sedentary,
> from a cardiologist's viewpoint.

What matters is whether it helps much health wise.
Thats distinctly arguable when bike commuting exposes
you to a significantly higher risk of an accident that
requires a trip to hospital and you have the other
problem with what you breath during the commute.

> If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
> (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
> and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.

Wrong. As always.

> At least 10 times any commuting road trauma risk.

Yet another utterly bogus 'statistic'.

You cant lump in that other stuff like over 40 and
overweight JUST for those who use a car, stupid.

[Rod Speed]

Glen F > wrote in message
...

>> I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence
>> for their POV or is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

> Nope, and a proper analysis would be very interesting.
> Some previous efforts from the archive:

> http://tinyurl.com/nmap (Anthony Morton):

> Let me run some stats past you, so at least people can argue
> from an informed perspective rather than just trading opinions.

Pity about your ear to ear dog **** on the relevance of this ****:

> Number of fatalities per million hours of activity (Vicroads 1990):

> Cyclists: 0.41
> Pedestrians: 0.80
> MV occupants: 0.46
> Motorcyclists: 7.66

Completely useless when you aint comparing apples with apples with
cars and cyclists particularly the situations where the fatalitys occur.

The only valid statistic would be the number of FATAL
ACCIDENTS, not corpses, and only in builtup areas
where the vast bulk of the cyclist fatalitys occur.

AND fatalitys are pretty useless too. What most people
care about is injurys that require a hospital visit etc.

> Number of deaths from head injury per million hours
> (Vicroads 1990 and Federal Office of Road Safety 1992):

> Cyclists: 0.19
> Pedestrians: 0.34
> MV occupants: 0.17
> Motorcyclists: 2.9

Also completely useless for the same reasons.

> Hospital admissions for head injury per million hours
> (above, plus Queensland Health Department)

> Cyclists: 2.2
> Pedestrians: 2.0
> MV occupants: 1.6
> Motorcyclists:18.0

Also completely useless for the same reasons.

> And follow up http://tinyurl.com/nmay (YT):

> There are biases in all stats.

Yes, but there isnt any need for the stats to be
as flagrantly biased as that pathetic collection.

> And it depends what you're comparing.

Yep, and those above are obviously comparing apples and oranges
with cars and cyclists particularly when the outcome being counted
happens in quite different situations most of the time with both.

> Say we're comparing cycle commuting with car commuting.
> A significant bias will be the fact that more fatal car crashes
> occur on rural roads than on urban roads (roughly a factor
> of 2:1, from memory).

Its a lot higher than that. And in fact you get few
fatalitys with cars with commuting entirely in builtup areas.

> Allowing that total vehicle occupant-
> hours rural vs urban is close to 1:1

Its nothing like that either.

> (don't know the real number), then car commuting would be only about
> half as dangerous as the average car occupancy risk stats you quoted.

It is in fact much less than that with commuting entirely in builtup areas.

> And if cycle commuting dominates the cycling stats (a guess),

Stupid guess in fact.

> that would make cycle commuting about
> twice as dangerous as car commuting.

You've just plucked those silly numbers out of your arse.

AND what matters much more than just fatalitys is accidents
that require a hospital VISIT, not necessarily admission too.

Thats MUCH more common with commuting cyclists than
with car commuters, just because they have very little
protection when the inevitable happens and someone
does something stupid, like not noticing the cyclist etc.

> Then there's a travel-time bias. A recent Brisbane
> study showed that cycle commuting was on average
> about 25% slower than car commuting. Hence the
> exposure time commuting on the bike is a bit longer,

Thats wrong too. By definition those that commute over the
longer distances are rather less likely to use a bike to do it,
particularly in the capital citys that have the longest commutes.

> so in terms of total commuting risk we're now up to cycle
> commuting being about 2.5 times as dangerous as car commuting.

Just another silly number plucked out of your arse.

> The surprising thing, I guess, is that even after correcting for the
> various biases as carefully as possible, cycle commuting still doesn't
> come out all that dangerous, compared with lots of other things we do.

'the other things we do' are completely irrelevant when
considering the substantial increased risk of a trip to the
hospital if you choose to commute on a bike instead of the car.

> Of course, the biggest bias of all lies in ignoring
> the cardio-vascular risk of a sedentary lifestyle.

There isnt much evidence that bike riding helps much on that.
And it makes a lot more sense to get that exercise more safely.

> If you cycle-commute, that, by itself is more than
> enough exercise to define you as non-sedentary,
> from a cardiologist's viewpoint.

What matters is whether it helps much health wise.
Thats distinctly arguable when bike commuting exposes
you to a significantly higher risk of an accident that
requires a trip to hospital and you have the other
problem with what you breath during the commute.

> If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
> (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
> and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.

Wrong. As always.

> At least 10 times any commuting road trauma risk.

Yet another utterly bogus 'statistic'.

You cant lump in that other stuff like over 40 and
overweight JUST for those who use a car, stupid.

[John Doe]

: ** NO it is NOT.
:
: Your stats show is the present situation with cyclists - fine.
:
: The assertion that the figures prove the activity is as safe as car
: travel is WRONG.
:

Where did I make this assertion? I only just joined in because the school
yard argument is not going to sway me one way or another. I have not said
anywhere that it is as safe or even twice as dangerous as driving.

I choose to do it because it keeps me fit and yes I have had close calls as
I do over 250km's a week on urban/sub roads. I have been doing this for
some 20 years now. I have also been taken out several times but never had a
serious accident. (BTW this last paragraph is in no way indicating that I
believe that because I have not had a serious accident then it must be
safe).

Pete

[John Doe]

: ** NO it is NOT.
:
: Your stats show is the present situation with cyclists - fine.
:
: The assertion that the figures prove the activity is as safe as car
: travel is WRONG.
:

Where did I make this assertion? I only just joined in because the school
yard argument is not going to sway me one way or another. I have not said
anywhere that it is as safe or even twice as dangerous as driving.

I choose to do it because it keeps me fit and yes I have had close calls as
I do over 250km's a week on urban/sub roads. I have been doing this for
some 20 years now. I have also been taken out several times but never had a
serious accident. (BTW this last paragraph is in no way indicating that I
believe that because I have not had a serious accident then it must be
safe).

Pete

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
>>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
>>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)

>> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
>> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.

> "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> each week in identified physical activity
> (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
have come to difference conclusions on that question.

And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

> For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.

And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
general question of exercise and health benefits.

> The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.

Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

> I wish I had only written down the reference.
> I will know better for next time.

If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

> However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.

What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

> If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study here.
> http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout

> "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity

Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.

> but very few people consider the consequences
> of their sedentary lifestyle on health.

Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

> The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."

Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.

Utterly bogus.

> One of their other stats distinguished
> between arterial vs. non arterial road.

Should also include dedicated bikeways.

> Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).

Then its stupidly superficial.

> Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.

Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
>>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
>>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)

>> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
>> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.

> "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> each week in identified physical activity
> (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
have come to difference conclusions on that question.

And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

> For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.

And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
general question of exercise and health benefits.

> The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.

Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

> I wish I had only written down the reference.
> I will know better for next time.

If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

> However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.

What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

> If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full study here.
> http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout

> "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity

Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.

> but very few people consider the consequences
> of their sedentary lifestyle on health.

Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

> The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."

Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.

Utterly bogus.

> One of their other stats distinguished
> between arterial vs. non arterial road.

Should also include dedicated bikeways.

> Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).

Then its stupidly superficial.

> Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.

Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

[Laurence Dodd]

Dedicated bikeways (in Brisbane/Logan) or at least paths that have been
built for cycling by local councils (eg. Logan City) are often occupied by
pedestrians, are often narrow at points, especially corners, and are not
often built as straight as roads for equal distances, and don't usually have
good lighting (for night riding). For these reasons it is not usually safe
to travel by bicycle on these paths at speeds equal to that safely
attainable by bicycle on roads.


"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> John Doe > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
> >>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
> >>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
>
> >> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
> >> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
>
> > "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> > the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> > in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> > each week in identified physical activity
> > (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
>
> Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> have come to difference conclusions on that question.
>
> And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
>
> > For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> > liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> > small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> > read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> > to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> > from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.
>
> And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
> general question of exercise and health benefits.
>
> > The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> > results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> > the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
>
> Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
>
> > I wish I had only written down the reference.
> > I will know better for next time.
>
> If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.
>
> > However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> > other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.
>
> What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
>
> Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
>
> > If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full
study here.
> > http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout
>
> > "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity
>
> Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.
>
> > but very few people consider the consequences
> > of their sedentary lifestyle on health.
>
> Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
>
> > The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> > a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> > this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> > 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."
>
> Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
>
> Utterly bogus.
>
> > One of their other stats distinguished
> > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
>
> Should also include dedicated bikeways.
>
> > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
>
> Then its stupidly superficial.
>
> > Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> > Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.
>
> Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.
>
>
>

[Laurence Dodd]

Dedicated bikeways (in Brisbane/Logan) or at least paths that have been
built for cycling by local councils (eg. Logan City) are often occupied by
pedestrians, are often narrow at points, especially corners, and are not
often built as straight as roads for equal distances, and don't usually have
good lighting (for night riding). For these reasons it is not usually safe
to travel by bicycle on these paths at speeds equal to that safely
attainable by bicycle on roads.


"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> John Doe > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
> >>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
> >>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
>
> >> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
> >> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
>
> > "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> > the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> > in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> > each week in identified physical activity
> > (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
>
> Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> have come to difference conclusions on that question.
>
> And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
>
> > For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> > liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> > small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> > read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> > to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> > from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.
>
> And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
> general question of exercise and health benefits.
>
> > The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> > results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> > the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
>
> Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
>
> > I wish I had only written down the reference.
> > I will know better for next time.
>
> If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.
>
> > However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> > other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.
>
> What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
>
> Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
>
> > If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full
study here.
> > http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout
>
> > "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity
>
> Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.
>
> > but very few people consider the consequences
> > of their sedentary lifestyle on health.
>
> Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
>
> > The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> > a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> > this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> > 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."
>
> Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
>
> Utterly bogus.
>
> > One of their other stats distinguished
> > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
>
> Should also include dedicated bikeways.
>
> > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
>
> Then its stupidly superficial.
>
> > Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> > Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.
>
> Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.
>
>
>

[John Doe]

: Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
: have come to difference conclusions on that question.
:
: And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

References?

: Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

References?

: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
: journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

It did and you obviously have not done that much post graduate research to
say that it would be easy to find. Do you realise how many PhD's are
completed each year in the world at respected univeristies which are peer
reviewed and defended as a matter of course. Not to mention post doctoral
published works.

Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me the easy way to find
published reviewed works?

: What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
: particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
: risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

References?

:
: Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
: They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
: have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

References?

: Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
: obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

Actually according to this study and others walking has been disputed as
having that much of a benefit except power walking.


:
: Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
:
: Utterly bogus.

References?

: > One of their other stats distinguished
: > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
:
: Should also include dedicated bikeways.

We are talking about roads not bikeways and they were talking about roads.

:
: > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
: > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
: > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
:
: Then its stupidly superficial.

Well actually it sways more for your argument.
:
: Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
: whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
: injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications
at all or do you sit in some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.

[John Doe]

: Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
: have come to difference conclusions on that question.
:
: And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

References?

: Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

References?

: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
: journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

It did and you obviously have not done that much post graduate research to
say that it would be easy to find. Do you realise how many PhD's are
completed each year in the world at respected univeristies which are peer
reviewed and defended as a matter of course. Not to mention post doctoral
published works.

Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me the easy way to find
published reviewed works?

: What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
: particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
: risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

References?

:
: Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
: They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
: have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

References?

: Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
: obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

Actually according to this study and others walking has been disputed as
having that much of a benefit except power walking.


:
: Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
:
: Utterly bogus.

References?

: > One of their other stats distinguished
: > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
:
: Should also include dedicated bikeways.

We are talking about roads not bikeways and they were talking about roads.

:
: > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
: > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
: > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
:
: Then its stupidly superficial.

Well actually it sways more for your argument.
:
: Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
: whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
: injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications
at all or do you sit in some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.

[John Doe]

: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
: journal, it would be easy enough to find.

Not really that easy to find unlike your reputation.

[John Doe]

: If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
: journal, it would be easy enough to find.

Not really that easy to find unlike your reputation.

[Rod Speed]

Laurence Dodd > wrote in
message ...

> Dedicated bikeways (in Brisbane/Logan) or at least
> paths that have been built for cycling by local councils
> (eg. Logan City) are often occupied by pedestrians,

Yes, but anyone with a clue can
avoid having an accident with those.

> are often narrow at points, especially corners,

Anyone with a clue can avoid having an accident at those.

> and are not often built as straight as roads for equal distances,

Anyone with a clue can avoid having an accident
when the bikeway isnt straight for long distances.

> and don't usually have good lighting (for night riding).

So dont use them at night, stupid.

> For these reasons it is not usually safe to travel
> by bicycle on these paths at speeds equal to
> that safely attainable by bicycle on roads.

Who said anything about travelling at the same speed ?

What was being discussed was how to do cycling
for its health benefits without significantly increasing
the risk to your health by doing it on normal roads with
significant amounts of other traffic on those roads
and risking the inevitable stupidity by someone else.

The most you are likely to risk when using a dedicated
bikeway is someone's dog decides to have a go a you.
And if you've got any sense you dont ride close enough
to the larger dogs so that they are any real risk at all.


> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > John Doe > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
> > >>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
> > >>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
> >
> > >> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
> > >> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
> >
> > > "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> > > the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> > > in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> > > each week in identified physical activity
> > > (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
> >
> > Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> > have come to difference conclusions on that question.
> >
> > And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
> >
> > > For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> > > liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> > > small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> > > read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> > > to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> > > from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.
> >
> > And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
> > general question of exercise and health benefits.
> >
> > > The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> > > results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> > > the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
> >
> > Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
> >
> > > I wish I had only written down the reference.
> > > I will know better for next time.
> >
> > If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> > journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.
> >
> > > However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> > > other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.
> >
> > What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> > particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> > risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
> >
> > Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> > They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> > have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
> >
> > > If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full
> study here.
> > > http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout
> >
> > > "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity
> >
> > Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.
> >
> > > but very few people consider the consequences
> > > of their sedentary lifestyle on health.
> >
> > Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> > obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
> >
> > > The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> > > a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> > > this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> > > 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."
> >
> > Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
> >
> > Utterly bogus.
> >
> > > One of their other stats distinguished
> > > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
> >
> > Should also include dedicated bikeways.
> >
> > > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> > > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> > > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
> >
> > Then its stupidly superficial.
> >
> > > Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> > > Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.
> >
> > Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> > whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> > injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

Laurence Dodd > wrote in
message ...

> Dedicated bikeways (in Brisbane/Logan) or at least
> paths that have been built for cycling by local councils
> (eg. Logan City) are often occupied by pedestrians,

Yes, but anyone with a clue can
avoid having an accident with those.

> are often narrow at points, especially corners,

Anyone with a clue can avoid having an accident at those.

> and are not often built as straight as roads for equal distances,

Anyone with a clue can avoid having an accident
when the bikeway isnt straight for long distances.

> and don't usually have good lighting (for night riding).

So dont use them at night, stupid.

> For these reasons it is not usually safe to travel
> by bicycle on these paths at speeds equal to
> that safely attainable by bicycle on roads.

Who said anything about travelling at the same speed ?

What was being discussed was how to do cycling
for its health benefits without significantly increasing
the risk to your health by doing it on normal roads with
significant amounts of other traffic on those roads
and risking the inevitable stupidity by someone else.

The most you are likely to risk when using a dedicated
bikeway is someone's dog decides to have a go a you.
And if you've got any sense you dont ride close enough
to the larger dogs so that they are any real risk at all.


> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > John Doe > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >>> Having said all that, this doesn't include hospitalisation from lazy
> > >>> *******, and average life expectancy of cyclists vs road drivers,
> > >>> which (opinion only) would be weighted towards the cyclist ;-)
> >
> > >> Even thats a rather dubious claim. You dont necessarily
> > >> get that effect with joggers and non joggers for example.
> >
> > > "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
> > > the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
> > > in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
> > > each week in identified physical activity
> > > (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."
> >
> > Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> > have come to difference conclusions on that question.
> >
> > And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.
> >
> > > For anyone interested with some real evidence instead of the "liar
> > > liar pants on fire" type of uneducated argument then here is just a
> > > small excerpt from a study at Adelaide University. It is quite a long
> > > read to get through the whole thing as these studies tend to have
> > > to be. Its primary purpose was to discover the pros and cons
> > > from using cycling as a mode of transport on health benefits.
> >
> > And thats a mindlessly superficial comment on the
> > general question of exercise and health benefits.
> >
> > > The reason I went looking was because I heard the
> > > results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
> > > the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.
> >
> > Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.
> >
> > > I wish I had only written down the reference.
> > > I will know better for next time.
> >
> > If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> > journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.
> >
> > > However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
> > > other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.
> >
> > What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> > particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> > risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.
> >
> > Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> > They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> > have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.
> >
> > > If anyone is interested in scientific study then you can find the full
> study here.
> > > http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf/$about?OpenAbout
> >
> > > "Cycling is widely perceived to be an unsafe activity
> >
> > Depends on where you do it. Its quite safe on dedicated bikeways etc.
> >
> > > but very few people consider the consequences
> > > of their sedentary lifestyle on health.
> >
> > Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> > obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.
> >
> > > The risk of injury requiring hospital treatment as
> > > a result of cycling is around 0.005 per 100 hours;
> > > this compares with 0.19 for football, 0.13 for squash,
> > > 0.11 for basketball and netball and 0.06 for soccer."
> >
> > Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.
> >
> > Utterly bogus.
> >
> > > One of their other stats distinguished
> > > between arterial vs. non arterial road.
> >
> > Should also include dedicated bikeways.
> >
> > > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> > > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> > > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).
> >
> > Then its stupidly superficial.
> >
> > > Now am I going to stop my sons playing soccer or football.
> > > Not likely because its fun and I believe overall it is good for them.
> >
> > Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> > whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> > injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>>> "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
>>> the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
>>> in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
>>> each week in identified physical activity
>>> (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

> : Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> : have come to difference conclusions on that question.

> : And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

> References?

Go and find them for yourself.

>>> The reason I went looking was because I heard the
>>> results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
>>> the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.

> : Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

> References?

Go and find them for yourself.

> : If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> : journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

> It did

Easy to claim.

> and you obviously have not done that much post
> graduate research to say that it would be easy to find.

Guess which silly prat just got egg all over its silly little face.

> Do you realise how many PhD's are completed each
> year in the world at respected univeristies which are
> peer reviewed and defended as a matter of course.

Yep. And there might just be a reason why I do.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to grasp that that doesnt qualify as a PROPER
PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, even
if you are so stupid that you cant manage to grasp
the difference on the easy of finding with those.

> Not to mention post doctoral published works.

See above.

> Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me
> the easy way to find published reviewed works?

Never even commented on those,
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

>>> However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
>>> other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.

> : What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> : particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> : risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

> References?

Even a terminal cretin such as yourself should be able
to work out that there is an increased risk of getting
run over when cycling on public roads without needing
any references on something that obvious.

> : Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> : They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> : have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

> References?

That one you cited says that, ****wit.

> : Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> : obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

> Actually according to this study and others walking has been
> disputed as having that much of a benefit except power walking.

I just used the word energetic instead of power, ****wit.

> : Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.

> : Utterly bogus.

> References?

Record's stuck, ****wit.

> : > One of their other stats distinguished
> : > between arterial vs. non arterial road.

> : Should also include dedicated bikeways.

> We are talking about roads not bikeways

What that article is discussing is risks with cycling, cretin.

> and they were talking about roads.

Irrelevant if you have decided that cycling produces
worthwhile health benefits and are considering ways
of cycling which dont increase the risk to your health
from getting run over etc.

> : > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> : > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> : > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).

> : Then its stupidly superficial.

> Well actually it sways more for your argument.

Doesnt alter the fact that its stupidly superficial.

An accident that doesnt require hospital treatment and
just requires say repair of the bike isnt relevant to the
question being considered, health benefits of cycling.

> : Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> : whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> : injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

> You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications
> at all or do you sit in some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of
your predicament better that that pathetic effort, ****wit.

Try again.

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>>> "A cohort study of Harvard college alumni shows clearly
>>> the reduction in the number of deaths due to heart attack
>>> in men expending more than 2000 kilocalories of energy
>>> each week in identified physical activity
>>> (Paffenbarger and Hyde 1984)."

> : Pity that is just ONE study on that question and that others
> : have come to difference conclusions on that question.

> : And that one has been extensively studied over a long time now.

> References?

Go and find them for yourself.

>>> The reason I went looking was because I heard the
>>> results of a study about 6 months ago that indicated
>>> the average lifespan of a cyclist was 10 years longer.

> : Pity there are plenty that show nothing like that.

> References?

Go and find them for yourself.

> : If it did appear in a proper peer reviewed scientific
> : journal, it would be easy enough to find. Bet it didnt.

> It did

Easy to claim.

> and you obviously have not done that much post
> graduate research to say that it would be easy to find.

Guess which silly prat just got egg all over its silly little face.

> Do you realise how many PhD's are completed each
> year in the world at respected univeristies which are
> peer reviewed and defended as a matter of course.

Yep. And there might just be a reason why I do.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to grasp that that doesnt qualify as a PROPER
PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, even
if you are so stupid that you cant manage to grasp
the difference on the easy of finding with those.

> Not to mention post doctoral published works.

See above.

> Obviously you are quite learned. Can you tell me
> the easy way to find published reviewed works?

Never even commented on those,
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

>>> However, I could not find in this study this sort of metric. On the
>>> other hand it makes no mistake that it does make a difference.

> : What matters is how much of a difference it makes,
> : particularly when that particular activity involves a higher
> : risk of other medical problems like being run over etc.

> References?

Even a terminal cretin such as yourself should be able
to work out that there is an increased risk of getting
run over when cycling on public roads without needing
any references on something that obvious.

> : Thats always been the problem with team sports for example.
> : They certainly do have some health benefits BUT they also
> : have some serious health downsides in other areas as well.

> References?

That one you cited says that, ****wit.

> : Thats mindlessly superficial too when say energetic walking is one
> : obvious alternative to bike commuting and a hell of a lot safer too.

> Actually according to this study and others walking has been
> disputed as having that much of a benefit except power walking.

I just used the word energetic instead of power, ****wit.

> : Pity he ignores the obvious alternatives like walking.

> : Utterly bogus.

> References?

Record's stuck, ****wit.

> : > One of their other stats distinguished
> : > between arterial vs. non arterial road.

> : Should also include dedicated bikeways.

> We are talking about roads not bikeways

What that article is discussing is risks with cycling, cretin.

> and they were talking about roads.

Irrelevant if you have decided that cycling produces
worthwhile health benefits and are considering ways
of cycling which dont increase the risk to your health
from getting run over etc.

> : > Looking at my age group (18+ actually a hell of a lot
> : > more on the + side :-) ) Then it increases to 0.015 accidents
> : > (does not distinguish whether they need hospital treatment).

> : Then its stupidly superficial.

> Well actually it sways more for your argument.

Doesnt alter the fact that its stupidly superficial.

An accident that doesnt require hospital treatment and
just requires say repair of the bike isnt relevant to the
question being considered, health benefits of cycling.

> : Completely irrelevant to what was being discussed,
> : whether there is a substantial increased risk of significant
> : injury with bike commuting over commuting by car.

> You are always going to be right. Do you actually have any qualifications
> at all or do you sit in some room somewhere with the blinds shut all day.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of
your predicament better that that pathetic effort, ****wit.

Try again.

[Glen F]

I long ago vowed never to respond to a Rod Speed post, but allow
me just one indiscretion ... and just one rebuttal to illustrate
how idiotic he is:

> > If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
> > (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
> > and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.
>
> Wrong. As always.

Well, no, it isn't. You can find cardiovascular risk statistics
all over the Web. The average annual risk of death from heart
attack for a 45 year old male is about 0.25%. On AM's figures,
the average annual risk of road trauma death from an hour a
day of cycle commuting, 200 working days per year, is 0.008%.

[Glen F]

I long ago vowed never to respond to a Rod Speed post, but allow
me just one indiscretion ... and just one rebuttal to illustrate
how idiotic he is:

> > If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
> > (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
> > and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.
>
> Wrong. As always.

Well, no, it isn't. You can find cardiovascular risk statistics
all over the Web. The average annual risk of death from heart
attack for a 45 year old male is about 0.25%. On AM's figures,
the average annual risk of road trauma death from an hour a
day of cycle commuting, 200 working days per year, is 0.008%.

[Rod Speed]

Glen F > wrote in message
...

>>> If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
>>> (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
>>> and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.

>> Wrong. As always.

> Well, no, it isn't.

Fraid so. The risk is certainly significant, but
you're wildly exaggerating with that HUGE claim.

> You can find cardiovascular risk statistics all over the Web.

You wont find one from a reputable scientific
source that says anything like that HUGE claim.

> The average annual risk of death from heart
> attack for a 45 year old male is about 0.25%.

Says nothing about that HUGE claim.

> On AM's figures, the average annual risk of
> road trauma death from an hour a day of cycle
> commuting, 200 working days per year, is 0.008%.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you've never ever had a clue
about even the most basic statistics.

[Rod Speed]

Glen F > wrote in message
...

>>> If you car-commute, are otherwise sedentary
>>> (ie most office workers), and you're also overweight
>>> and over 40, then this risk is simply HUGE.

>> Wrong. As always.

> Well, no, it isn't.

Fraid so. The risk is certainly significant, but
you're wildly exaggerating with that HUGE claim.

> You can find cardiovascular risk statistics all over the Web.

You wont find one from a reputable scientific
source that says anything like that HUGE claim.

> The average annual risk of death from heart
> attack for a 45 year old male is about 0.25%.

Says nothing about that HUGE claim.

> On AM's figures, the average annual risk of
> road trauma death from an hour a day of cycle
> commuting, 200 working days per year, is 0.008%.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you've never ever had a clue
about even the most basic statistics.

[John Doe]

: I long ago vowed never to respond to a Rod Speed post, but allow
: me just one indiscretion ... and just one rebuttal to illustrate
: how idiotic he is:
:

I can't believe I got into an argument with him. What a waste of typing.
As soon as I did the google search I got my wife to clip me over the back of
the head for being stupid.

Pete

[John Doe]

: I long ago vowed never to respond to a Rod Speed post, but allow
: me just one indiscretion ... and just one rebuttal to illustrate
: how idiotic he is:
:

I can't believe I got into an argument with him. What a waste of typing.
As soon as I did the google search I got my wife to clip me over the back of
the head for being stupid.

Pete

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
> >
> > Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the
risk.
>
> Maybe you should get out more often.....on the road......on a bike.


** It that a death threat ??



> I could write a (small) book about the methods and strategies to cycle
> safely in traffic,


** So you admit is it inherently suicidal.



> Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and survive
tend
> to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
safest
> at first glance.


** "..... cycle in traffic and survive " ???????



Says it all really.




............... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
> >
> > Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the
risk.
>
> Maybe you should get out more often.....on the road......on a bike.


** It that a death threat ??



> I could write a (small) book about the methods and strategies to cycle
> safely in traffic,


** So you admit is it inherently suicidal.



> Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and survive
tend
> to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
safest
> at first glance.


** "..... cycle in traffic and survive " ???????



Says it all really.




............... Phil

[John Doe]

: Try again.
:

No need. I have done the google search.

[John Doe]

: Try again.
:

No need. I have done the google search.

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> u...

>
> > ** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth deaths
???
> >
> > Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for them
and
> > avoid it.

>
> Well by your definition ...


** I never gave any definition - you are seeing things.



.......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> u...

>
> > ** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth deaths
???
> >
> > Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for them
and
> > avoid it.

>
> Well by your definition ...


** I never gave any definition - you are seeing things.



.......... Phil

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe

come on... A genious like you should be able to work out my real name.

: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
:
:
I had a read of some of your stuff. Its pure gold. You are really funny.
Man you can upset some people. I can't believe people try and have you
banned.

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe

come on... A genious like you should be able to work out my real name.

: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
:
:
I had a read of some of your stuff. Its pure gold. You are really funny.
Man you can upset some people. I can't believe people try and have you
banned.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[John Doe]

: Thats not enjoyment...
:


presumptuous.

[John Doe]

: Thats not enjoyment...
:


presumptuous.

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> u...
> >
> > "Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> > > u...
> >
> > >
> > > > ** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth
deaths
> > ???
> > > >
> > > > Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for
them
> > and
> > > > avoid it.
> >
> > >
> > > Well by your definition ...
> >
> >
> > ** I never gave any definition - you are seeing things.


> Well *sheesh*! Playing with the pet ants today!

> Try this then.



** Not being a dog I do not lick whatever is placed in front of me.



> Following your description of a dangerous activity,



** There was no such descripton.


> there are plenty of people "putting there heads in the lion's mouth" in
the
> Netherlands, France, Germany and other European countries (especially in
the large cities) where cycling use is very much higher than here in Aus.



** Huh, so cyclists in Europe are also prone to attempting lion tamer
stunts ??

Is this just to prove what ****wits they are ?



> So the cyclist accident and death rates should be very much higher in
these countries?



** Hypothetical statistics are like hypothetical data - only used by
the most desperate to prove an absolute lie.





............. Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> u...
> >
> > "Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> > > u...
> >
> > >
> > > > ** What is the reason there as so few head in lion's mouth
deaths
> > ???
> > > >
> > > > Answer - because people can see how high the risk is for
them
> > and
> > > > avoid it.
> >
> > >
> > > Well by your definition ...
> >
> >
> > ** I never gave any definition - you are seeing things.


> Well *sheesh*! Playing with the pet ants today!

> Try this then.



** Not being a dog I do not lick whatever is placed in front of me.



> Following your description of a dangerous activity,



** There was no such descripton.


> there are plenty of people "putting there heads in the lion's mouth" in
the
> Netherlands, France, Germany and other European countries (especially in
the large cities) where cycling use is very much higher than here in Aus.



** Huh, so cyclists in Europe are also prone to attempting lion tamer
stunts ??

Is this just to prove what ****wits they are ?



> So the cyclist accident and death rates should be very much higher in
these countries?



** Hypothetical statistics are like hypothetical data - only used by
the most desperate to prove an absolute lie.





............. Phil

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>> Thats not enjoyment...

> presumptuous.

pathetic.

[Rod Speed]

John Doe > wrote in message
...

>> Thats not enjoyment...

> presumptuous.

pathetic.

[John Doe]

No good trying to reason Peter with someone who has no reason. I think this
maybe just another Rod Speed wanabe or one of his personalities.

BTW Watch Rod Speed come in with a reply for this one. He needs to have the
last word.

[John Doe]

No good trying to reason Peter with someone who has no reason. I think this
maybe just another Rod Speed wanabe or one of his personalities.

BTW Watch Rod Speed come in with a reply for this one. He needs to have the
last word.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe > wrote in message
: ...
: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

What are you talking about?

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe > wrote in message
: ...
: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

What are you talking about?

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe > wrote in message
: ...
: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
:
:

This is one of his Macros. There is a theory that Rod Speed is actually an
well developed AI or a dull witted person.

[John Doe]

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
: Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
: John Doe > wrote in message
: ...
: just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
:
: Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
:
:

This is one of his Macros. There is a theory that Rod Speed is actually an
well developed AI or a dull witted person.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Laurence Dodd]

I don't think Phil actually knows what cycling in traffic means. To me it
means riding on the left, while motor vehicles pass me on the right, unless
I am going faster and pass them, or take the lane on a downhill, or am
turning right. It's usually more efficient and safer than riding on the
foot-path because the road has more room, and usually better surfaces.


"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
> > >
> > > Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the
> risk.
> >
> > Maybe you should get out more often.....on the road......on a bike.
>
>
> ** It that a death threat ??
>
>
>
> > I could write a (small) book about the methods and strategies to cycle
> > safely in traffic,
>
>
> ** So you admit is it inherently suicidal.
>
>
>
> > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and survive
> tend
> > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
> safest
> > at first glance.
>
>
> ** "..... cycle in traffic and survive " ???????
>
>
>
> Says it all really.
>
>
>
>
> .............. Phil
>
>

[Laurence Dodd]

I don't think Phil actually knows what cycling in traffic means. To me it
means riding on the left, while motor vehicles pass me on the right, unless
I am going faster and pass them, or take the lane on a downhill, or am
turning right. It's usually more efficient and safer than riding on the
foot-path because the road has more room, and usually better surfaces.


"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Peter Signorini" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
> > >
> > > Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the
> risk.
> >
> > Maybe you should get out more often.....on the road......on a bike.
>
>
> ** It that a death threat ??
>
>
>
> > I could write a (small) book about the methods and strategies to cycle
> > safely in traffic,
>
>
> ** So you admit is it inherently suicidal.
>
>
>
> > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and survive
> tend
> > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
> safest
> > at first glance.
>
>
> ** "..... cycle in traffic and survive " ???????
>
>
>
> Says it all really.
>
>
>
>
> .............. Phil
>
>

[Laurence Dodd]

Stop re-posting the same message.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> John Doe > wrote in message
> ...
> just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
>
> Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
>
>

[Laurence Dodd]

Stop re-posting the same message.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> John Doe > wrote in message
> ...
> just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.
>
> Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
>
>

[Phil Allison]

"Laurence Dodd" >


> I don't think .....



** That was all you really had to say.



........... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Laurence Dodd" >


> I don't think .....



** That was all you really had to say.



........... Phil

[John Doe]

: > > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and
survive
: > tend
: > > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
: > safest
: > > at first glance.
: >


Laurence,

Phil is a troll. Its probably Rod Speed or just a wanabe. They have no real
opinion about this stuff. Their opinion is formed purely to get peoples
emotions up. You will probably see a reply to this post from Rod Speed and
or Phil Allison very soon after this as they just have automated bots
replying with when they get sick of the thread. Their only real weapon is
not evidence but common primary school type taunts to get people worked up
as their argument is illogical and lacks knowledge. You will see what I
mean in a moment as the replies come back in. From a little searching on
the groups it appears that Rod does actually possess knowledge about
electronics, comms, computers etc but only on a technical level. They are
"hackers". As in hacks without true knowledge. Who knows this rave may
even get them/him to crawl out of the cave.

bait:
I don't think that you should store seafood in the sun.

Pete

[John Doe]

: > > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and
survive
: > tend
: > > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
: > safest
: > > at first glance.
: >


Laurence,

Phil is a troll. Its probably Rod Speed or just a wanabe. They have no real
opinion about this stuff. Their opinion is formed purely to get peoples
emotions up. You will probably see a reply to this post from Rod Speed and
or Phil Allison very soon after this as they just have automated bots
replying with when they get sick of the thread. Their only real weapon is
not evidence but common primary school type taunts to get people worked up
as their argument is illogical and lacks knowledge. You will see what I
mean in a moment as the replies come back in. From a little searching on
the groups it appears that Rod does actually possess knowledge about
electronics, comms, computers etc but only on a technical level. They are
"hackers". As in hacks without true knowledge. Who knows this rave may
even get them/him to crawl out of the cave.

bait:
I don't think that you should store seafood in the sun.

Pete

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" >


** "John Doe" is the name used on tags attached to unidentified bodies in
the morgue.

It is highly ironic that you chose that name - as no doubt you fully
expect to wind up there after some truck mows you down.

Can't come too soon.




............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"John Doe" >


** "John Doe" is the name used on tags attached to unidentified bodies in
the morgue.

It is highly ironic that you chose that name - as no doubt you fully
expect to wind up there after some truck mows you down.

Can't come too soon.




............ Phil

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
John Doe > wrote in message
...
just the puerile silly **** thats all it can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

[Rod Speed]

Laurence Dudd > wrote in
message ...

> Stop re-posting the same message.

Go shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

[Rod Speed]

Laurence Dudd > wrote in
message ...

> Stop re-posting the same message.

Go shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

[Cody]

In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having
anything to do with Rod Speed he is a nutter from way back before the
Internet

http://www.rodspeed.cjb.net/

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/xaragmata/roddles.htm

regards

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gary K > wrote in message
> . au...
>
> > Contrary to what someone without knowledge
> > says, cycling is a low risk activity
>
> Complete pack of lies as far as a road accident producing
> personal injury is concerned. Just because a bike rider has
> very little protection when someone inevitably does something
> stupid. And its completely impossible to eliminate that real risk.
>
> > with slightly less risk of death than car driving.
>
> Thats just totally bogus statistics. If you only count death
> in car accidents in a builtup area, and dont count those
> on the open highway, the risk of death is MUCH higher
> per vehicle mile with bike riding that with a car, for exactly
> the same reason, minimal protection for the bike rider
> when someone inevitably does something stupid.
>
> A car accident that just produces damaged metal
> can very easily result in the death of a bike rider.
>
> > Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very
> > visible at night as any who drives at night can testify.
>
> Have fun explaining how she managed to run into the bike rider.
>
> > Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible
> > than a car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
> Wota ****ing ******. Even motorbikes are much less
> visible than cars and everyone who drives much has got
> a rude surprise when one has shown up unexpectedly.
>
> > Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent
>
> Wrong again. It should have been obvious to the cops
> whether the bike was actually being ridden on the
> footpath if they had been called to the accident scene.
>
> > and getting 2nd info from the police is even more irrelevent.
> > Go to a solicitor, just for an hour consultation, wont cost much.
>
> Much cheaper to approach the insurance company directly
> first and only consider a solicitor if they tell you to bugger off.
>
> > What he will tell you u can relay back to the husband
> > (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this point)
> > which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him.
>
> And if the insurance company just pays
> the claim, he's completely irrelevant.
>
> > You can potentially get thousands
> > out of them if they mess with you.
>
> Only by risking substantial money on legal parasites.
>
>
> > Rod Speed > wrote:
> >
> > > MN > wrote in
> > > message ...
> > >
> > > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> > >
> > > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> > >
> > > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> > >
> > > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> > >
> > > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> > >
> > > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> > >
> > > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more
interested
> > > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
wern't
> > > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they
agreed
> > > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride
everyday.
> > > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no
lights
> > > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> > >
> > > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> > >
> > > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> > >
> > > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> > >
> > > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> > >
> > > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> > >
> > > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> > >
> > > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> > >
> > > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> > >
> > > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> > >
> > > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > > If you cant, use the small claims system.
>
>

[Cody]

In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having
anything to do with Rod Speed he is a nutter from way back before the
Internet

http://www.rodspeed.cjb.net/

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/xaragmata/roddles.htm

regards

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gary K > wrote in message
> . au...
>
> > Contrary to what someone without knowledge
> > says, cycling is a low risk activity
>
> Complete pack of lies as far as a road accident producing
> personal injury is concerned. Just because a bike rider has
> very little protection when someone inevitably does something
> stupid. And its completely impossible to eliminate that real risk.
>
> > with slightly less risk of death than car driving.
>
> Thats just totally bogus statistics. If you only count death
> in car accidents in a builtup area, and dont count those
> on the open highway, the risk of death is MUCH higher
> per vehicle mile with bike riding that with a car, for exactly
> the same reason, minimal protection for the bike rider
> when someone inevitably does something stupid.
>
> A car accident that just produces damaged metal
> can very easily result in the death of a bike rider.
>
> > Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very
> > visible at night as any who drives at night can testify.
>
> Have fun explaining how she managed to run into the bike rider.
>
> > Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible
> > than a car" is doomed to fail for them.
>
> Wota ****ing ******. Even motorbikes are much less
> visible than cars and everyone who drives much has got
> a rude surprise when one has shown up unexpectedly.
>
> > Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent
>
> Wrong again. It should have been obvious to the cops
> whether the bike was actually being ridden on the
> footpath if they had been called to the accident scene.
>
> > and getting 2nd info from the police is even more irrelevent.
> > Go to a solicitor, just for an hour consultation, wont cost much.
>
> Much cheaper to approach the insurance company directly
> first and only consider a solicitor if they tell you to bugger off.
>
> > What he will tell you u can relay back to the husband
> > (u dont need the solicitor to write a letter at this point)
> > which will be sufficient to put the ****s right up him.
>
> And if the insurance company just pays
> the claim, he's completely irrelevant.
>
> > You can potentially get thousands
> > out of them if they mess with you.
>
> Only by risking substantial money on legal parasites.
>
>
> > Rod Speed > wrote:
> >
> > > MN > wrote in
> > > message ...
> > >
> > > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found
> > > > it a pretty enjoyable experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a
> > > matter of if the **** hits the fan, its a matter of when.
> > >
> > > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes.
> > > At least with a car its mostly just a bruised ego/metalwork.
> > >
> > > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40
> > > > downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd Adelaide)
> > > > a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> > >
> > > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> > >
> > > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side
> > > > with most of the damage to the rear wheel. Myself
> > > > and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over
> > > > and landed upside down on the road with the bike on
> > > > top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my
> > > > work clothes in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> > >
> > > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that
> > > would have been extremely unlikely indeed in a car.
> > >
> > > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to
> > > > the hospital where I needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle.
> > > > The next day she and her husband were around my house claiming
> > > > they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more
interested
> > > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
wern't
> > > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight
> > > > still working and front light smashed from the accident. So they
agreed
> > > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost
> > > > to fix the bike. I got a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my
> > > > watch which has a crack in the face and took it to them today. The
> > > > drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police
> > > > told him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me
> > > > or contact their insurance company. The reason for this is that he
> > > > now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is obviously not true
> > > > considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride
everyday.
> > > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no
lights
> > > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> > >
> > > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now
> > > > or if anyone has any expeience in a similar situation
> > > > (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> > >
> > > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed
> > > as you can ever be with the legal system.
> > >
> > > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> > >
> > > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> > >
> > > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal
> > > parasites pumping your pockets with such a clearcut case.
> > >
> > > > The driver was the only occupant of the
> > > > car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> > >
> > > Best to just deal with their insurance company
> > > if you can find out who the insurance company is.
> > >
> > > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly
> > > > speaking to her husband who's english is only slightly better.
> > >
> > > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it
> > > normally is. They're clearly trying every stunt they can.
> > >
> > > Contact the insurance company yourself if you
> > > can find out who the insurance company is.
> > > If you cant, use the small claims system.
>
>

[John Doe]

: In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having
: anything to do with Rod Speed he is a nutter from way back before the
: Internet

Oh I don't know. His opinion is good for a laugh. Its a total waste of
time try to *argue* with him as he is not really interested in your comment
but rather just to incite you. Oh and his mouth is a bit potty so if you
are offended by language you may want to stay away. To say its a total
waste of time having anything to do with him is a bit harsh. I find his
ranting and illogical opinion quite amusing.

Pete

[John Doe]

: In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having
: anything to do with Rod Speed he is a nutter from way back before the
: Internet

Oh I don't know. His opinion is good for a laugh. Its a total waste of
time try to *argue* with him as he is not really interested in your comment
but rather just to incite you. Oh and his mouth is a bit potty so if you
are offended by language you may want to stay away. To say its a total
waste of time having anything to do with him is a bit harsh. I find his
ranting and illogical opinion quite amusing.

Pete