Tweet
Hi I wanted to get some other perspectives on a cycling accident I had a while back, which my solicitors decided not to run due to low prospects of success.
Essentially I was cycling home in peak hour traffic. The car in front of me had crashed into the rear of another car, which had stopped quite suddenly in the line of traffic as the driver thought a van was going to pull out, which it didn't.
As the car in front of me had crashed, and I had no idea the other car in front of it was stopping (I only realised after seeing video footage from a CCTV operating locally), I didn't manage to brake in time and crashed into the rear window of the second car, sustaining facial injuries and broken teeth.
Now I understand typically a car that hits another in a rear is 'always' held at fault, but I don't feel my solicitors took heed of case law such as Foster v Maguire & Irwell, where a cyclist riding head down who hit a parked van and trailer in the cycle lane was held to be 70% at fault rather than 100%, showing that courts tend to be more sympathetic to cyclists.
Essentially I was cycling home in peak hour traffic. The car in front of me had crashed into the rear of another car, which had stopped quite suddenly in the line of traffic as the driver thought a van was going to pull out, which it didn't.
As the car in front of me had crashed, and I had no idea the other car in front of it was stopping (I only realised after seeing video footage from a CCTV operating locally), I didn't manage to brake in time and crashed into the rear window of the second car, sustaining facial injuries and broken teeth.
Now I understand typically a car that hits another in a rear is 'always' held at fault, but I don't feel my solicitors took heed of case law such as Foster v Maguire & Irwell, where a cyclist riding head down who hit a parked van and trailer in the cycle lane was held to be 70% at fault rather than 100%, showing that courts tend to be more sympathetic to cyclists.
Comment