I think it’s fair to say the average Scottish Cycling member is a competent, respectful cyclist and already clued up on such matters.
It’s for this reason that I start this next paragraph with a big sigh of despair… Because there are also situations where it is the discipline itself rather than individual behaviour that can spark a rumpus with insurers following an accident.
Two examples of this are the all-important “chainy” (chain gang) or time trialling.
Before I go any further let me be clear – Digby Brown firmly believes chain gangs and time trialling are safe, responsible and legitimate forms of riding. In fact a chain gang formation can more often than not be a safer and more efficient ride method on the road. Despite this, we often find that the road traffic insurers of the third party driver will try and argue that this is an unsafe riding style.
We however have the resources, knowledge, experience and reputation for overcoming unfair accusations.
Insurance companies are responsible for paying your compensation so it is in their interest to keep the amount as small as possible. Generally speaking, even if they admit liability, an insurer will use two methods to try and reduce the compensation they need to pay out:
“Contributory negligence” – when the injured person is accused of being partly responsible for the accident and/or their injuries. Whatever percentage of fault they are deemed to hold, that same percentage is deducted from the damages. So if there was a £100k case but it was established the injured person was 35% to blame, they would only receive £65k.
“The sum sued for is excessive” – when insurers accept liability but argue the value of your claim is too high.
The first one, contributory negligence, is the most important for chain gangs and time triallists to consider.
A “chainy” can often be perceived by the insurance companies to carry a degree of inherent risk with multiple riders in close proximity taking it in turns to rotate from the front to the back of the pack, and often at pace.
We’ve seen it many times where a car overtakes a group of riders and fails to leave sufficient space before cutting in sharply in front of the lead rider. With no time to react, the group crash into one another.
The insurance company will inevitably attempt to deny liability on the basis that a collision between the vehicle and the riders did not occur – they might also blame the cyclists for riding too closely together – however we know only too well that this was not the primary cause of the accident.
We will almost certainly establish liability in these cases. If it looks like we are going to be heading into a court room to argue the point, we can instruct a Cycling Expert to give expert evidence together with a Forensic Road Traffic Reconstruction expert if necessary.
Remember – motorists have a duty to carry out overtaking manoeuvres safely and allow ample space when pulling back in.
In the case of time trialists, there are instances where the insurer will try to argue that the position these riders adopt is ‘unnecessarily risky for open roads.’ As we all know, aero positions literally make your body as small as possible so your visibility to others is reduced. Many riders also keep their head low, periodically looking up, which in turn could be argued as limiting their own visibility of the road ahead. The insurance companies will also seek to argue that the cyclist is riding at an increased pace which is not appropriate for where they were at the time of an accident. Once again, CCTV, dashcam footage or witness and forensic evidence can counteract any unfavourable evidence produced by the insurance companies against the time triallist when presenting allegations of contributory negligence.
As time triallists are aware, the bike, helmet, clothing and tech also tends to come with hefty price tags and if they are damaged, the costs would be added to the value of your claim.
Interestingly, there was a recent court decision which came out of England where a motorist struck a cyclist during a time trial event. The insurers of the third party driver tried to limit liability by pointing the finger at the event organisers arguing that their risk assessment was inadequate and that they failed to put out adequate signage and marshals to warn motorists of the event. The court ultimately decided that the sole fault of the accident was the motorist’s negligence.
I could happily speak on this subject forever – it is a really helpful and interesting decision (says the lawyer) – but it once again highlights that motorists ultimately hold a duty of care to vulnerable road users.
So… how can Digby Brown protect you?
If you’re a rider who enjoys your weekly “chainy” or uses public roads for time trial training please be reassured – we are not in any way pointing fingers or attempting to spook you. We have your back. This is all just food for thought and to let you see more of what we do – and more importantly, let you know what the ‘other side’ do!
Knowledge is power and power brings assurance – so we hope you feel assured of how to protect yourself when out and about and assured that if the worst happens then you know you still have options.
Ultimately, the best way to protect yourself is to seek the help of an independent solicitor who can gather then right evidence, backed by expert reports, to show why you deserve a fair amount – this is why Digby Brown is dedicated to helping all Scottish Cycling members and their families.
Helping you recover physically, financially and emotionally so you can get back to doing something you love.