Crash

Originally Posted by sarah

i agree (to a certain extent). i also wonder if the accident would have happened if the driver wasn't ancient.

This is true,

It might be worth mentioning to the police that whilst at this point you do / dont feel like prosocuting that the driver undergoes a medical eye exam to see if they require glasses and / or if there is any evidence to say that they should wear them whislt driving, and if this was known before the accident? then maybe legal prceedings should be taken to revoke / hinder the drivers license.

What i mean by that is if there is eveidence to say that he has previoulsy been to the optincian and has been prescribed glasses but has refused / bought them but not worn them, bought them but out of date etc etc then maybee prosecution shoudl be looked at.

after all its a legal requirment to have good eyesight to drive if not it must be corrected by lenses or glases...

ps. hope your getting better!

Originally Posted by 454697819

Whilst this may seem a strage question you need to think about it serioulsy,
whislt there actions were unforgivable it was not deliberate but was avoidable...

we are all aware of the extra risk that riding a bike incurrs, such as smidsy's.

try and put the boot on the other foot, if you were missfortunate enough to do the same would you feel that being prosecuted was fair after all it was an accident, not a "deliberate", and as far as i have been made aware the driver was not uninsured, drunk or under any illegal influence to worsen the sittuation.

i do know what you mean here, and that's why I think it's a poor question to ask, since most of us don't have a particularly good understanding of exactly what someone could be prosecuted for and in what circumstances.

I think if it were me I'd have trouble answering it in this case - it's possible for example that the car driver did look but not well enough, in which case from his perspective it is a bit tough to be slapped with a 'driving without due care' conviction. Perhaps 100% fault to him on the insurance claim plus being shaken up a bit by the outcome of his actions would suffice

However if you were only looking out for your own interests you would want him to be prosecuted since this makes the insurance case against him clearer

All that said I've no idea how much the police actually take what you put on the form into account anyway!

Originally Posted by Fizzy Fish

i do know what you mean here, and that's why I think it's a poor question to ask, since most of us don't have a particularly good understanding of exactly what someone could be prosecuted for and in what circumstances.

I think if it were me I'd have trouble answering it in this case - it's possible for example that the car driver did look but not well enough, in which case from his perspective it is a bit tough to be slapped with a 'driving without due care' conviction. Perhaps 100% fault to him on the insurance claim plus being shaken up a bit by the outcome of his actions would suffice

However if you were only looking out for your own interests you would want him to be prosecuted since this makes the insurance case against him clearer

All that said I've no idea how much the police actually take what you put on the form into account anyway!

you have summed up exactly what i/we have been thinking (eviltwin has to fill the form out).

Originally Posted by sarah

you have summed up exactly what i/we have been thinking (eviltwin has to fill the form out).

well you guys were at the scene, and know what he said/how he behaved towards you afterwards. If he acted reasonably and accepted blame (in front of witnesses/police) then it might be worth considering leaving the prosecution side of things.

However if you suspect that he's too old & doddery to drive/has poor vision (i.e. no reasonably competent person could possible have missed seeing you given your position/his view from the junction/your speed), AND/OR the blame is less clear then it may be worth requesting prosecution.

Originally Posted by sarah

no news on stinky yet, the assessor's supposed to be seeing her tomorrow.

eviltiwn is getting xrayed today to see if he is broken too.

well, eviltwin doesn't seem to have any broken bones just torn ligaments (or something like that) so he's got a lovely wrist support thingy to wear

and

the insurance assessor person isn't visiting stinky until tomorrow so i've got another whole day to wait to find out her fate

good luck

would it be best to write it off & get new or get it fixed?

Originally Posted by hovis

good luck

would it be best to write it off & get new or get it fixed?

probably best if it was written off as it is/was only 4 months old. hopefully we could get a shiny new stinky then

[dirtydog]

You mean...

Originally Posted by sarah

probably best if it was written off as it is/was only 4 months old. hopefully we could get a proper shaped SV (curvey) and a shiny Raptor

i want stinky II, i only ever rode her a few times

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by sarah

i want stinky II, i only ever rode her a few times

you wont miss riding her then