Six-figure compensation after a three year battle for cyclist thrown from bike by left turning lorry

Bravo to her bravery. But there are some roads to avoid in Nottinghamshire (especially Nottingham city). There are a good lot of quiet roads too and some decent NCN routes. I hope she finds these and enjoys safe cycling from now on.

Another thing that often doesn't get reported is that in cases where there are significant injuries requiring on-going care, insurance companies will often make interim payments to pay for that care while the case is progressing. As mentioned by others above, you can't have a final compensation figure until the final costs are known, which can drag things out. But that doesn't mean the victim has had nothing in the mean time.

what amazes me is that he gets off with careless driving when he clearly saw her and tried to cut across her path. What did he think was going to happen?? Agree that she deserves all the support she can get, and Insurance cos should be forced to the table quicker in these cases.

Thanks for posting this story.
Wishing Ms Stebbing all the best; she sounds very brave and resilient.

This is precisely why we need Strict Liability, as exists in most countries in Europe, so that victims of careless driving don't need to spend 3 years (or more) fighting for compensation. However, our political lords and masters, would rather look to Romania as a shining beacon of motoring liberty!

Awful. I guess she is glad just to be alive after being run over by this c**t of a truck driver.

If 2/3 liability was accepted by the truck insurer's who picked up the other 1/3? If it were me, which it is right now, I would have only accepted them admitting 100% liability. The c**t who knocked me down fortunately admitted doing so, who was sent on a driver awareness course by plod. His insurer has not disputed liability so I get 100% of any damages that will hopefully soon be awarded. But it does take a long time not totally because of insurers and lawyers although they do drag things out, but also because injuries can take a long time to heal and if you have any remaining symptoms - physical or psychological, then these have to be addressed and valued for the purposes of any claim. Prognosis can sometimes mean a life time of continued suffering and after care and reduced earnings, etc.

I hope she is doing well now though Nottingham is not exactly the safest place to ride!

Insurance companies are like governments, they're all scheming and duplicitous; you can never trust a word they say; they'll back down from any promise if they can; and some are worse than others. And try to come up with a better solution that has a chance of working.

That's not to say that the industry shouldn't be overhauled. But in most cases the people who really end up paying are the customers, many of whom will never/hardly make a claim in their lives. Ooooh, that's another similarity that they have with governments!

Insurance companies need a major overall; and stiffer regulations on the cover they provide! Too many loop-holes in all insurance policies.

A friend of mine was hit, left unconscious and had to be airlifted to hospital, he was left with serious head injury's which he will never fully recover from, the driver was found and convicted, 100% their fault, it still took over 5 years to get a payout, the insurance industry is disgusting.

A huge chapeau to Ms Stebbing. Takes a lot of bravery and character to come back from that. Wishing her all the best in her recovery, and maybe just maybe, a return to the saddle.

What bothers me is that the compensation covers lost income and medical costs but the psychological damage is not compensated, in the US the damages for that could easily be a 1,000 times more.

Give that the driver was done for careless driving I'm amazed that the motor insurers could get away with 1/3 contrib against the victim. This scum bag insurance company would have used all the delaying tactics that could get away with until the victim accepted there offer to settled "early" rather be in litigation for years.

The victims solicitor would not have had a problem with her accepting an early settled at 1/3 liability as they would still get there full fees, depending on how much they have been taking the piss with the billing.

This sh!t really makes me angery.

It's very easy to say you wouldn't have accepted it - but sometimes the ongoing legal shitfight is almost as bad (sometimes worse) as the actual incident itself. Having experienced two years of legal fighting as of next Friday in relation to my wife's RTC, I can understand why this lady is willing to accept that monetary agreement.

Very often psychological scars such as PTSD recover quicker after the settlement as it is a massive load of stress removed in one fell swoop.

it's the default insurance companies policy to try and get 2/3 rds. Basically saying it was also the cyclists fault for the other 1/3 so that they don't get stung for a bigger amount which she would of been entitled to . Which we all know is BS. I personally wouldn't of accepted it. But when a case is ever going and you want to just get on with your life then as a victim you tend to just go with it.

Is it that it was just the company/their insurers accepting two thirds, meaning the remaining third lies with the driver himself?

IANAL but presumably we're talking about liability for creating and maintaining the conditions (i.e. lack of driver training, poor cab design, vehicle maintenance etc.) which allowed the incident to happen, rather than blame for the incident itself?

Is it possible some of the liability was instead attributed to road design or the council?

More info on that would be nice

curious about the 2/3 liability, if she was doing nothing wrong? Or is simply any reasonably large payout is better than fighting for ever?

This is the sort of thing the mainstream media should present, dangerous driving is not acceptable!

Well done to her for getting back on the bike!

I dont understand the part about the company accepting only 2/3 liability. If the driver hadnt acted as he did, the collision would never have occurred.

Another reason to fight for presumed liability.