The case studies of accidents involving cyclists reveal an alarming trend, adding to the irresponsible and disrespectful behavior of drivers: unfair reports that also jeopardize the right to compensation. Injury added to insult.

When law enforcement intervenes and drafts a report following their investigation: an important piece of evidence to establish the dynamics and responsibility. But if the report is written incorrectly, without proper on-site assessment, without photographic evidence documenting the scene, or without interviewing witnesses, the officers will often reach conclusions that are useless or even harmful to the cyclist, who is frequently wrongly fined.

In such cases, insurance companies will leverage the report to reject the compensation claim, forcing the victim to turn to the Court. The first thing we do is challenge the fine, request a review of the report, and sometimes file a complaint of falsity.

Meanwhile, the right to damage compensation is at risk, transforming someone who has already suffered physical trauma into a "presumed guilty" on the legal front.

This sets the stage for introducing the latest case we've handled as an example.

Right-side Overtaking

A car coming from the opposite direction turns left and impacts our cyclist who was proceeding on his right, passing the line of cars on his left. A scenario that frequently occurs and always leads to a dispute to establish responsibility.

CYCLIST'S CORRECT CONDUCT

The cyclist's conduct is perfectly legal, both according to the Highway Code (art. 143 Highway Code) and according to Judges who have been called upon numerous times to rule.

However, in our case, the reporting officers who arrived at the scene decide to charge the cyclist with violating the right-side overtaking prohibition (art. 148 Highway Code).

LEGAL DEFINITION OF OVERTAKING:
The Court of Cassation has described the overtaking maneuver, clarifying that it would presuppose:

1. a voluntary lateral movement;
2. passing another vehicle;
3. subsequent return to the original lane.

Our cyclist simply continued his journey on his right, without performing any of the described maneuvers, thus merely passing stationary or queued vehicles on his left (Cass. civ., sect. II, n. 11005/2011; Cass. civ., sect. II, n. 21703/2014).

Even more serious, the report is not based on direct observation, but on subsequent assessments of the dynamics, without any proof of lateral movement: a clear incorrect legal qualification of the facts.

The injured cyclist thus suffers a double damage:

Physical: trauma, disability, life risks.

Legal: unfair report and risk of compromising legitimate damage compensation.

The insurance company obviously uses the report and fine to deny compensation, invoking the fine and dynamics described by the reporting officers. In this case, it is necessary to cancel the fine and report, returning the facts to their correct legal qualification and, above all, re-establishing the exact responsibility for the harmful event, recognizing the cyclist's right to compensation.

The cyclist's conduct is correct because it complies with art. 143 Highway Code (obligation to stay on the right) and in this process passes the line of queued cars on his left, without performing any overtaking maneuver (which we saw would involve changing lanes).

On the contrary, the driver's maneuver that turns and impacts the cyclist is fully and exclusively culpable because in violation of art. 145 of the Highway Code, it denies priority to the cyclist coming from the opposite direction, does not slow down, does not use the turn signal, does not check, to the point of violently hitting him.

The outcome of the appeal against the fine and the request for report revision will condition the cyclist's right to compensation, unless there are additional evidence that supersedes what was erroneously observed and concluded by law enforcement.