Hit in the back by a cyclist!

jambo12

almillar wrote: »

I hope you checked your mirror before braking to let that car out, and I hope you didn't stop suddenly or creep left whilst doing so. But I suspect that if you did any of these things you would've got a mouthful from the cyclist!

I did check plus I really wasn't doing much of a speed either between 5-10 mph so there was definitely no sharp braking!

And my brake lights are fully operational...she obviously wasn't that damaged as she managed to ride off on her bike after the incident!

Hintza

bclark wrote: »

Basically with a cyclist there is nothing you can do.

Plenty you can do. You just have to decide whether it is worth doing.

lisyloo

The cyclist is liable and may have home or cycling insurance.

You should technically report this accident to your insurers.
She has 3 years to claim against you for injury.

Do you have any independent witnesses?
If not then it's your word against hers although damage to the rear is something of an indication.

She might be a bit sore, so she might not be answering her phone if she is resting.
Or she might be busy in meetings.
There are loads of explanations so don't read too much into it.

I'd wait until you find out what it costs to fix the dent.
How new and expensive is your car?
If it's tiny is it really worth bothering about?
Is the paint still intact or has it chipped and cracked (this is the difference between something purely aesthetic and something that will eventually rust).
I don't think you'll find the dent so checp to repair.

jambo12

lisyloo wrote: »

The cyclist is liable and may have home or cycling insurance.

You should technically report this accident to your insurers.
She has 3 years to claim against you for injury.

Do you have any independent witnesses?
If not then it's your word against hers although damage to the rear is something of an indication.

She might be a bit sore, so she might not be answering her phone if she is resting.
Or she might be busy in meetings.
There are loads of explanations so don't read too much into it.

I'd wait until you find out what it costs to fix the dent.
How new and expensive is your car?
If it's tiny is it really worth bothering about?
Is the paint still intact or has it chipped and cracked (this is the difference between something purely aesthetic and something that will eventually rust).
I don't think you'll find the dent so checp to repair.

No witnesses I didn't even think to speak to the person behind me as there was a long queue :eek: but I know better for next time now!

The car actually belongs to my mother-in-law and is just over two years old. Nothing fancy just a vw polo. This is the first damage that's been done to it and I know she was looking to trade-in for a new one hence why I am worried about the dent. It is not massive probably about an inch or so and the paint hasn't cracked. The remaining scratches are aesthetic so I can sort those myself.

Hopefully once my guy turns up with the tail light casing he will be able to advise me regarding repair but if it doesn't affect the value of the car then it's not an issue. I know the dealerships can be quite picky and fussy when they are valuing your car.

goldspanners

lisyloo wrote: »

I'd wait until you find out what it costs to fix the dent.
How new and expensive is your car?
If it's tiny is it really worth bothering about?
Is the paint still intact or has it chipped and cracked (this is the difference between something purely aesthetic and something that will eventually rust).
I don't think you'll find the dent so checp to repair.

i think it is. if someone damages anothers property then they should be held accountable.the light is broken, possibly an MOT failure? scratches and damage to paintwork will affect resale value, so yes its worth getting fixed,and worth getting the person who damaged it to pay for it.

dents can be cheap to repair, i got a car park ding in my door (done by someones car door) and it cost £35,no paint damage just a dent.

mcjordi

jambo12 wrote: »

Yes I did get her contact details which appear to be legit. I'm just a bit freaked as it's not my car. My other half is saying its not worth an insurance claim as it's just the housing on the rear light that's broken but to go down the legal route instead which is surely going to be costly and a headache?

Funnily enough on the radio at the time was a discussion about this new change in law that they are trying to implement making it all the driver's fault![/QUOTE]

how can someone hitting you in the rear be your fault???????

lisyloo

goldspanners wrote: »

i think it is. if someone damages anothers property then they should be held accountable.the light is broken, possibly an MOT failure? scratches and damage to paintwork will affect resale value, so yes its worth getting fixed,and worth getting the person who damaged it to pay for it.

dents can be cheap to repair, i got a car park ding in my door (done by someones car door) and it cost £35,no paint damage just a dent.

With a 2 year old car, I'd agree it's worth doing the repair.

I also agree with the theory that the liable party should pay.
I just know that it's not so easy in practice.
If two people have different recollections (this can sometime genuinely be the case) then no solicitor in the land will go to court on a 50/50 basis.
Therefore without witnesses it'e very difficult.
The only thing this case has going for it is that the damage is at the rear but then again she could always claim you reversed, so it's not totally compelling.
Lot's of insurance companies go 50/50 in situations where there are no independent witnesses because they won't risk goign to court when it's just one persons word against another.

I totally agree with the sentiment but in practice it's quite different.
Anyway, let's hope the person is honest and agrees to pay up.
There are some honest and good people about.
If it was me I'd just pay up, because even if you did slam on your brakes (which you didn't) then they are still at fault.
People shoudl drive/ride at a distance where they can cope with an emergency stop for a child/animal/debris etc, so generally there is no excuse for hitting someone in the rear (unless they reverse).

DaveF327

Even if you did go down the insurance route, would your insurance company try to claim off her anyway through negotiation / small claims court if he doesn't have insurance herself? If that were the case, it would still be worth trying if it means saving your NCB. Perhaps any insurance workers could comment on the likelihood of this.

cyclonebri1

There is a simple answer;

The cyclist will not have insurance.

You probabably don't have a witness.

You do not have a cat in hells chance of claiming from the cyclist.

Sorry, not posting against you but I think I'm pretty much right

lisyloo

The cyclist will not have insurance.

Don't agree.
Lot's of people are covered on their home insurance.

and anyway insruance is not the same as liability.
If you are liable it doesn't matter whether you have insurance or not.

The bit I agree on is the chance of winning without witnesses if she disputes it.
One person's word against another is never a good basis for going to court which involves financial as well as emotional risk.

That doesn't mean it's not worth approching her.
There's always a chance she is an honest person that will pay up.

After that you need legal advice.
If you have free advice on your home insurance or car insurance then use that.

It's not uncommon for people to have different recollections of an accident.
Whether that's genuine or jsut a cover to avoid payment, I wouldn't like to say.