Recovering cost of damage caused by cyclist

Arg

Tilt wrote: »

As I suggested in post 8. At the end of the day, why should the OP be out of pocket because of the actions of a idiotic cyclist? If he was reckless then he should pay the consiquences... simple.

Perhaps the OP should use his insurance, after all that's what it's there for especially if he were to put an expensive ornament like a Fiat 500 somewhere it could be damaged.

mikey72

Arg wrote: »

Perhaps the OP should use his insurance, after all that's what it's there for especially if he were to put an expensive ornament like a Fiat 500 somewhere it could be damaged.

Bit like running over these pushbikes changed to lampposts when I go up the kerb if I'm parking, if no one sees it, it's their fault for leaving them there.......................................

Arg

If they'd left it on the road and was one of those daft carbon ones you might have a point.

passatrider

I don't suppose you asked if he was injured then? More interested in sorting the damage your car which at the end of the day is a lump of metal! This can be replaced but humans can't..

Getting perspective time..

Incyder

passatrider wrote: »

I don't suppose you asked if he was injured then? More interested in sorting the damage your car which at the end of the day is a lump of metal!

Its a Fiat, its definately a lump of something. :rotfl:

passatrider

Incyder wrote: »

Its a Fiat, its definately a lump of something. :rotfl:

Us Wiltshireoneans do have a sense a humour!

mikey72

passatrider wrote: »

I don't suppose you asked if he was injured then? More interested in sorting the damage your car which at the end of the day is a lump of metal! This can be replaced but humans can't..

Getting perspective time..

If the cyclist can't miss a parked car, it's just Darwinism in action.
Just to put it back into perspective.

Or maybe the op should sue him, get the bailiffs round for his bike, and help make the world safer for him?
Unless he took to walking into parked cars?

property.advert

oldtoolie wrote: »

Me, I would call the cyclist up again to see if he would pay. He ought to pay but people avoid doing a lot of things they ought to do. Anyway he ended up in hospital and probably damaged his bike.

If he refused, I would fix it myself (about £60), forget about it and have a nice summer.

Of course if I was one of those people who liked to throw good money after bad and enjoyed taking time off work and waiting around in courthouses for a hearing, I wouldn't forget about it.

But it isn't just £60 is it ?

For starters there is the time already spent. Add in hours to get it sorted and you're down quite a few hours. If you're not on poverty wages then that adds up.

If he told me to go stuff myself I'd make sure that whatever the cost he'd regret that for the rest of his miserable life.

As an aside, cyclists should be forced to have insurance and pay tax for the roads.

Tilt

Arg wrote: »

Perhaps the OP should use his insurance, after all that's what it's there for especially if he were to put an expensive ornament like a Fiat 500 somewhere it could be damaged.

So you say its ok for someone riding a bike recklessly (allegedly) to hit a parked car causing damage and not be accountable in any way? Is that the way you would look at it had he had hit your car? Please explain why the OP should be out of pocket as he would surely would be if he claims off his own insurance. in my book, if you damage someone's property through negligence or recklesness, then you should pay.

bikebarbie

property.advert wrote: »

As an aside, cyclists should be forced to have insurance and pay tax for the roads.

ohh not that old chestnut again road tax is based on vehicle emissions, that's why bicycles are exempt