Recovering cost of damage caused by cyclist

thelawnet

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.

So how are you going to enforce that?

With considerable difficulty.

Driver can get it done on the cheap and maybe the other party will pay, or if not she will be out a few £££.

Or she can spend a lot of money, the other party refuses to pay and then she has to take him to court and spend more time and £££ for court fees and at the end of it she might not get out with anything.

Sometimes you are morally in the right, but there's not much you can do. My neighbour burned a hole in my trampoline with his bonfire, cost to repair would have been £50 but I just let it go.

thelawnet

easilydistracted wrote: »

Well the police did not get back to me so far.

I don't see why they should. If he's broken the law in whatever way that's between him and the police. The damage to your car is a civil matter between you and him. There's no question that he did it, you don't need witnesses, he left the note, the only issue is getting him to pay up, which is again a civil matter, absolutely nothing police can do about it.

thelawnet

property.advert wrote: »

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.

Tbh, it only makes sense to pursue these things if you ARE on poverty wages, otherwise it takes up a lot of your time. So the hard-up cyclist (if he is truly hard-up) is in a stronger position, and perhaps he will be quite happy to go through the courts, maybe he has nothing better to do.

Outpost

bikebarbie wrote: »

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

I see. And this same lack of emissions is grounds for no insurance also?

thelawnet

Outpost wrote: »

I see. And this same lack of emissions is grounds for no insurance also?

No that would be the lack of meaningful third party risk compared with motor vehicles. This post is about £50 worth of damage caused by a bike. Annoying but rare and far from catastrophic.

By comparison, here's a story about a house having to be demolished after being hit by a car:

http://eastkilbride.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/home-demolished-after-three-killed-in-car-crash.html

You could do more serious damage than that described by the OP simply playing football on the street, do we need insurance for that too?

Outpost

thelawnet wrote: »

No that would be the lack of meaningful third party risk compared with motor vehicles. This post is about £50 worth of damage caused by a bike. Annoying but rare and far from catastrophic.

By comparison, here's a story about a house having to be demolished after being hit by a car:

http://eastkilbride.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/home-demolished-after-three-killed-in-car-crash.html

You could do more serious damage than that described by the OP simply playing football on the street, do we need insurance for that too?

So by your logic a 50cc scooter could not demolish a house so therefore should not be required to have appropriate insurance?

ppc_scambuster

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

Cyclists fart don`t they ?

bikebarbie

Outpost wrote: »

I see. And this same lack of emissions is grounds for no insurance also?

this is really for another thread ...

Oldfatgrumpy

ppc_scambuster wrote: »

Cyclists fart don`t they ?

So do drivers, they're not taxed for it either. It's not "road tax"; every taxpayer pays a bit in their tax for road upkeep. What a driver pays to be allowed to use their car on the road is what the DVLA call "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "car tax" for short. They don't mention roads, it stopped being a "road fund license" many years ago.
Drivers have a permissive license to use the road, Cyclists and pedestrians are born with the right.

Strider590

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

So do drivers, they're not taxed for it either. It's not "road tax"; every taxpayer pays a bit in their tax for road upkeep. What a driver pays to be allowed to use their car on the road is what the DVLA call "Vehicle Excise Duty" or "car tax" for short. They don't mention roads, it stopped being a "road fund license" many years ago.
Drivers have a permissive license to use the road, Cyclists and pedestrians are born with the right.

Spot on....