Bike left on ground behind car - now crushed!

real1314

opinions4u wrote: »

So if a 3 year old had toddled past at that moment, does he have no responsibility?

Time to get out of denial mode.

Most likely the parent would actually be responsible, on the basis of neglect. However it is unlikely to result in any action.

If the driver took all reasonable precautions before reversing, they would not be held responsible.

If a grown adult lay on the floor behind a car and the driver reversed over them, who would be to blame? :cool:

George_Michael

opinions4u wrote: »

Driver's have responsibilities to others. The paperboy cannot be expected to think "this car is going to drive off in the next couple of minutes" - however much we'd like to think he should.

Surely the first sentence should read:
"All road users (cyclists included) have responsibilities to others"

atrixblue.-MFR-.

if not covered already i would compramise like an adult, when the father comes round say your son left it behind a vehicle he is partly to blame, but in the same respect my son ran over it i pay half you pay half to replace the same bike not newer not posher but the same bike.

pendulum

The cyclist was a road user and the car driver was a road user. Ultimately it was the car that moved off and damaged the bike, not the other way round. I feel the onus is on the car driver to prove he wasn't at fault. Paperboys usually carry a flourescent bag and your son failed to see the paperboy arrive or hear him put his bike down, so he obviously wasn't paying much attention before deciding to drive off.

50/50 would be a good result for the car driver.

Honeydog

pendulum wrote: »

The cyclist was a road user and the car driver was a road user. Ultimately it was the car that moved off and damaged the bike, not the other way round. I feel the onus is on the car driver to prove he wasn't at fault. Paperboys usually carry a flourescent bag and your son failed to see the paperboy arrive or hear him put his bike down, so he obviously wasn't paying much attention before deciding to drive off.

50/50 would be a good result for the car driver.

Yes good point. I was thinking about this while I was out with the dog.

1) Paperboy must've let the bike just drop to the road so it would've made a bit of a racket. You're not telling me that he laid it carefully down in the road. Its someone else's bike and he's a young lad. They aren't very careful, even with their own stuff, in my experience. So why didn't driver hear it go down? If he was in his car with engine running. The time between switching ignition and and putting into gear to move off is pretty short. I reckon it was also poor obs on driver's part.

Personally if I ran over someone's bike in the road I would feel honour bound to replace it. Unless the person was riding their bike at the time and they caused the accident.

So either the driver should pay up the whole amount to save going through his insurance. Or the driver and paperboy's Dad should go halves.

Hopefully the kid whose bike it is will have learned that his mate is a total muppet and not to be trusted with anything valuable!

Hope we find out what happens.

Tigsteroonie

pendulum wrote: »

Paperboys usually carry a flourescent bag and your son failed to see the paperboy arrive or hear him put his bike down, so he obviously wasn't paying much attention before deciding to drive off.

Paperboy could have been four houses away with his bag on his shoulder, how would the car driver know to associate that with an unseen bike?

Honeydog wrote: »

The time between switching ignition and and putting into gear to move off is pretty short.

Not if you're sat inside listening to the radio while de-misting / de-icing. Driver could have been rummaging in glove box at precise moment when paperboy lay down his bike. How many of us remember to go and check around the back of the vehicle a second time before pulling away? (I know that's no excuse but I'm talking reality rather than perfect world)

Mistral001

This is not a matter for the OP to decide. it is one for the son's insrance company and or the courts to decide.

An accident has ocurred and a claim against the son has been made. It is out of the OP's son's hands and now in the hands of his insurer's.

It could be a matter for criminal prosecution as well. However, it is unlikely as it looks klike the Police were not called at the time of the accident.

pendulum

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

Paperboy could have been four houses away with his bag on his shoulder, how would the car driver know to associate that with an unseen bike?

If he was paying attention, he would have noticed the paperboy (with bag) cycling towards his car, arrive close to the rear of his car, lay his bike down behind the car, then walk away from the car. If he didn't notice any of that then he wasn't paying much attention to the situation around him. A bike doesn't just magically appear behind your car in the blink of an eye.

Mim_2

pendulum wrote: »

If he was paying attention, he would have noticed the paperboy (with bag) cycling towards his car, arrive close to the rear of his car, lay his bike down behind the car, then walk away from the car. If he didn't notice any of that then he wasn't paying much attention to the situation around him. A bike doesn't just magically appear behind your car in the blink of an eye.

Completely wrong. The paperboy wheeled the bike from the house next door. He was at their door when my son went to his car and then dropped the bike behind the car to walk up our driveway. It was dark, there are trees and no street light directly outside. My son wouldn't have seen him at next door's house as his dad and I have both of our cars (one of which is a high 4x4) parked side by side on the drive and so obscure next door's driveway. As for the bike making a racket, the paperboy didn't THROW it on the ground, he just dropped it down there. If it WAS loud enough to hear, then my son would have heard it and obviously therefore not driven over it. Also, I've never seen the paperboy carry a flourescent bag with him when he's using a bike.

Anyway, I couldn't get hold of my son before the lad and his dad called. The dad was fine and said that he considers the matter to be 50:50 and therefore hopes that my son is willing to pay 50% of the damages to the bike which is a good one but not brand new. He said the back wheel is buckled, the gears snapped and some damage to the back of the frame. I explained the situation as per my original post and then the paperboy piped up saying that my son wasn't in the car at all - he was walking down the drive when the paperboy arrived and they said 'Hi' to each other. He said the bike was already behind the car. Obviously I couldn't make any further comments so I've told them to come back when my son is here. The dad said he'd get a written estimate from a bike repair shop in the meantime.

I've now spoken to my son who categorically says that he WAS in the car. He pointed out that we have a floodlight security light at the front of the house which comes on automatically when somebody steps onto the drive. The light 'spreads' on to the pavement and about 2 feet of the roadway outside of the house, just where my son had parked. He said that if the bike was already there the floodlight would have clearly illuminated it when my son walked down the drive to the car.

It seems that the paperboy obviously doesn't want to take all the blame but it's his word against my sons.

Anyway, my son has said to see what this repair cost will be. He said that in the interest of neighbourly harmony he may offer 25% of the cost as a good will gesture to end the matter but he's also going to take a photograph of the underside of his car which is badly scratched from the bike, show the lad's dad and stress to them that he WAS in the car and that the bike was not there when he got in it. If the dad won't accept it, my son said that he's willing to take his chances if the dad threatens legal action.

We honestly don't know how he can be held to blame in any way. The bike was not there when he got into the car. As a previous poster said, are you supposed to get out and double or triple check what's on the ground behind your car before reversing. If so, you'd never be able to reverse!

mikey72

Wouldn't he had to have walked past the car, clearly in the floodlight, past your son in the car, dropping the bike behind the car, again in the floodlight, then walk up the drive in the floodlight, casting a big shadow on the car, if your son was already in the car, and had set off the security lights?
I'd take the 50/50 before it goes to court.