Bike left on ground behind car - now crushed!

Honeydog

Just found this http://www.holymoly.com/football-news/frank-lampard-reverses-over-14-year-olds-bike-gives-him-%C2%A3200-apology50260

For folk who can't be bothered to click the link

On yer bike

Fri, 30/04/2010 - 10:30


Frank Lampard thought he'd killed a teenage boy yesterday when he felt a nasty bump reversing in a London street. Luckily for him, it was just the boy's bike he destroyed, rather than his life. And instead of slamming on the gas and fleeing the scene, Lamps emptied his wallet and handed the starstruck lad two hundred quid to replace it...


Tis from a celeb gossip site tho found via Google.

Honeydog

If I was reversing nice and steady like I always do (because I have to cross a pavement to get out of my drive - which might have people on it) and I heard a noise like metal on metal I would stop and look and not keep on driving til I crushed the bike!

Not saying the son is 100% to blame. Kid left the bike in a dumb place that's without a doubt. But as an adult (or someone cleverly disguised as one :rotfl:) I would accept that I'd not been checking my side mirrors sufficiently well and would buy the kid a replacement bike. Or at least go halves with paperboy's Dad.

Honeydog

photome wrote: »

50 - 50 IMO.

If it was me driving thats how I would see it, but then again the damage to the car would also be 50 - 50

Yes true.

We had a thread about that a few years ago where a little kid riding on the pavement had damaged someone's car. There was a big debate about whether the parents were to blame or not.

Sounds like bike can be repaired anyway. Thread title sounds like it was mashed to bits but further posts make damage sound not so bad.

Mim_2

He didn't keep driving until he crushed the bike. As soon as he heard/felt it he stopped and got out. Maybe more damage was inflicted by him getting back in and putting the car into first gear and moving forward again. In the couple of seconds of it happening the paperboy was putting the newspaper through the letterbox. He heard the noise of the car hitting the bike at the same time as my son felt it.

Badger_Lady

Mim wrote: »

As a family we're a decent, moral law-abiding bunch and if my son felt the blame was entirely his, he'd have done the right thing by the lad at the time.

That's the problem though - when accidents happen, we don't feel that it's our fault. We didn't cause it, we didn't intend for it to happen, it just sort of happened without our knowledge or permission. As in your son's case - he didn't do anything wrong and can't be accused of deliberately or negligently breaking the boy's bike.

That doesn't change the fact that he's responsible for driving over something. It isn't a moral judgement - it's legal liability. Which I believe was your question.

Honeydog

You know an awful lot about that paperboy and what he did at exactly which moment - do you have CCTV?

In case you're wondering I don't have a morbid interest in your son's accident I'm merely putting off some other work I have to do. Better get back to it now or the weekend will be over.

Gotta go.

Honeydog

Badger_Lady wrote: »

That's the problem though - when accidents happen, we don't feel that it's our fault. We didn't cause it, we didn't intend for it to happen, it just sort of happened without our knowledge or permission. As in your son's case - he didn't do anything wrong and can't be accused of deliberately or negligently breaking the boy's bike.

That doesn't change the fact that he's responsible for driving over something. It isn't a moral judgement - it's legal liability. Which I believe was your question.

Interesting point that RTA was chnaged to RTC because 'accident' made it sound like no one was to blame whereas 'collision' acknowledges the fact that someone is responsible.

It is jolly bad luck on everyone concerned especially the bike owner who is entitled to be put back in the position he was in just before he lent his dipsh*t mate his bike.

pendulum

Mim wrote: »

The bike was put there after my son had got into the car and was impossible to see.

The paperboy claims differently. The paperboy says your son wasn't in the car when he put the bike down. That makes sense, because you wouldn't normally place a bike down behind a car which had people in it, but you might place a bike down behind a parked car for a few seconds if there were no people inside.

If you're saying the paperboy's a liar, then I'm surprised he would tell that lie. If he was going to lie he could have claimed your son reversed into the road and knocked him off his bike.

Believe it or not, an insurance company isn't going to take your sons view as gospel. They will listen to both sides and then decide, and the likely result is a loss of NCB and a nice new bike for the kid involved.

mikey72

Mim wrote: »

Exactly. I don't understand the attitude of some people immediately apportioning 100% blame on to my son ..............

Think of it as a straw poll of how it could go in court.

Harry_Flashman

If your son decides to play hardball. How exactly does the paperboy expect to prove what happened?