Cyclist hit our car...what can we do?

Snaggles

In the original post I said we were edging forward, in the post you have quoted I said we were barely moving.....I don't see what you are getting at?

If we pulled out into him, the bump would be on the front of our car, not the side. If he was riding down a pavement, didn't stop at a road, and therefore crashed into the side of us, how is that our fault?

I don't mind you playing devils advocate, but to be honest I don't think you are, I think you are just trying to wind me up, and it wont work. You can't make me feel any more gutted about this than I already do.

Snaggles

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

In a way to be honest I would reward his manners by not pursuing. Let's face it, someone could have scraped your car in a car park and you'd never know. Most would just drive off. Swings and roundabouts.

Manners should be encouraged. There's far too many liars and cheats about. Most kids would have told you to f. off and you'd be sitting in the police station right now making a statement in your defence.

Now I'm not saying it's right, but we can only change the world that we complain about through our own actions. Or try to.

Again, I understand what you are saying about the boy's politeness, he was a nice lad, but I'm still not sure why that means we should have to spend a lot of money (that we don't have) sorting out damage caused by him.
If my son did the same, I would expect him to be polite, but I would also expect to pay for the damage caused to someone elses property.

Gorgeous_George

Snaggles wrote: »

My husband stopped and the cyclist crashed straight into the side of the car.

Edging forward, barely moving, stopped... all the same thing?

If your car was on a road then great, I was wrong. I thought your car was on the pavement. If it had been on the pavement you would have been across the cyclists intended route and, IMHO, 99% of judges would deem you to be at fault. If you were on a road and stopped (barely moving, edging forward) at a junction then the cyclists would be in the wrong.

Best regards




GG

Snaggles

No, but I would say edging forward and barely moving are the same thing?

I didn't say at any point we WERE stopped though, I said my husband STOPPED....as in, he WAS moving (slowly/barely/edging), and stopped as he realised a bike was about to hit him. If he had kept going (albeit slowly) the cyclist could have ended up under the car.

I also never said our car was on the pavement (if we had driven across a pavement we would be quite happy to take the blame), we were on the bit of road between the carpark and the main road (a side road I suppose).

Hope that clears things up.....

southernscouser

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Edging forward, barely moving, stopped... all the same thing?

If your car was on a road then great, I was wrong. I thought your car was on the pavement. If it had been on the pavement you would have been across the cyclists intended route and, IMHO, 99% of judges would deem you to be at fault. If you were on a road and stopped (barely moving, edging forward) at a junction then the cyclists would be in the wrong.

Best regards




GG

Does the lad not apologising prove he was in the wrong?

I can't believe people are seriously suggesting not pursuing this! The parents have a legal responsibility to pay for this so bloody well let them!

Why should the OP be out of pocket coz some little sod decided he wants to break the law, polite or not? :rolleyes:

Snaggles

Thanks SS, it's a tricky situation, and I think the natural tendancy is sometimes to blame the motorist (normally a car would do a lot more damage to a person than a person would to a car etc - although on this occasion, the car has come off worse....).

I was just hoping to get some advice as this was genuinely not our fault - if we end up having to pay, then I suppose that's life, but I was just wanting advice on where we stood, as we have never been in this situation before, and the insurance underwriters were not open today (just an emergency claim line, who were a bit vague and gave us some info but told us to call back to double check tomorrow).

gardener

been in similar circumstance recently although this was vandalism,witnessed and police charged the junior and parent fined ,this is still unpaid ,although insurance covered repairs,still lost excess,parent just refuses to pay court fines,the best you can hope for is that the cyclists parent may pay your excess

susy_2

maclean2 wrote: »

Hi - legally the parent(s) are liable for accidents involving their children under 18 and a contents insurance policy covers this liability under "personal liability" cover.

Suggest you get some repair quotes and send them to the parent asking them to pass it on to the contents insurance company.

Best of luck

Actually, this may be possible. I read another thread on here recently about damage to a car caused by a minor and quite a few people suggested the above. It would appear that a lot of home insurances incorporate personal liablility these days for incidents away from the home.

mx-3

pinkfluffybabe wrote: »

That still doesn't mean the OP should be out of pocket. It's not even just the cost of repairs, if they go through their insurance, it will be on their record for five years and may cause increased premiums.

If people aren't willing to cover themselves they shouldn't on the road - the laws for cyclists should be changed - if they want to share the roads, they should share the insurance burden so that drivers aren't out of pocket on such occassions.

Did you have insurance for your cycle when you were a child.The kid made a mistake, he is clearly not some yob........who would have got clean away with it. Maybe we should lock children away in case of possible lawsuits.When this happened to me a few years ago, I was just grateful the kid was ok.

lisyloo

I agree that we were lucky in that he was polite - but does that mean we should pay for damage caused by him, just because he had manners? I'm not sure why that would be?

Of course not.
As others have said you are entitled to compensation.
The complications in this case are

1) You have no independent witness so it will be very hard to prove your case.
Unfortunately the benefit of the doubt will not be with you (I know that's unfair but that's the way it is). So if there is any argument about who's at fault then you might have a bit of a problem. Many people's recollection of an accident changes afterwards and the boy could be pressurised by his parents to lie. Basically in the abscence of witnesses it's your word against his and the benefit of the doubt will probably be with him (as a vulberable cyclist) against you.

2) The second complication is that cyclists are not obliged to have any insurance. There is no guarantee his parents have it either (although the ought to). If they won't provide details or don't have insurance then it's a case of going through the courts yourselves (with no witness and your word against him).

Unless they are co-operative then it may be better to claim off your own insurance policy and let them try and pursue the 3rd party because they will be in a better posistion than you. Given that you have no witness though they may decide the chances are low and decide not to pursue it which of course means the claim counts against you.

I hope it's clear that getting a witness is really quite important.
I appreciate that your concern was for the boy.
As there were 2 adults then could one of you have checked out the boy and one of you gone for witnesses?