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

MyUserNamesTaken

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly he was riding down the pavement (whether or not he was 'flying', 'wearing a helmet or protective gear' does not matter). This does not mean that you did not cross his path and thereby cause the accident.

In your original post you stopped but now you were barely moving (and waiting?). Please forgive me for playing devil's advocate but I wouldn't push it too far unles you can get the story right and be confident that it was somehow the kid's fault.



GG

George, since when have cyclists been allowed to ride on the pavement?

lisyloo

George, since when have cyclists been allowed to ride on the pavement?

I believe you are allowed to ride on the pavement at a certain age (is it 10?).

I may have missed it but I don't recall any mention of his age although from what I have read I have assumed he was older.

I know where I cycle (in Bath) there are some painted cycle lanes on the pavement (on the London road).
I ride on the pavement in the official cycle lanes (and I'm over 10 :-)

Gingham_Ribbon

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

I don't think that's the case. The cyclist should have been on the road. The pavement is no place for bikes. When waiting to pull into a road, it's common to be sitting using the biting point, holding the car reasonably still. It's 'stopped', but the brakes aren't on and the car is moving slightly.

There is no way someone should have to fork out for the carelessness of another road user just because they were polite. If anything, although politeness should be rewarded, it is more important for a child to realise that dangerous road use (and cycling on the pavement) is dangerous and they should not be rewarded for that.

lisyloo

The pavement is no place for bikes.

As said in the previous post, there are official painted cycle lanes on the pavements in Bath.
Having said that I am very careful when moving from the cycle lane to the road (treating it as a junction).

There is no way someone should have to fork out for the carelessness of another road user just because they were polite.

Agreed, the cyclist is at fault here and they should pay.
However from a legal perspective it what's you can prove that counts.
Unfortunately there are no independent witnesses to this accident.

My parents were involved 2 years ago in a collision with a pedestrian who ran out in front of their car (and wrote it off !!).
Unfortunately it is the driver of the 2 ton lump of metal who will be under suspicion and not the vulnerable cyclist or pedestrian.

I'm not saying that's right, just pointing out the way the legal profession and the police work.
The car driver in this case had his eyesight checked and is currently being sued by the pedestrian for personal injury.

In fact their insurance company told them NOT to persue their uninsured losses because it might provoke a much more expensive personal injury case.

So in one way I feel we should warn the OP that if they pursue this they risk a much more expensive personal injury case coming their way.

kennyboy66_2

lisyloo wrote: »

My parents were involved 2 years ago in a collision with a pedestrian who ran out in front of their car (and wrote it off !!).
.

Who was it, the incredible hulk ?

Reckon the OP should get the quotes and ask lad's parents to pay half.

Snaggles

Just to clear up a couple of points that people have raised - I'm not sure of the cyclists exact age but would guess at about 13 or 14. He was on a normal pavement, there wasn't a cycle lane. He had 2 mates with him (one about the same age and one younger (they both stopped and didn't crash into us), and he told us they had distracted him which is why he wasn't paying attention. Yes, we definitely should have taken the witnesses details (especially as she clearly felt the boy was at fault too), unfortunately her taxi arrived and she jumped in, and neither of us were thinking clearly....it wasn't until she had gone that I thought 'Why on earth didn't I get her details'.

And mx-3 - yes, we were just relieved that he was okay, and this was our main concern - I've made that fairly clear in several posts - it wasn't until we had checked he was okay that we even noticed the damage to our car.

We wont be going as far as taking this to court, because at the end of the day, it was just a mistake and I don't think I would want to drag a seemingly nice young lad through the court system for the sake of a couple of hundred quid, but I'm hoping his parents will at least contribute something towards the excess (or the repair, whichever ends up being the cheapest).

Thanks again for all your comments and opinions.

wookie_2

Happychappy wrote: »

Oh god now we have an aggresive jock who gets his kicks from riding round on pavements in tights, oh well we live in a diverse world and I wouldnt call you a perv or an idiot, but unfortuntely a lot of cyclists think the world owes them a living and they can ride around on pavements, ignore road traffic laws and get away with it. Funny old world jock :rolleyes:

Just think, its a lot safer to ride on the pavements than to take your chances with a 40 tonne lorry behind you, the mess they cause to your body is well i will leave to your imagination:A

lisyloo

Who was it, the incredible hulk ?

The car was of very low value (inital amount offered by ins co was £200 then this was upped to £300).
It doesn't take very much at all to write off an old banger.

lisyloo

Just think, its a lot safer to ride on the pavements than to take your chances with a 40 tonne lorry behind you

I agree but if it isn't a marked cycle lane then you can cause a nuisance to pedestrians (depending on how wide the pavement is) not to mention disregard for the law.

Much better to find an off-road route. Cycle lane, quieter road or canal.
Sustrans have a lot of info about routes.

Gorgeous_George

As I said earlier, the rights and wrongs of riding on a pavement are immaterial. Crossing the cyclists path would put the car driver at fault. Are we saying that a jogger, jogging along the pavement, would be at fault if a car crossed his path?

I'm still confused. Did the accident occur on a side road or a pavement?

As for the kid apologising making him 'at fault', I don't think so. He is not a legal expert (nor am I) andonly a court could decide who was at fault. I merely pitched in that I think, from the evidence on this thread, that the car driver may have crossed the cyclist's path thereby causing the collision.

Onto insurance. Of course all cyclists should be covered against incidents such as this. However, the net effect of such a law would be to increase the cost of living for everybody and make insurance companies even more money.

Finally, we mustn't get confused with (our version of) the law and the highway code.

To exit my driveway I need to cross a pavement. I need to check the pavement is clear before I cross it. Should I only be checking for pedestrians and waht would be a reasonable speed for me to expect the pedestrians to be travelling. What about roller-bladers, skateboarders. I maintain that it is the car driver's responsibility to ensure his path is clear.

Best wishes



GG