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

olly300

Apologising after a traffic accident is not taken as an admission of liability in court, as due to stress or injury you could say anything after an accident.The boy was obviously shaken as he went into a car.

The only thing you must not do is admit liability and this is for insurance purposes. And even if you did and you were injured in an accident or caused a death, I'm sure the insurance company would use their lawyers to wiggle out of it due to your state of mind.

lisyloo

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 don't think this is black and white.

If a suicidal pedestrian jumps off a bridge then it isn't the car drivers fault because the car "crossed their path".

If the car careered up the pavement then it would certainly be the car drivers fault.

If the joggers/pedestrian/cyclist crosses a road (rather than a pavement) then it depends on the circumstances because both have "a duty of care".

Motorists driving round in 2 ton boxes have a "duty of care" when coming to pedestrian crossings, hidden entrances etc. and are expected to anticipate hazards and drive at an appropriate speed with appropriate caution.

This does not however mean that the driver is at fault when a suicide victim throws themselves under a car.

Unfortunately statistics show that people don't very often throw themselves at car and therefore the benefit of the doubt is usually with the "vulnerable" party rather than the one in the 2 ton box (as far as the police and legal profession are concerned).
This doesn't mean that suicides never happen because they do, just that the car driver is at a disadvantage as statistics and police experience of accidents are not on their side.

Idiophreak

I really don't think it's worth worrying about for the time being. At the end of the day, you said that the parents were quite nice etc, so I don't see any reason why they wouldn't pay up - their son is their responsibility - he might miss his pocket money for a while, but will learn to cycle with more caution in future.

If they refuse to pay up, I expect there's something could be done in the courts, but would probably be more hassle than it's worth. Just remind them that you know where they live...;) (NB: jk!!)

MyUserNamesTaken

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

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

Actually, George, it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Firstly, the bike should not have been on the pavement if there was no cycle lane there. Secondly, the speed at which the bike was travelling is also important here. If the bike was belting along the pavement at say 20mph, he could be seen to have been riding his bike in a furious and dangerous manner.

http://www.criminal-solicitors.com/bicycles.htm

It is against the law to ride on footpaths or pavements by the roadside. Magistrates can fine £1000.

A £200 fine is set for furious cycling.

Magistrates can set a maximum fine of £2500 for dangerously riding a bicycle.

Magistrates can set a maximum fine of £1000 for riding a bicycle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other people using the road.

1861 Offences Against the Person Act has a clause in respect of 'wanton and furious cycling'.

You seem to be trying to absolve the cyclist of any responsibility. The OP says her OH was hardly moving. The cyclist admitted that he had not seen the car and was distracted by his friends. In other words, the cyclist was not paying attention (cycling without due care and attention) whilst riding on a pavement (where he should not have been - fine upto £1k from Magistrates if caught doing it). He did not see the car. The car was already there.

peterbaker

Hi Snaggles

This is a classic accident not unlike the ones in the government "Think Bike" advertisements, isn't it? Except the young lad was on the pavement.

First off I am a 50 year old motorist with speeding convictions, and I am also a London cyclist. I am also a parent of kids on bikes. I have also worked a long time in insurance including a stint in motor and liability claims. I have also travelled and seen how other countries interact with cyclists. I like to think I have a balanced view.

First off, in one country I know, Denmark, I think this accident as described would 99% be faulted against your husband, but don't get excited yet!

In Denmark as a UK driver you actually have to put a completely different head on before you even approach the exit to a car park or a road junction.

Cyclists have much clearer rights of priority.

In UK we have an absolutely awful implementation of cycle paths and priorities.

First, the old idea that a cyclist riding on the pavement is breaking the law is no longer tenable in many places. Anyway, the intention of that law is to protect pedestrians on the pavement, not cars crossing the pavement. I cycle around Greenwich and Canary Wharf and City. There are numerous places where cyclists are directed onto "pavements" and some with no delineation between cyclists and pedestrians. Notices to dismount are very rare and in fact the main pedestrian path and footbridge from Canary Wharf to Limehouse actually has a notice which says "Cyclists Slow Down!".

That potentially puts cyclists into conflict with pedestrians, and any vehicle crossing over such a pavement as in exiting a car park for example has somehow to take into account that there may be cycles on the pavement.

Your husband may feel a little hard done by that he was hit by a "flying" kid on a bike on the pavement. Sometimes you need a telescopic neck to be able to anticipate what prevents you from easing out of a car park! Has your husband got one of those? Or is it a bit like mine and less flexible than it was?:-). I might also have felt hard done by too. But unless you are arguing that the cyclist was absolutely reckless, I think you need to re-examine the case. The kid was the best kind wasn't he? My 13 y old son would have reacted the same. So you easily soon knew who he is, and found his parents are reasonable people.

That's all good citizenship so far and it's great to hear.

Now then, are you going to press the black and white concept of "He was on the pavement therefore breaking the law and therefore all that happened afterwards is 100% his fault?" because I think that would be unreasonable in 2007. In 1967 things were different. 50% fewer vehicles on the road, fewer people everywhere, reasonably safe for kids to ride their bikes on the roads.

I would rather my son risked hitting your car on the pavement than used a road where all sorts of nastiness is the norm in 2007.

On the other hand, I accept the need to watch out for cyclists on the pavement when I am driving, because I am a cyclist who sometimes rides on pavements so I know the risk from both sides.

Do you have protected No Claims Bonus? I do. And I think I would be tempted to let this one go. Was his bike undamaged? Maybe he was the luckier party so far, and just his pride was dented when he had to explain it to his Mum & Dad. He's learned a lesson. Maybe your husband has too.

Very few motor accidents are 100% one parties fault even if they get settled that way. As I have already said, the law in Denmark would nevertheless likely 99% make your husband to blame for this one. They are not wholly unlike us in Denmark. Just a bit more organised and progressively tuned.

It isn't really a question of the law in this case. I think it's up to you. I am sure you get on very well with your neighbours. Think of it as your neighbour's number 1 son on the bike whom you normally smile and say hallo to. How might it be settled then?

Snaggles

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

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

I don't really know how I can make this any clearer - we were not on the pavement, we did not cross the pavement, at no point did we come into contact with the pavement. I really hope that clears it up!

peterbaker

Snaggles wrote: »

I don't really know how I can make this any clearer - we were not on the pavement, we did not cross the pavement, at no point did we come into contact with the pavement. I really hope that clears it up!

Unfortunately Snaggles, no it hasn't clarified it for me!

You said your husband was exiting a car park and the lad was cycling down the pavement and hit you.

At some point the pavement and the car park exit must meet! It is a moot point as to whether you call that spot "the pavement" or "the car park exit" although the wider the car park exit, the more likely it might appear to cyclists and car drivers alike as a "side road".

I would venture to guess that actually it must have been a rather small car park exit, or a crowded one, otherwise everyone would have anticipated everything and no collision would have occurred?

ajaxgeezer

I can't see how there would be no pavement either. Although a sketch might seem like a hassle to the OP, it seems like it would save them time in the long run in making the situation clear. Nothing worse than explaining yourself over and over to folks who can't really picture the situation.

Snaggles

The bit of pavement he came from actually ends with a kerb - it doesn't just slope downwards and become the car park exit (it's an entrance/exit to a small supermarket), and the lad even admitted he had been distracted when it happened, so again, we did not cross a pavement.

The lad admitted he was at fault, his Mum (who had a good look at our car) felt he was at fault, the lady who witnessed it thought he was at fault, we think he was at fault, I really don't know what else you expect me to do?

We know we made a mistake by not getting the witness details, but I defy anyone to think clearly when you are more worried about a child who may have been badly injured.

I'm actually going to step away from this discussion now, as it is causing me rather a lot of stress which isn't good whilst I am so heavily pregnant.
Thanks again for any advice given.

Dan29

Snaggles wrote: »

I'm hoping his parents will at least contribute something towards the excess (or the repair, whichever ends up being the cheapest).

Let's hope so. Bear in mind that if the excess is slightly less than the cost of repairs, you may still be worse off going through your insurance company than paying for the repair yourself as your premiums will be higher for the next few years (even if you have protected NCB).