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

peterbaker

Snaggles wrote: »

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.

Well you've clarified it but if it was a small entrance exit with no drop down for wheelchairs (and bikes?;-) ) then it is already suggesting that it is easy for everyone concerned to make mistakes...

I know two hundred quid might be a bit hard to swallow (it would be for me too) but I think I would swallow it in this case. The politeness settles it for me, but then I am borderline generous by nature as I am sure you are when the hormones settle:-) Yep don't let it get to you.

I remember once I banana'd a little Citroen AX10 on a roundabout and the passenger was also heavily pregnant. Not my fault at all but I felt a heel, nevertheless...I obviously made sympathetic noises, but my insurers did the rest.

It's life Snaggles, and there's another little life on the way who will need guidance all too soon on the virtues of bikes, pavements, good manners and the perils of the road:-))

All the very best for the imminent happy day!

Peter

southernscouser

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

As I said earlier, the rights and wrongs of riding on a pavement are immaterial.

How can the law be immaterial? :undecided

I don't suppose you are actually this kids dad by any chance and are trying your hardest not to pay for the damage caused? :rotfl:

Dan29

peterbaker wrote: »

I know two hundred quid might be a bit hard to swallow (it would be for me too) but I think I would swallow it in this case.

Plus increased insurance premiums, even with protected NCB?

missile

My sympathies snaggles, you have better things to do than argue about when is a pavement a cycle track and best wishes for the forthcoming addition to the family.

Gorgeous_George

southernscouser wrote: »

How can the law be immaterial? :undecided

I don't suppose you are actually this kids dad by any chance and are trying your hardest not to pay for the damage caused? :rotfl:

Consider this. My 1st wife parked on the right-hand-side of a road (on an estate) to rop kids off. She was behind another parked car and, in order to pull out, she reversed back a bit. On pulling out she was saw a Nissan Micra coming down the centre of the road. She stopped and the Micra hit her (yes it was another woman driving). Both cars were written off and 1st wife was somewwhat damaged (not as much as I'd have liked now I think about it). The insurance company decided that, even though the other driver apologised for the collision, was driving down the centre of the road at considerable speed (in top gear) and near to a school exit at home-time, my 1st wife was 100% to blame for the accident.

Whatever happens, I have spent enough of my time contributing to this thread and it's time to leave it to everyone else. I hope my contribution had some value.



GG

Janusian

I have also spent some time working in Motor Claims, and in my experience in a case like this your insurers are unlikely to expend energy pursuing a claim against the cyclist, given that there the costs will not run into thousands as there are no injuries. The reason for this is that in the absence of an independent witness they tend to boil cases down to basic facts, and in that circumstance you have crossed someone else's right of way (irrespective of drop kerbs etc if you cross a pavement you are supposed to give way to persons on the pavement)

I accept that the facts of this case mean that this is not your fault, but if the other side says you pulled out on their client who was proceeding at a reasonable speed then there is nothing your insurers can do to argue against this, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Speed of the third party cannot be proven so is not a factor.

pinkfluffybabe

mx-3 wrote: »

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.

Surely we need to teach children about the impact of their actions when they are out on bikes then?

And no matter what, the OP should not be out of pocket if it wasn't their fault.

Gorgeous_George

Or put another way...

Surely we need to teach drivers about the impact of their actions when they are out in their 2 tonnes then?

And no matter what, the cyclist should not be out of pocket if it wasn't their fault.



GG

phantomteabagger

Happychappy wrote: »

Cyclists unfortunately are the scourge of the land.

We have a prat here. Not all cyclists are the same you know.

mystic_trev

I'm getting confused so I'll change the tempo with a little anecdote.

I used to work in Insurance and specialised in "Products liability Insurance" mainly in the States. Products liability covers any losses caused by the manufacture of goods.

We had an interesting claim on a lawnmower manufacturer about 20 years ago.Two guys had been out drinking and were obviously much the worse for it. One said to the other that he had to go and get his hair cut, to which the other replied "come back to my house and i'll do it for free! So after afew more drinks they returned to the guys house who then decided to get his hover mower out, ask his mate to sit still and balance it over hids head.
Yeah, you can guess what hapened next, he took a lump of the blokes head off causing severe brain damage.

The case went to Court (in California) with the Plaintiffs suing the Lawnmower manufacturer under "strict liability in tort" which basically means - you made it, so unless you can prove otherwise it's you fault! The reasoning for claiming was that the Lawnmower instuctions didn't say that it should't be used for cutting hair !!!!!

The Plaintiffs actually won the case and were awarded $1,000,000 damages by the Court. It went to Appeal where ther case (rightly so) was thrown out!!

It's a funny old World!