advice on bicycle and car accident

boliston

It sounds like the insurance company are "trying it on" in the hope that the other party will simply settle out of court.

In many ways it follows the ploy of private parking companies when they make demands for "penalty" payments as they know full well a certain proportion will simply pay up.

The cyclist has already lost the full value of his bike for a fault that could well be largely or even fully the fault of the motorist yet the motorists insurers have the "cheek" to ask for more!

In the absence of any independent witness it means both parties would have some difficulty in claiming off the other.

Johno100

arcon5 wrote: »

So a car hit the cyclist, the cars insurers paid for the cyclists damaged bike, now the car insurer wants you to pay for the wing mirror (and other costs based on the amount request).

WOW what a cheek!

Nope read post #5.

Johno100

spacey2012 wrote: »

A Conditional fee solicitor might not have put a claim in on behalf of the boy due to lack of evidence, but who ever sent this letter must only have half a brain.
It is as good as a full admission the driver collided with the bike.

I would get the phone book out, the lad has in the region of 3-5K waiting for him.

Or a contention that the bike collided with the car.

Aretnap

The boy isn't liable unless the insurers can prove that the accident was somehow caused by his negligence. On the basis of what you've told us (car swerving into him) then it wasn't his fault, quite the opposite. However you've given us a second hand account so it's always possible that there was more to the accident than you know or have told us.

Meanwhile even if he is liable it doesn't automatically follow that his mum is liable. Parent's aren't generally liable for their children's actions unless the parents themselves were negligent in some way. So they have a long way to go to establish any liability on his mum's part.

They're going to be doing well to establish liability on the part of a 17 year old cyclist in the absence of an independent witness or other evidence to show that the accident was radically different to the way you've described it. Personally I'd tell them to take a long walk off the proverbial short pier and see if they fancied wasting time in court.

£1400 is small claims court territory which means that if he I use a solicitor he'd be very limited in terms of the costs he could claim if he won, but the same applies to the insurance company. It would also apply if he tried to counter claim for his bike.

Idiophreak

Hmm, a little sceptical on this one...

If someone ran my son over and destroyed his bike, you'd better believe I'd be getting the cost of the bike out of their insurance, at the very least.

The fact that they didn't even try to do this suggests maybe the liability isn't as black and white as OP suggests.

InsideInsurance

Insurers simply act on the basis of the information provided to them by their clients. The OP states that the car swerved and hit the cyclist. It could well be that the TP claims they were going very slowly or even stationary and the cyclist tried to squeeze through and hit the mirror.

You could go to a solicitor, conditional funding wont be an option unless you are willing to lie about injuries and as a small track court case solicitor fees will not be recoverable.

As recommended by others, home contents insurance is the most likely place that you will have to have cover and assuming you have this they will respond.

If you dont and you are DIYing it then the first thing to do is to write back denying liability and asking for their clients version of events and allegations of negligence.

Strider590

Idiophreak wrote: »

Hmm, a little sceptical on this one...

If someone ran my son over and destroyed his bike, you'd better believe I'd be getting the cost of the bike out of their insurance, at the very least.

The fact that they didn't even try to do this suggests maybe the liability isn't as black and white as OP suggests.

Ordinarily, if it were car v car then yes.......

But UK cyclists have no rights, even with evidence, the Police rarely prosecute the driver in these instances. The problem is that cyclists are a minority group and everyone else is in the majority.

Decades ago, if you were the wrong colour or had the wrong sexual preference, you had no rights. These are now protected by law, but discrimination still exists.
Cyclists on the other hand have no such protection and suffer the full wrath of discrimination from all quarters.
Even if you find a sympathetic Police officer, he/she can't move forward with a prosecution because they'd be fighting cyclist haters at every step.

It's only when someone posts a Youtube video and that video goes viral, that the Police bother to do anything.

OP, I recommend joining a cycling forum and asking for advice there, you won't get much sympathy on a motoring related forum.

It's been suggested that the 3rd party has changed their story, this is unlikely, it's going to be the insurance company doing this, they know that cyclists are soft targets.

Prothet_of_Doom

As far as I can see, you return with a letter stating that the accident was caused by the driver, and you are prepared to make a counter claim if they persist further for a) a new bike, £400, b) Damaged Clothes, £50, c) Pyshological Damage, because you are no longer able to carry out life like a normal person because you are finding yourself increasingly more scared to ride a bike, drive a car, cross the road, etc and may need alot of care and attention over the years to get back to normality. (Unknown cost to them in the tens of thousands) ...

Or am I being silly?

Prothet_of_Doom

note to self : must get cycle insurance.

Best thing is to 'play dead' and await an ambulance, because brain damage can give delayed symptoms.

Guest101

As far as i can see it's anothe reason for cyclists to be licenced, registered (ie registration plates) and insured, like other road users.