Cycling and a stone hit a car - am I liable??

NVRAM

Nah mate, you did nothing wrong.
Excess thru most insurers for a windscreen would be £75 for replacement and £25 to fill a chip, afaik with most it wont affect no claims.

These type of incidents however are why I believe cyclists should have to pay similar insurances to car/motorbike users.

OnanTheBarbarian

Even if the cyclist had insurance, they still would not pay a third party claim in this situation as negligence still needs to be established for any liability to arise.

parahandy

chucknorris wrote: »

Did you carry out a H&S risk assessment by surveying the car park before you cycled through it, and then erect warning notices to alert others that you might possibly send stones flying dangerously through the air.


Yes of course I am joking

Nothing to add- just wanted to say I love your Chuck Norris sig!

leespot

Everyone keeps saying windscreen...the OP says driver window? Probably makes a difference to the amount of excess needed, and probably more than £75..

CLAPTON

my car insurance covers the cost of window repair without prejudice to no claims bonus.

maybe your driver isn't insured?

theEnd

ska_lover wrote: »

Another example of why cyclists should be forced to take out their own insurance for damages against other vehicles and people. It seems madness to me that they are allowed to mingle with cars and HGVs on the roads without it.

Although with a cycling bias, there was a study recently that found a higher proportion of cyclists were insured than drivers.

Cycling insurance is included with CTC or BC membership (plus probably others) and included in most house insurance. I think the cost is around £2-3 / year.

adouglasmhor

RedBern wrote: »

The car owner should be able to claim on her insurance for windscreen repair without it making any difference to the renewal premium as it isn't treated as a claim. If you feel strongly that you have a duty, then you could pay the excess which shouldn't be more than £25. However, it could be clearly identified as an accident for which there's no blame, surely? Otherwise, is there something in your home insurance?

My glass excess is £75, but a windscreen for my car costs silly money as it is one of the ones whith a built in aeriel.

leespot

If the car owner starts requesting silly amounts, maybe the OP could request a copy of her insurance to prove she isn't out to cash in? Sounds awful I know, but it probably happens.

Yorkie1

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Stop thinking like this.

You made no mistake. You did nothing wrong. You have no liability (IMHO) and should not offer to pay a penny.

While you did the "right thing" in letting the driver know what happened when 90% of the population would have just got out of Dodge as quickly as possible.

Do not offer to pay in full or part. Do not make any further apologies or admissions of liability. Do not pay anything. Politely advise the car owner the deal with his insurers (who should provide window cover with a modest excess). In the unlikely event of them approaching you refer them to your household insurers (you should have a public liability clause).

This +1 ^^^.

losgiganteskid

leespot wrote: »

Everyone keeps saying windscreen...the OP says driver window? Probably makes a difference to the amount of excess needed, and probably more than £75..

A windscreen is just that, a screen against the wind !! - a side,rear or front glass is all a windscreen People assume a "windscreen" is just the front glass.

The other comments regarding the innocent motorist claiming off his/her motor insurers only applies of course providing they have comprehensive insurance.

Now that the cyclist has provided his identity should any claim by the motorist be forthcoming merely re direct this to the cyclists home insurers where public liability cover will come into play