Cyclist crashed into parked car and caused damage

frost500

The cyclist is not liable. How can he be? What happens if a kid on a scooter scrapes your paintwork whilst playing? Same thing? If different, how?

Were_Doomed

A child accidentally scratching paintwork whilst playing is entirely different to a full-grown adult cyclist piling into the back of a parked car. 🙄
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

frost500

Exactly no difference. cyclists, skateboarders, etc do not have to be insured to use publice roads. A motorist has to insure themselves against these risks. Endof.

Moneybear

frost500 said:

Exactly no difference. cyclists, skateboarders, etc do not have to be insured to use publice roads. A motorist has to insure themselves against these risks. Endof.

And I am insured but why should I pay my excess when a grown man rode a bike into my car? The excess won't be paid by him but myself. And he caused enough damage to decrease the value of my asset. There is insurance available for the cyclist which they can use IF he returns the form. But he is refusing to because his injuries are worse and he has had a really tough year. 
I didn't hit him. He hit a parked car. As above he has to take some accountability of his actions.

I am pretty sure if someone caused hundreds of pounds in damage to your car you would be saying something quite different. I want to sell my car soon and he assured me he would arrange for the damages to be fixed. Now he won't. Therefore I am seeking advice. Endof. 

facade

frost500 said:

The cyclist is not liable. How can he be? What happens if a kid on a scooter scrapes your paintwork whilst playing? Same thing? If different, how?

The cyclist is negligent in riding full tilt into the back of a stationary vehicle, which is plain to see and avoid, therefore he is liable for the damage caused.

It is very difficult to prove that a child under 16 is negligent in UK Law, and even if they can be proven so, they won't be able to pay compensation. Despite what you might think, allowing offspring to play unsupervised around other people's cars is not automatically negligent either so you can't claim against the parent. (Allowing them to play unsupervised with a shotgun or a chainsaw would be negligent, but not a push scooter or a tricycle, even though it isn't rocket science to predict what will happen with scooters and tricycles....)

frost500

Intent. What was the cyclists intent. It was not to cause damage to your vehicle. It is your risk, when using, parking, driving, storing, your vehicle that it might accidentally get damaged, that is why you have insurance. The cyclist is NOT legally obliged to do anything at all. Cyclist have complete freedom to use public roads without any form of insurance or taxation. It is not even a legal requirement to where a helmet, nor is it a legal requirement to pass a cycling proficiency test, so how can it be his fault. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you, but legally there is nothing you can do. But it works both ways, if you rode over his bike by accident, if he left it on the road, you would not be liable for the damage. The word here is intent. 

Car_54

frost500 said:

Intent. What was the cyclists intent. It was not to cause damage to your vehicle. It is your risk, when using, parking, driving, storing, your vehicle that it might accidentally get damaged, that is why you have insurance. The cyclist is NOT legally obliged to do anything at all. Cyclist have complete freedom to use public roads without any form of insurance or taxation. It is not even a legal requirement to where a helmet, nor is it a legal requirement to pass a cycling proficiency test, so how can it be his fault. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you, but legally there is nothing you can do. But it works both ways, if you rode over his bike by accident, if he left it on the road, you would not be liable for the damage. The word here is intent. 

Intent is totally irrelevant, as are insurance, taxation and helmets.

The cyclist has damaged someone else's property through his negligence, and is responsible in law. It doesn't matter whether he was riding a bike, walking, or piloting a hang-glider, or what his intentions were.

Further, the cyclist IS legally obliged to do something - ride safely. Under sections 28 & 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 riding dangerously, carelessly or without due consideration are all criminal offences.

williamgriffin

frost500 said:

Intent. What was the cyclists intent. It was not to cause damage to your vehicle. It is your risk, when using, parking, driving, storing, your vehicle that it might accidentally get damaged, that is why you have insurance. The cyclist is NOT legally obliged to do anything at all. Cyclist have complete freedom to use public roads without any form of insurance or taxation. It is not even a legal requirement to where a helmet, nor is it a legal requirement to pass a cycling proficiency test, so how can it be his fault. Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you, but legally there is nothing you can do. But it works both ways, if you rode over his bike by accident, if he left it on the road, you would not be liable for the damage. The word here is intent. 

Intent is irrelevant the cyclist was reckless. 

facade

frost500 said:

The word here is intent. 

Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter.   It isn't the difference between negligent and unfortunate.

It would be negligent to drive over a bicycle left in the road when you could see it and could stop or drive round it so you'd be liable and have to pay for the damage.

It would be unfortunate to have a heart attack out of the blue at the wheel and drive over the bicycle, so you wouldn't be negligent and not liable for the damage, (unless you knew a heart attack was likely, and therefore shouldn't be driving or operating machinery.)

Manxman_in_exile

frost500 said:

Intent. What was the cyclists intent. ... The word here is intent. 

Eh?  "Intent" has nothing to do with this situation.  The OP would be suing the cyclist for the tort of negligence  ie not riding with reasonable skill and care.  For a grown adult cyclist to ride into the back of a parked car the facts speak for themselves (or res ipsa loquitor as a lawyer might say).  Nobody riding with reasonable skill and care would ride into the back of a parked car.  Whatever intent the cyclist had (if any) is wholly irrelevant.

The only issue the OP has is that if the bike insurers don't pay up, can he get damages out of the cyclist?