Cyclist Incident and an unreliable witness!

williamgriffin

TooManyPoints said:

I haven't read all of this but with regards to your own insurance:

1. You must report the incident to your insurers.

2. If you didn't produce a certificate of insurance at the scene (and it seems you didn't) you must report the accident to the police and produce your certificate of insurance to them. This is what the law says (Section 170, RTA):

(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, [this is where personal injury is involved] the driver of a motor vehicle does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—

(a)to a constable, or

(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,

the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.

(6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance  or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—

(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and

(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.

(7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within seven days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

So far from being uninterested, the police must take your report to enable you to comply with the law.

But then we are talking about the Met.

George_Michael

ps124 said:

She's also suggested to log a traffic incident on the met website, but when I follow the steps, I get the message that there is no need to log an incident because no one was injured at the time of the incident, the cyclist was fine! (She walked home). So not sure what to do here?  

Have another go and when it asks if there were any injuries, put down the 5cm scratch and the fact that the cyclist mentioned that she also had a twisted ankle.
That way, you can show that you followed the advice given to you and you can't be accused of failing to give all of the relevant information.

Jenni_D

kinger101 said:

Jenni_D said:

If your wife pulled out in front of the cyclist then she was the party entirely at fault

Fixed that.

Unfortunately you fixed it incorrectly ... I said party not partly.

Jenni_D

ps124 said:

And secondly, she had hit her car on the pavement. I'm not a cyclist myself, but shouldn't cyclists be on the road, not the pavement?

That's new information which puts a whole different slant on things. If the cyclist came off the pavement into the side of a car then that makes it entirely the cyclist's fault. As long as that can be proved (can it? Actually proved*, and not your wife's word against the cyclist's?) then the cyclist would have no valid claim against your wife's insurance.

* On the balance of probabilities - whose story the judge believes - as this would be a civil not criminal claim.

Manxman_in_exile

kinger101 said:

Jenni_D said:

If your wife pulled out in front of the cyclist then she was the party entirely at fault

Fixed that.

But it didn't need fixing.   (You do know the difference between "party" and "partly"?)

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

But the OP didn't say his wife showed the insurance certificate to the cyclist, did he?  [EDIT:  In fact it's highly unlikely as the question of insurance seems never to have crossed the OP's mind at the time - strangely... ]  So it still needs to be produced to the police?

(Do people carry copies of their insurance certificate in their cars?  We don't.  If the car gets nicked we don't want anyone to know our names or our address).

a) It says "on request" and the OP hasnt said the cyclist requested it and 

b) Actually given that most certificates are now electronic and most people have a smart phone I would say a significant proportion do have their certificate on them these days either in their email or accessable from their insurers online account.

NBLondon

Jenni_D said:

ps124 said:

And secondly, she had hit her car on the pavement. I'm not a cyclist myself, but shouldn't cyclists be on the road, not the pavement?

That's new information which puts a whole different slant on things. If the cyclist came off the pavement into the side of a car then that makes it entirely the cyclist's fault. As long as that can be proved (can it? Actually proved*, and not your wife's word against the cyclist's?) then the cyclist would have no valid claim against your wife's insurance.

* On the balance of probabilities - whose story the judge believes - as this would be a civil not criminal claim.

The OP says "pulling out of the parking area".  So the nose of the car was in the opening but not yet on to the actual road?  I think that's potentially a very significant issue.  The driver still holds some fault for emerging but if the cyclist was approaching at speed on the pavement; it might be shared blame.   

AdrianC

ps124 said:

And secondly, she had hit her car on the pavement. I'm not a cyclist myself, but shouldn't cyclists be on the road, not the pavement? 

Here's a clue: The penalties for cycling on the pavement (assuming it wasn't shared-use or a cycle path) do not include vigilante justice by car drivers.

Car drivers shouldn't be on pavements, either.

Belenus

AdrianC said:

ps124 said:

And secondly, she had hit her car on the pavement. I'm not a cyclist myself, but shouldn't cyclists be on the road, not the pavement? 

Here's a clue: The penalties for cycling on the pavement (assuming it wasn't shared-use or a cycle path) do not include vigilante justice by car drivers.

Car drivers shouldn't be on pavements, either.

Tricky for the millions of car owners who have a dropped kerb and cross the pavement to park on their own property.  

AdrianC

Belenus said:

AdrianC said:

ps124 said:

And secondly, she had hit her car on the pavement. I'm not a cyclist myself, but shouldn't cyclists be on the road, not the pavement? 

Here's a clue: The penalties for cycling on the pavement (assuming it wasn't shared-use or a cycle path) do not include vigilante justice by car drivers.

Car drivers shouldn't be on pavements, either.

Tricky for the millions of car owners who have a dropped kerb and cross the pavement to park on their own property.  

You mean... there are pavements that aren't just pavements...? But which can be used by some vehicles? Whodathunkit?