Cyclist Incident and an unreliable witness!

Belenus

Shocking isn't it.

facade

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.  

Most of whom think that checking the road is clear before they get into the car, start the engine, send a few texts, adjust the seats, tune the radio etc. ,means that they can then suddenly smoke the tyres reversing straight across the pavement without any warning or looking- usually when I am walking directly behind them....

williamgriffin

facade said:

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.  

Most of whom think that checking the road is clear before they get into the car, start the engine, send a few texts, adjust the seats, tune the radio etc. ,means that they can then suddenly smoke the tyres reversing straight across the pavement without any warning or looking- usually when I am walking directly behind them....

If I'd watched them do all that I wouldn't walk behind them. 

facade

williamgriffin said:

If I'd watched them do all that I wouldn't walk behind them. 

The alternatives are walk down their drive to go in front of them, cross the road which turned into a race track the second they got in or reverse direction like those Triang toy trains used to.   I just depend on my cat like reflexes to leap out of the way. It doesn't matter how long I wait, they won't start moving until I am behind them- I swear when the weather is a bit warmer and drier I'm going to slap the back of the next one and lie down alongside it!

kinger101

Jenni_D said:

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.

My bad.  Misread.

kinger101

Manxman_in_exile said:

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"?)

Yes.  Of course I do.  I just misread.  

kinger101

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.

Er.....no. 
From Highway Code.

Before moving off you should

• use all mirrors to check the road is clear
• look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
• signal if necessary before moving out
• look round for a final check.

Move off only when it is safe to do so.

George_Michael

kinger101 said:

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.

Er.....no. 
From Highway Code.

Before moving off you should

• use all mirrors to check the road is clear
• look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in the mirrors)
• signal if necessary before moving out
• look round for a final check.

Move off only when it is safe to do so.

As you mentioned the Highway code, what about rule 64:

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

I know that even if the cyclist was riding on the pavement it doesn't absolve the OP from all responsibility but it may well make the cyclist partially responsible.

Jenni_D

And a Must takes precedence over a Should.

williamgriffin

Jenni_D said:

And a Must takes precedence over a Should.

A must is a legal requirement back by law, a should is a guideline.