Cyclist Incident and an unreliable witness!

TooManyPoints

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....

"Some", I think rather than most. Many, if they have any sense, reverse into their drive so they can pull out more safely.

comeandgo

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

George_Michael

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

I know, hence the reason for my stating that the cyclist may be partially responsible rather than they would definitely be partially responsible.

Car_54

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

The law doesn't actually mention pavements, but forbids cycling on any "footpath, or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

williamgriffin

[Deleted User] said:

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

The law doesn't actually mention pavements, but forbids cycling on any "footpath, or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

I wonder when to two laws linked to cycling in the Highway Code were actually used. 

Car_54

williamgriffin said:

[Deleted User] said:

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

The law doesn't actually mention pavements, but forbids cycling on any "footpath, or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

I wonder when to two laws linked to cycling in the Highway Code were actually used. 

Latest figures I can find were from 2014. About 280 convictions per year for cycling on footpaths every year from 2010.

williamgriffin

[Deleted User] said:

williamgriffin said:

[Deleted User] said:

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

The law doesn't actually mention pavements, but forbids cycling on any "footpath, or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

I wonder when to two laws linked to cycling in the Highway Code were actually used. 

Latest figures I can find were from 2014. About 280 convictions per year for cycling on footpaths every year from 2010.

Any convictions for driving swine?

George_Michael

williamgriffin said:

[Deleted User] said:

williamgriffin said:

[Deleted User] said:

comeandgo said:

George_Michael said:

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.

Sometimes cyclists are expected to be on the pavement, where we are the cycle routes are on the pavements.

The law doesn't actually mention pavements, but forbids cycling on any "footpath, or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

I wonder when to two laws linked to cycling in the Highway Code were actually used. 

Latest figures I can find were from 2014. About 280 convictions per year for cycling on footpaths every year from 2010.

Any convictions for driving swine?

How about swine driving without a seatbelt?

kinger101

Jenni_D said:

And a Must takes precedence over a Should.

You're being ridiculous now.  It clearly doesn't give drivers cart blanche to run over cyclists on the pavement.

kinger101

George_Michael said:

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.

You've answered your own question.