Cyclist (a child travelling at speed, on the pavement) hit my vehicle, is a claim possible?

fatalist54

csgohan4 said:

pragmatically are you going to get any money back? Are you going to have a successful claim

if not and you claim through your insurer, or even tell your insurer without claiming, your premiums will likely increase for the next few years. 

The excess alone may be more than repair costs?

Looking at quotes I've been given, which are of course, obsene amounts - the excess is minimal compared. 

In fact, it would actually be cheaper buying a colour matched bonnet and right front wing straight from a breakers. Just of course reluctant to pay knowing that the incident could've been completely avoidable if the child wasn't cycling stupidly fast, on a pavement.

baza52

fatalist54 said:

baza52 said:

so you drove onto the pavement with no means of checking if there were anyone using the pavement.
not sounding good for you.
I fail to see what speed the child was doing is relevant here

The means of checking is by approaching the pavement slowly, allowing pedestrians to see the vehicle and either a) move out of the way, or b) walk in front of the vehicle with enough perception to see it's safe to do so. 

In any case, the child shouldn't have been riding the bike on the pavement. The speed he was going caused the damage to my vehicle. If he was cycling at a reasonable pace/pedestrian pace, then he absolutely would've had more than enough chance to use his brakes effectively and avoid causing an accident, minimalising any damage. Essentially, the speed factor here stipulates he should've been on the road.

rule 206 of the highway code states

• needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement

fatalist54

For the almost 3 years I've lived at that address, not only would it be illegal, but it would be simply immoral to not give way to pedestrians. Interesting that 'cyclists on the pavement' is mentioned in rule 206, however illegal it may be...

baza52

fatalist54 said:

For the almost 3 years I've lived at that address, not only would it be illegal, but it would be simply immoral to not give way to pedestrians. Interesting that 'cyclists on the pavement' is mentioned in rule 206, however illegal it may be...

well its illegal to drive a car with no tax, insurance or driving license but it does not mean you can have an accident with one and not be at fault

molerat

It is also illegal to drive on the road without tax and mot but if you pulled out in front of a car without those who would be at fault ?  You have admitted that you cannot see what is travelling along the footway as the view is obstructed by walls so you really should have someone to guide you out - you should not enter the footway unless it is clear.  I think you are going to struggle with getting anything from this and will need to claim on your insurance and let them try and reclaim from the parent if they think it has legs.  You are going to have to notify your insurance - if the parent tries to claim against you there could be problems if they know nothing of the incident. - so your premium may increase anyway.

dunstonh

There are two high walls (that do block a clear view of boths sides of the pavement) either side of the exit/entrance that so I always, without fail, take care and consideration when exiting in particular. It seems to me that he was going so fast that he couldn't actually brake fast enough, my car was about 50% over the pavement, damage just over the wheel arch and a dented bonnet...

This further works against you as it indicates that you entered the pavement whilst he was coming.  Cycling speed may have been too fast but it would still be relatively low and you cannot expect children to have the best attention.     

On the contrary, if I had have told him I was recording, he could've catered his responses/actions to go in his favour. 

And conversely, the fact you knew it was recorded allowed you to use a style that ensured responses go in your favour.    This is why courts usually do not include recordings in cases like this, where only one side knows it is being recorded.  It depends on the case in question and what purpose the recording has.

In any case, the child shouldn't have been riding the bike on the pavement. 

I'm afraid you are wrong on this.    Whilst not explicitly mentioned in law, there is a reasonable expectation that young children will and should ride on the pavement.

The speed he was going caused the damage to my vehicle.   If he was cycling at a reasonable pace/pedestrian pace, then he absolutely would've had more than enough chance to use his brakes effectively and avoid causing an accident,

1 - If you had not placed your car on the pavement, then no damage would have been caused to your vehicle.
2 - cyclists do go faster than pedestrians.  

Essentially, the speed factor here stipulates he should've been on the road.

But the age was probably under 10 and the reasonable expectation is that they would use the path.

Nobody responding to you on this thread is underestimating your frustration or the fact that you are going to be suffering a bill for repair.   Its just a case of giving you a dose of realism.

That said, DO NOT use the repair garage that tried to get you to do it via the insurance.  They will inflate the price compared to a private repair.   

Silvertabby

I don't know enough about the law to comment on this, but surely the child can't be totally blameless?  What if he had been riding hell for leather along the path - when an elderly, frail, deaf person stepped out of their gate.  Who would be at fault then?

10 is old enough to have some common sense.  Yes, ride on the pavement instead of the road - but keep the speed down and stick to the outer edge of the path.

fatalist54

I'll be informing my insurance of the 'accident', but won't be claiming or persue any further assistance. 

In my insurers online portal, when selecting new claim > accident > cyclist/pedestrian there isn't a field to provide the details of the third party, or anyone to persue.

Essentially I want this on file as a 'notification', as in no further action, just to inform my insurer what has happened. Would my insurance essentially decide whether they can make a claim, even if I don't want them to? Or will they immediately put this down as an 'at fault' claim?

Thanks for the guidance/assistance so far everyone. 

Sandtree

Silvertabby said:

I don't know enough about the law to comment on this, but surely the child can't be totally blameless?  What if he had been riding hell for leather along the path - when an elderly, frail, deaf person stepped out of their gate.  Who would be at fault then?

10 is old enough to have some common sense.  Yes, ride on the pavement instead of the road - but keep the speed down and stick to the outer edge of the path.

With civil law and accidents there is a concept of vulnerable users such that a car does have a greater duty of care towards cyclists and pedestrians than they do to the car because who comes off worst almost always is those not in a car.

As more details emerge the case looks worse for the OP... the fact they've avoided certain questions like if they were stationary at the time or not would point to the fact they weren't (people are normally quick to say things that support their case).  The cyclist could have been going at a below safe speed  and be 1/2 meter from the driveway when the OP emerged and the collision would still have happened.

My assumption is there is no visibility, the Op did emerge slowly because they know they are doing so blind, and its not until half the car is out that they saw the cyclist more or less at the same time they collided... they didn't stop for 15 seconds and the cyclist then hit their static car. I would therefore question also the OPs ability to have judged the speed accurately. 

If you work in claims you forever hear the phrase "he came out of no where and so he must have been/was speeding". Google Street View the roundabout/junction and its clear straight roads in all directions. Either teleporting cars are real or proper attention wasn't be applied (or couldn't be in the case of an obstructed view). If you dont know where they came from etc how was it possible to judge the speed?

fatalist54

As more details emerge the case looks worse for the OP... the fact they've avoided certain questions like if they were stationary at the time or not would point to the fact they weren't (people are normally quick to say things that support their case).  The cyclist could have been going at a below safe speed  and be 1/2 meter from the driveway when the OP emerged and the collision would still have happened.

Hi Sandtree,

I stated in the second paragraph that my vehicle was stationary, as in, ready to turn into the road, indicator blazing.