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

Sandtree

fatalist54 said:

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

Apologise, didn't spot that... it does still leave my question of how long you'd be stationary; there is always the second aspect of proving versions of events but less than 1 second and you may as well be moving still (like the narrow lane collisions when both say they just managed to brake in time but the other side didn't), 5-10 seconds its then sounding more plausible that they've hit a static object that they reasonably should have avoided, 30 minutes because traffic was awful and no one would let you out  and then its totally different.

How a story is told makes a big difference even if it ultimately all is the full truth... similar to another conversation on how in a non-blind test give someone two identical things but say one is a budget brand and the other a higher brand most score the higher brand better. 

missile

Have you spoken with parents? There is slim chance they may pay / claim on their house insurance. I would suggest you have little chance of making a successful claim against an adult cyclist and very little chance against a child.

Sandtree

missile said:

Have you spoken with parents? There is slim chance they may pay / claim on their house insurance. I would suggest you have little chance of making a successful claim against an adult cyclist and very little chance against a child.

Op says they've spoken twice... less friendly the second time and neither time offering to pay

[Deleted User]

Some kid riding on the pavement is not a cyclist, just a kid on a bike. Hence why when you see stuff about "most cyclists do not have insurance", they are talking about the usual bloke on bike / kid on bike, not actual cyclists. Even then it's often the case that they may have liability cover on home insurance. Many actual cyclists (as in people who ride for fun/race/fitness etc and are more than just a kid riding to the park) have liability insurance through things like British Cycling membership.

The law on pavement cycling is aimed at adults, or at least older children. Where it is not safe for them to be on the road (which is arguably everywhere in my experience but that is a side issue) the police have discretion to let it go (like with the 10%+2mph guidelines on speeding). Saying a 10 year old should be riding in the road is a hiding to nothing

Sandtree

Deleted_User said:

The law on pavement cycling is aimed at adults, or at least older children. Where it is not safe for them to be on the road (which is arguably everywhere in my experience but that is a side issue) the police have discretion to let it go (like with the 10%+2mph guidelines on speeding). Saying a 10 year old should be riding in the road is a hiding to nothing

The law isnt aimed at anyone particular, its very clear and states its anyone. The police always have discretion and criminal liability only starts at 10 and then its still subject to assessment. 

Whilst the RTA introduced a fixed penalty for it the law that makes it illegal is Highway Act 1835 which simply states its illegal to wilfully ride on the footpath besides a road... back then pavements didn't really exists, bikes were uncommon in the UK and attitudes to children were very different... a 10 year old then is likely to have had a job as the 1833 act had already been passed to make the minimum working age in a factory as 9 years old (sending 8 year old down mines was to remain legal for another decade)

Retrogamer

missile said:

Have you spoken with parents? 

Does no one take the time to read posts any more before they reply?