Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Who is at fault here? (Bike/car accident)

119 replies

00100001 · 17/09/2021 08:27

Nephew (17) was cycling home on Monday evening, he was on the pavement. He got knocked off by a car that reversed out if a drive with no lights on.

Nephew was knocked off bike, and has a hairline fracture in his arm,and front wheel is possibly buckled. (It's being checked this weekend)

He rode home, as was in a bit of shock,so didn't think to ask for details etc. Driver didn't get out of car as far as I know.

He knows the address it happened so could return for details if needed.

As his bike needs repairing, would the driver be liable?

We're not sure, as nephew was cycling on the pavement, but driver was reversing onto main road and clearly didn't see him

Can wise MNers please help?

OP posts:
Original poster
00100001 · 17/09/2021 11:08

the car didn't have lights on (sorry if that wasn't clear in my OP)

and I don't know about nephew's lights.

OP posts:
Medievalist · 17/09/2021 11:11

the car didn't have lights on (sorry if that wasn't clear in my OP)

Don't reversing lights come on automatically?

Bloodypunkrockers · 17/09/2021 11:15

I would agree with most posters that it is a drivers responsibility to make sure the way is clear when reversing out a drive

Even though your nephew shouldn't be cycling on the pavement, he could equally have been jogging or even walking with the same result.

Are you the family's legal fixer?

lockdownmadnessdotcom · 17/09/2021 11:18

Nonsense. The driver obviously wouldn’t expect a cyclist to be on a pavement. A pedestrian would stop to let the car out, I’d expect a cyclist to do the same thing

I don't stop to let cars out. Cars are guests passing over pavements, so they wait for pedestrians, not the other way round.

Medievalist · 17/09/2021 11:24

Nonsense. The driver obviously wouldn’t expect a cyclist to be on a pavement. A pedestrian would stop to let the car out, I’d expect a cyclist to do the same thing

I agree.

PheasantsNest · 17/09/2021 11:25

He shouldn't have been riding on the pavement. It's an offence to do so.

CharlotteRose90 · 17/09/2021 11:28

Cyclist at fault. Should not be on the pavement and should have waited on the pavement for the car to pull out. 17 is not an age to be on the pavement and i hope he gets punished for causing an accident. Similar thing happened to me and I was found to be not guilty thankfully. So the scum cyclist didn’t get a penny out of me.

Famousinlove · 17/09/2021 11:31

Cyclist at fault. When driver started reversing the bike probably wasn't in sight and came flying down the pavement during

DancinAtTheDisco · 17/09/2021 11:38

Did your nephew have lights? Reflective clothing? How fast was he actually going?

The thing is, that cyclists can go much faster than pedestrians. It can be obvious there are no pedestrians in your course, but not always obvious that a cyclist is about to whizz behind you as they approach so much faster. If you look up and down the pavement to check it's clear before manouverinf your car, you can't be expected to anticipate someone who legally shouldn't be there coming into your path at up to 10x the speed of the people who legally are allowed to be there. You'd never pull out!

That said I bet the car driver is found to be at fault because bike v car is pretty much always considered to mean the car was responsible.

SoupDragon · 17/09/2021 11:38

@Famousinlove

Cyclist at fault. When driver started reversing the bike probably wasn't in sight and came flying down the pavement during
Or the driver "probably" just reversed out at speed without checking. We don't know.

Whether the cyclist should have been on the pavement or not, a driver is meant to check for hazards and be aware that there might be unexpected ones too. As a driver, you can't think "oh, it's a pavement. There will only be slow moving pedestrians on it"

Medievalist · 17/09/2021 11:42

I strongly suspect the op's nephew was listening to music otherwise he surely would have heard the car's engine, which would have prompted him to look and see the car's reversing lights.

DancinAtTheDisco · 17/09/2021 11:42

Whether the cyclist should have been on the pavement or not, a driver is meant to check for hazards and be aware that there might be unexpected ones too. As a driver, you can't think "oh, it's a pavement. There will only be slow moving pedestrians on it"

I agree to a point but as a driver you also can't just sit there forever waiting to see if a cyclist might decide to speed down the pavement behind you... If your path is clear and you can't see anything approaching, you can't just go "oh well someone might come along, better wait just to be sure"

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:43

The driver didn't do a proper check for obstacles. Road/pavement... makes no difference. A child on a scooter could have zipped past on the pavement. Your nephew could have cycled past on the road instead of the pavement and still gotten hit because the driver did not check thoroughly for obstacles before reversing.

Medievalist · 17/09/2021 11:45

Your nephew could have cycled past on the road instead of the pavement and still gotten hit because the driver did not check thoroughly for obstacles before reversing.

But less likely.

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:45

I agree to a point but as a driver you also can't just sit there forever waiting to see if a cyclist might decide to speed down the pavement behind you

It doesn't take forever. You even used the word 'speed' so, there's the clue! Hmm

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:46

But less likely.

But not impossible.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 17/09/2021 11:49

I may be wrong but the fact that the bike hit the side of the car and the nephew appears not to have said he has lights on makes me think that he probably was speeding down the pavement with his lights off and drove into the side of the car. I think the car reversing may be irrelevant in that context. The driver could well have been checking for hazards but you can't see a cyclist haring down the pavement and the nephew may need to take some responsibility here for his irresponsible cycling. He appears to have had a lucky escape and if the above is really what happened this will be a lesson in life which may serve him well if he continues to cycle.

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:51

Though medievalist, your headphones point is a really, really good one!
OP, please find out if this is the case.
I am a cyclist (you can tell Grin) but I get palpitations when I see teens speeding along, no helmets, dark clothing, no lights, airpods in.

And parents don't teach their kids the traffic rules! The rules of the road. You cycle as the cars drive... you follow the same rules as drivers (most cyclists don't and it pisses me off because we get a bad reputation for a good reason!).
Anyway, your nephew needs to be lit up, wear a hi-vis vest, have ears and eyes open. It's risky riding a bike and you've got to be fully aware of your surroundings. Not having a go at your nephew, but when I read medievalist's post about headphones, it made me think, "I will hold off on that bunfight!" Grin

MintyGreenDream · 17/09/2021 11:51

If there is no cctv the driver could deny it.Not sure how you'd prove it either.

Famousinlove · 17/09/2021 11:52

@SoupDragon Yes, as a driver i would expect slow moving pedestrians coming towards me and not a bike since they aren't allowed on the pavement

The cyclist was injured whilst breaking the law so i don't think the law will be on his side

SoupDragon · 17/09/2021 11:53

as a driver you also can't just sit there forever waiting to see if a cyclist might decide to speed down the pavement behind you

And no one said that they should.

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:54

And lastly, on two wheels, you slow your roll... you have to be aware of reversing cars, parallel parked cars opening their doors out onto the road, and also pulling out of the parking space at all times. You have to assume at all times that drivers don't see you. Not because they don't care, but visibility is always going to be an issue.

SoupDragon · 17/09/2021 11:54

[quote Famousinlove]@SoupDragon Yes, as a driver i would expect slow moving pedestrians coming towards me and not a bike since they aren't allowed on the pavement

The cyclist was injured whilst breaking the law so i don't think the law will be on his side[/quote]
So, you'd happily mow down a runner then because they aren't a "slow moving pedestrian" and thus outside your list of hazards to look out for?

You should never expect only slow moving pedestrians on a pavement.

TheVanguardSix · 17/09/2021 11:56

I'm just talking to myself really. Grin

Yes indeed, it is illegal to ride up on the pavement (I do it in an urgent situation but I know it's against the law). So I'm not really sure that your nephew has much of a leg to stand on here, unfortunately.

DumbestBlonde · 17/09/2021 11:59

I second that this should be reported to the Police; even if the car driver doesn't.
I ride a bike - and do go on the pavement in some places; its a judgement call, and should be done with care, and great awareness, both OF and by BEING a hazard.
As a car driver, I would hate to back off my drive - and even now we need to add skateboarders and elecric scooters into the mix. There is so much car coming out before clear visibility when coming out backwards.

I had a car vs. cyclist/s incident. I was not in the wrong, and reported immediately to the Police, even though no-one was even touched by my car. However, they did not keep track (even though I had an incident number) and came after me when he cyclists reported it a few days later. I would have been "in trouble" if I had not reported it - but the left hand had not even met the right hand, let alone knew what it was doing.... It was also logged on my insurance as notification only, not sure if it affected the premium. I also have bike insurance, but riding on a pavement might invalidate it (it's only £4/month and replaced my £600 bike when it was stolen).

This was 2014 though - Police might be "too busy" these days.

Swipe left for the next trending thread