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

[00100001]

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?

@Ekofisk

Do you not have anything in your car windows anymore (apart from fluffy dice or whatever) like insurance discs or MOT discs in the UK?

No, MoT and tax is all electronic and there's not been a requirement to display insurance details for as long as I can remember.

Interesting. That's a bit of an issue if you want to discreetly gather insurance details in a situation like this....ah well....

@SoupDragon a jogger is a lot slower than a bike!

@Parky04

Car driver has to ensure it is clear before proceeding. It could easily have been a pedestrian. This is why you should always reverse into your driveway/parking bay!

But you are still reversing if you do it the other way around 🤔 I know what you are getting at though. Modern cars have reversing cameras and obstruction warning alarms/ signals, which makes things much safer.

Was he on a shared footway?

It's highly unlikely the car had no lights at all so you have to question the rest of the story TBH

[quote Famousinlove]@SoupDragon a jogger is a lot slower than a bike![/quote]
You've not seen me biking then

[quote Famousinlove]@SoupDragon a jogger is a lot slower than a bike![/quote]
I said a runner and you said you would only expect a slow pedestrian. So my question still stands.

Anyway, my point is that only a bad driver wouldn't be paying attention for unexpected hazards. Running dog, kid on a scooter, kid chasing a ball...

He shouldn't have been cycling on the pavement. The driver may well have seen a walking pedestrian but not an illegal cyclist travelling at speed.

@RunningStrong

It's highly unlikely the car had no lights at all so you have to question the rest of the story TBH

🙄

For there to have been no lights, driver would have had to forgotten to switch on headlights and the reversing lights weren't working. There must have been some lights. If DN hasn't remembered that correctly, what else hasn't he remembered?

Not sure what the is for?

It's not either/or. You get contributory negligence where someone is doing something they shouldn't but another party is at fault. Eg if you're in a car accident and your injuries are worse because you weren't wearing a seatbelt, you might get compensation of £5k or whatever minus a percentage for the contributory negligence (25% or so).

The driver was at fault as they reversed without proper care and observation. The cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement although it's not exactly unheard of so the driver should still have checked carefully.

Either way, run it through insurance and see what you get.

A pedestrian or jogger is likely to pay more attention to entrances and be able to give way more easily than a cyclist. Why was he on the pavement?

@TheVanguardSix

I'm just talking to myself really.

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.

The law isn't that clear cut. Police have wide discretion as the law is really old and intended for the days of horses and carriages.

You also need to distinguish between criminal and civil law. Trouble with police for dangerous driving or failing to report an incident = criminal offence.

Compensation claim for damage to bike or injury to cyclist = civil law, entirely different. You'd need to show negligence based on a driver not taking enough care.

@LIZS

A pedestrian or jogger is likely to pay more attention to entrances and be able to give way more easily than a cyclist. Why was he on the pavement?

Because roads are often dangerous and cyclists take a view on the best place for their safety and that's often on the pavement. Especially for younger, less confident cyclists. I don't know what this main road is like but many have deserted pavements and fast cars on the road, not a hard calculation really.

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

Technically the driver shouldn't be reversing off a driveway either.

Load of rubbish, it's advised not to but it's not illegal to reverse off a driveway

@RunningStrong

For there to have been no lights, driver would have had to forgotten to switch on headlights and the reversing lights weren't working. There must have been some lights. If DN hasn't remembered that correctly, what else hasn't he remembered?

Not sure what the is for?

To be fair if he was approaching at a 90 degree angle and the car was reversing straight backwards it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he just didn't see lights

Possibly, but perhaps also the car had already emerged across the pavement so that the tail lights were beyond his view , then paused before entering the road. Did he hit the side or rear?

Everyone saying a cyclist on the pavement is going too fast: it could've been a kid on a scooter. Of course he shouldn't've been on the pavement but car drivers have a responsibility to look properly before/while reversing.