Is my cyclist relative likely to be sued?

[OoohLovelySlippers]

Evening all,

My mid-20s relative flew down a hill too fast on his push bike and smashed into a car. He admitted liability to the police who attended with the ambulance (he had a head injury). He did not have insurance.

The driver's insurance company has now sent him a letter asking him to confirm he will pay for the damage. He has written back to ask how much it is and to advise (truthfully) that he only has a very casual job and earns about £150/wk. (He lives with his dad).

What is likely to happen?

• will the case be dropped
• will he actually be taken to court
• what is the point if he has no money?

Thanks

Does that apply to murder? Paedophilia? Domestic violence?
Do you just want the law to apply to your family only in certain circumstances?

Although where I walk, they are usually hogging the pavement and tow-path...

"causing stress to his dad who lost his wife a year ago"

Won't that be his mum? Although I guess maybe not.

It's all well and good being morally correct but when it's your own family, you do see it a bit differently.

To be honest I don't think like that about my own family especially when you know he is at fault. My brother caused damage to a car when we was 19 and had a low paid job but he still paid. He should at least offer a payment plan.

Yeah I imagine the court will prefer "I only earn £150" I can pay £50 of that for 4 years? Than I only earn £150 please let me off

This!!
I had a cyclist smash into my (parked) car -witnesses etc who just laughed at them. Caused 400 damage to the door.
Shame on you for wanting to ‘get him out of it’ and regretting that he admitted liability.

Hopefully he does. Why should he avoid responsibility? If he was in a car he'd be facing criminal charges for driving without due care and attention.

Get legal advice from his home insurance (or dad's home insurance) if they have it.

I would expect that he could argue he admitted liability when he was in shock and had a head injury and now no longer stands by that statement. It is extremely unlikely they can prove he was at fault.

However, if he is really certain he was at fault then he really should pay it. He should submit his pay details and offer a payment plan or ask for a smaller settlement. His dad should not get involved as it is nothing to do with him. Insurance companies are big bullies and will send lots of intimidating letters to try and get someone to pay it off quickly.

I'm glad your relative is ok, OP.

It's only money.
Something will get sorted out.

Cycling UK have a legal helpline for members- I assume the OP's relative is not a member. The solicitors who provide the service for Cycling UK are called "Fletchers"- they obviously have cycling related legal knowledge - www.fletcherssolicitors.co.uk/cycling-accident/

However, for the purposes of this thread and given he's family, obviously if we can get him out of it, we will

what a reprehensible attitude. Actions have consequences and he needs to learn to take responsibility for his actions.

If they've taken the trouble to pay for a solicitor, then they want paying. He doesn't have any assets e.g. home/car. He's best pulling out any savings from his bank and just keeping a minimal amount in there. When they go to court and ask for à bank statement and list of assets, they're going to realise it's all a waste of time and money.

They will probably drop it if he doesn’t have insurance as only other option is to declare himself bankrupt
with fees cost and damage they charge for everything the car being assessed collected a courtesy car alone could cost over a grand can’t imagine any claim coming in under 7k

Paying the full amount isn't the only option. He could be ordered (or he could offer) to pay it off in smaller installments - even if 20 a week.

I feel really stupid but hadn’t thought about cyclists having insurance until reading this thread. Thank you! (I don’t ride btw).

Yes,

My DS crashed into a car 2 years ago (he was 15, so I have more sympathy!). It was his fault- not like this scenario, there was a huge bush, hidden turning for the car, dark etc, but was still his fault.

Our house insurance took care of everything. The police spoke to me about how car companies are going full pelt with these cases now, even with children, & how lucky we were to have insurance, otherwise it would be court & a payment plan for us as parents. It was a brand new car & the costs were over £3000 (specialist repairer & all that) even though the damage looked cosmetic.

Insurance company also replaced the bike, which was worth quite a bit. It pays to have really good insurance.

Sorry, but this is disgusting. This is what's wrong with society. What happened to stand up & take the consequences of our actions?

So your primary goal here is to defend your clearly in the wrong cycling relative from paying for his dangerous mistake which is costing someone else a lot of money.

No wonder so many people hate cyclists.

Surely the answer to that is to help the son to put forward a payment plan to avoid asking his dad to pay, not making an innocent stranger pay? The son could even, who knows, try looking for a better job?

As there was a collision the driver can take the cyclist to the small claims court to recover the costs, up to £1500.

Typical cyclists trying to bend the law and avoid responsibility for their own actions. Where they get the arrogance from I have no idea.

Awful thread! Young guy, head injury and a very stupid mistake. Driver should have car insurance to cover this but as usual trying to avoid notifying and claiming. This is what car insurance is for! Tell the young lad he was confused at the scene and to deny liability. He may not even remember correctly what really happened. Drivers should also be careful at all times to look out for cyclists under the new Highway Code.

It wasn't the car's fault. It was the cyclist who flew into a main road without looking. They guy is in his mid-20s. Plenty old enough to take responsibility for his own actions. My impression is it's the insurance company going after the cyclist, which is to be expected. Likely he will end up paying it back over time.

Well he need to quit his 'very casual job and earns about £150/wk' and get a full job to pay for the damage or his dad back if he pays. No excuse not to pay just because he currently has a 'casual job'

Is this actually real? There were quite a few threads recently where someone with an axe to grind kept posting about 'push bikes' which seems an unusual and antiquated choice of words.

Liability isn't black and white, if I were him I'd be asking for evidence of the damage to the car and three quotes for repair, alleging contributory negligence from the driver that would reduce any award, if he had any injuries then say he would counterclaim for these. Stress he has no money and offer £100 or so without prejudice to make it go away.

But I think it's a made up scenario to get people saying all cyclists should be mandated to have insurance.

How would this scenario be different if it was a pedestrian who ran into the road and damaged a precious car with their body?