Dd hit car whilst riding her bike

[Sfuandtired]

Dd 17 has collided with a car tonight whilst riding her bike, she was crossing the road and from what I can make out didn’t see the car turning, she hit the car with her wheel leaving a dent and was thrown over the handle bars banging her head on the window, the driver got out, asked if she was ok, took her name and phone number, then said he was late for work and drove of!
Dd has since had a text saying she will be sent a bill and bank details for the damage to the car! WWYD?

Ignore the fact she was on a bike.

If this was a jogger or a walker who ran or stepped out of a blind spot, obscured by a hedge, crossed the road without pausing to look for traffic- would the driver be at fault?

She was riding illegally on the pavement, unsighted behind a hedge, and rode across a junction.

And would you also make stuff up, like saying she flew over the bonnet, when she actually rode into his car and bumped against the passenger door/window? Or would you tell the truth?

Not sure this is true. What is the legal authority for it? Why would liability insurance be available le for cyclists if they never have to pay for damage? If you google, there are lots of solicitors and cycling organisations offering advice to cyclists on their liability if they cause an accident.

This. The police should have been called, and your DD should have been taken to hospital - if she hit her head she may have a hairline fracture.

And I know your DD doesn't appear to be hurt, but she may have concussion.

And I am sure she was very shaken up to add to it the poor thing.
What a scum bag to drive off and leave her without helping her call someone and make sure she's OK.

Although she appears to be on the wrong side of the road

I’m a bit confused by this pic? Was the driver stationery? In which case it does seem your DD is at fault because she should have stopped at the the edge of the pavement. If she’d been on the road going across the junction when the driver pulled out he’d be at fault as he should stop and ensure no oncoming traffic.
Where I’m confused is if the driver was moving is it a case of knock for knock? Because he should have been looking to check there were no pedestrians walking into the road? Especially now laws have changed to put more onus on the driver to be aware of things around them. Think it’s really difficult to assess without a bit more detail.

many years ago I had the same thing happen where a driver went into me then drove off. He was behind me on a main road I drifted nearer the middle of the road (I think as I can’t work out how else he rear ended me when I was moving) and the next thing I knew he’d gone straight into the back of me , I was catapulted off my bike. He pretty much moved my bike and then went on his merry way. Thankfully aside from being very sore I was ok, but my bike was buckled. In hindsight I should have got the police but it was 30 years ago, I was about 13 and definitely didn’t have a mobile phone.

Why on earth would you block him? Just behave like a civilised person, if you take issue with what he did then tell him.

I think the costs could be very high. I had a bump and needed a hire vehicle through the other car’s insurance and the part my vehicle needed to repair it took two months to arrive, and so the hire van costs alone were over £3000 alone.
I think that with the new law on junctions the case could be made that the car is at fault, I guess that a lot would depend on whether the car was still moving when your daughter hit him.

This assumes the car was moving.

He stopped and exchanged details. He didn't leave the scene.

He’s a nutter for thinking he can get money out of an uninsured minor. Regardless of who is at fault, he should have the common sense to know the cyclist isn’t required to pay up, especially not if they’re a minor.

He doesn't know that she is a minor, or that she is uninsured. The cyclist certainly is required to pay up if ordered to do so by the court.

He stopped they exchanged numbers
im sure he will of asked if she was ok

if she says and appears ok he’s done absolutely nothing wrong

At 17 she is a child.
Although legally he may have done nothing wrong, I couldn't go on and leave a child who may or may not be hurt without at least helping them to call someone or getting them to hospital to get checked out, but maybe that's just me.

Banging her head does not necessarily mean she was injured. OP's second post states that she was not. The fact that the driver's car was damaged is irrelevant.

In that event the insurance company has lost and can make the claim.

He didn't hit her she rode into him therefore she hit him.

This yet again misunderstands and misrepresents how insurance works.

If the driver takes it to their insurance company, they will sue OP's daughter on his behalf. if she is at fault, she will have to pay both for the damage to the driver's car and for the insurance company's legal costs.

There is a really high burden of responsibility on drivers versus cyclists and pedestrians. Any collision involving a car on the road with a person or some animals which causes injury has to be reported to the police. It doesn't matter who hit who. The girl has a bruise on her head she was injured, some injuries that time to develop. It a dog had run across the road and hit the car it would be the same. The responsibility is with the driver (a sheep for example can't report to the policy). If it was a blind junction the driver should have been taking a lot of care. If he didn't give space to an ongoing cyclist would he have given space to a running toddler etc etc. It might not be seen as fair but when you take to the wheel of a 1 tonne vehicle you take a lot of responsibility on.

Irregardless of fault, neither should have driven away without reporting it to the police.

Everyone saying OP should pay up has no idea how much this could cost.

It’s not just going to be a couple of hundred quid to fix a dented door. It could be a whole new door, plus a full respray to make the colour match. Or if it’s manufactured as one unit then maybe you can’t just get a door, maybe you have to buy a whole new side panel. Then there’s the cost of a courtesy car while the repairs are done. Then the driver claims personal injury because they are traumatised or claims to have whiplash from braking suddenly.

It could cost thousands. People don’t have that sort of cash. Hence why they have insurance. The driver needs to report to police, get an incident number and claim on his insurance. Then it’s up to the insurance to pursue the 17yo in a civil case if they think they can get any money out of her (unlikely).

For all we know, the car driver might be 17 too.

Call police and report a driver leaving the scene of an of an accident in which a child was injured.

I hope your DD is ok.

I agree the car driver shouldn't have rushed off, but he did stop and ask if she was ok, yes he should've said I'm not leaving until I/you've called some one and been picked up. But if she was saying she's fine and was probably shock up and just keen to get away from the situation.

Looking at the diagram I do believe she is at fault, cycling on the pavement she should have stopped before crossing. I don't believe the change in the highway code gives her right of way when a car is already on the road approaching a junction, it's for those cars that are on the main road turning into a side road or turn off whatever, that the pedestrian has right of way if there's one coming to cross, followed by a cyclist on the road, then a car.

I cycle to work and have been knocked off my bike by a car on a roundabout, I had right of way, signalled and was going round to the second exit when a car sped past me taking the first exit and clipped me. I had minor injuries but they didn't stop, I don't think the car would have had any damage, my bike didn't

If I'd have hit a car and been at fault I would give my details to pay any costs

So yes I think you should see what he says when he contacts you with the costs as your DD should be paying out of goodwill, rather than his insurance claims to be affected I think

Being at fault and being proved to be at fault are two different things. And being ordered to pay compensation is a different matter entirely.

You can be at fault but there’s no proof, so you get away with it and the blame is assigned 50/50.

Or you’re proved to be at fault but the court doesn’t order you to pay compensation because you’re a minor with no assets.

It’s not as black and white as you’re trying to make it out to be. Plus small claims cases don’t award legal costs, which is why insurance companies are reluctant to get involved in them. They are not going to sue a child who got run over, stop being melodramatic.