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?

He was negligent. I think the DD cycling on the pavement is a minor infraction at worst. Many cities in the U.K. have pavements as dual use cycle routes. Pulling out in front of an oncoming cyclist is much more serious.

How can you give way to someone cycling into the side of the car?

I've not RTFT but there are a few things that matter here. People have jumped on pavement but lots of 'pavements' are shared use nowadays. In this case, it sounds like your DD pulled out on the car without giving them time to stop, so she should cover the cost of the repairs, ideally your household contents insurance may cover this if it has personal liability cover. Hopefully she has also learned to stop at junctions rather than head straight out without looking. I would be ware of paying the bloke in cash though, provide your details and suggest his insurance company can contact you, to ensure it is all legitimate. If she regularly cycles e.g to work I would definitely advise looking at proper cycling insurance through one of the specialists such as Laka, Bikmo, Yellow Jersey etc, or through membership of British Cycling as this will provide 3rd party cover and legal advice for situations like this. Most if not all club cyclists, racing cyclists etc will have this.

To the driving public, this type of junction is why most faster cyclists don't use cycle paths that drivers think are 'perfectly good' because you constantly have to give way if the cycle path is shared use or kind of formed as part of the pavement design compared to being a 'road lane' like a bus lane on the main carriageway. Cyclists in this situation would almost always use the road. It's just yet another reason to campaign for proper infrastructure for all!

First of all, report it to the police.

Then you respond to his message saying she is a minor, you've reported it to the police, here's the info on that and he should report it to his insurance and further communication should be with you and not your daughter as she is under the age of 18.

What you do next will depend on his response to that.

He pulled out in front of her when he should have given way. That is still his fault as she was on the main road and he was joining the main road from a side road.

Jesus wept.

Firstly, she wasn't "part of oncoming traffic", because she was on the pavement.

In order for her to have ridden into the side of his car - which the OP has already admitted she did - he, where he was sitting in the driving seat, was already beyond the point of being able to see her approaching. Because he had already passed where she was riding out from. Otherwise he would have driven into the side of her bike.

Would you like a drawing to indicate this very basic law of movement, since it's apparently beyond your limited comprehension?

He was clearly either stationary at the junction, or already pulling away when she came off the pavement where she shouldn't have been in the first place and rode into his car.

Ergo, absolutely her fault.

People have jumped on pavement but lots of 'pavements' are shared use nowadays

And the majority are not.

I think there are several discussions rolling including whether it was an injury for the purpose of a reportable incident.

You clearly have never seen a road traffic accident in your life involving a junction.

He was negligent because he was driving safely, turning and a cyclist came shooting out of a blind spot and crashed into the side of the car?

You just have some crazy mental gymnastics going on in your head to conclude that

Even dual paths mean that cyclists have to slow down approaching junctions! And if it is a shared use with pedestrian, the marking will have ended around 12 feet before the junction to indicate “this part isn’t a shared path”. It’s not a minor infraction it’s seriously fucking dangerous

She was not on the main road. She was cycling illegally on the pavement.

You're not very bright, are you?

@YaMuvva

totally agree. I understand she's not NT, but either she's competent to cycle or she's not. Being not NT will not keep her or others safe, no matter how many allowances we WANT to make.

The ones that often have lots of cyclists on are….just go to Cambridge.

But she went into the side of his car. He is not expected to back his car up so she can career off the pavement

Apologies if someone's already said this, but I took that to be the daughter's drawing of the situation.

I'm also of the opinion it was entirely her fault. Blind corner, riding illegally on the footpath (bloody lucky there wasn't a pedestrian coming around the corner), flies out fast enough to slam into the car and send herself over the handlebars - no sympathy.

give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way (see Rule H2)

1. it says pedestrians
2. they only have priority if they are crossing already or waiting to cross. Not if they are simply approaching the junction.

I have, and I’ve seen a bike go into the side of a car

Please answer the question what a car is supposed to do in a split second with a cyclists coming towards the side of them?

There’s no giving way involved because the cyclist is not trying to cycle in front of the car. Otherwise they’d be cycling in front, across the junction (yes this is still in the Highway Code because she isn’t supposed to be on the pavement at a junction, even if it was a shared use pathway) not into the side of the car.

Cyclists still ah e to slow down approaching junctions. Do you understand that?

They were both moving, no one was stationary. If he were stationary, the DD would have seen him and used her brakes.

If it was a shared pavement I’m sure OP would have said so.
Maybe OP will confirm either way but as it stands with the information we have it’s a pavement for pedestrians, not cyclists.

Clearly not, since she rode into the side of him.

I repeat: Not very bright. Because if he was not stationary and he was still moving, and she hit the side of his car, that means he was already past her when she pulled out and rode straight into him. Which automatically makes it her fault.

“He was clearly either stationary at the junction, or already pulling away when she came off the pavement where she shouldn't have been in the first place and rode into his car.”

No and no. You are desperate to defend the driver, which is typical really.

And you still have to slow down approaching junctions.

I will try and find a photo but these shred use pathways taper off about 12 feet before a junction. Meaning the second the wheels touch the non-shared is part the cyclist is breaking the law.

This is because it’s dangerous to cycle towards corners that pedestal is can come round - especially when it’s like the street around the corner doesnt itself have a shared use path

It hardly matters. The driver is still responsive to look and stop for pavement users as well. People are just going on about “DD illegally cycling” to try and keep the OP from reporting the accident.

Is the OP in Cambridge?

Well no she didn’t have time to see him because even though she was approaching a blind corner she didn’t slow down. She didn’t see him. He was either stationery or had been stationary and was creeping out the junction.