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?

Absolutely beyond help. And beyond belief. It's scary that people this dim have the vote.

Report to police and make a drawing of what happened and photograph her face. New laws mean if car hits cyclist or pedestrian then car driver is at fault. Looks like he was coming from a side road onto main road so he should have been more careful, also he said he was late for work so maybe going too fast. Hope she recovers soon. She must have got a fright.

So if a bike is a vehicle and she was oncoming traffic, what the hell was she doing coming up the wrong side of the road and on the pavement?

But he didn't hit her? She rammed into him?

Re "pavement"
You are clearly saying in all circumstances, that is wrong unless the rules
changed last night

Are you able to give me a link to the highway code that states what you posted?

Rubbish.

As she slammed into the side of his car whilst cycling on a pavement ( at age 17 she should know better ) she clearly wasn’t looking and a driver is not expected to back up out of her way.
A cyclist is also required to use the road legally and responsibly and she should have been slowing down as she was coming to a junction. Someone could have actually been using the pavement for the purpose it is there for ie walking, and she could have gone into them.
She is irresponsible.

He didn’t hit her. She hit him.

The new rules specifically say they "does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly."

There is no law/rule/right for someone to plough on gung ho across junctions without showing any due care or consideration at all, even moreso if they were illegally riding on a pavement.

Imagine going to the police and saying someone did injury to your fist by not moving out the way when you punched them... cycling into a stationary car is a bit like that

And are allowed to drive.

Cyclists are road users and the pavement is part of the highway.

Still doesn't give you the right to be negligent/careless and then blame someone else!

It's illegal for her to be cycling on the pavement

Clearly she bombed across the crossing without looking and then hit his car....

I've seen it several times with teenagers who think the pavement is part of the road...its not

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html

This is what the driver should have done, but didn’t.
Take extra care at junctions. You should

• watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians including powered wheelchairs/mobility scooter users as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
• 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)
• remain behind cyclists, horse riders, horse drawn vehicles and motorcyclists at junctions even if they are waiting to turn and are positioned close to the kerb
• watch out for long vehicles which may be turning at a junction ahead; they may have to use the whole width of the road to make the turn (see Rule 221)
• watch out for horse riders who may take a different line on the road from that which you would expect
• not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
• look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.“

171
You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign and a solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic before you move off.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 16

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25

on turning left- which is what he was in the middle of doing when DD moving along the main road collided with him:

182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

^This the driver did not watch out for traffic coming up in his left- the DD on her cycle. Who while she could not see him, he could have seen her. He is the one with the responsibility to LOOK and GIVE WAY as he was on the side road joining the main road.

I know. Terrifying, isn't it?

For everyone saying "go to the police", I hope the OP does go to the police. And they interview the driver, and it goes to court, and he's able to reclaim every single penny that this woman's idiocy and negligence has cost him as a result.

I've read the Highway Code in the last hour, and posted part of it.

Cars only have to give way to pedestrians if they are waiting to cross or already crossing. Cyclists should not be on the pavement anyway but the same would apply.

I'll post it again:

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.

and also from the Highway Code:

Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

It really depends on how long it was there. If the car had just pulled up and she couldn't stop in time it's the driver's fault.

He was at the junction waiting to turn.

she was illegally cycling on the pavement and not paying attention. She did not have right of way.

No, it’s not “illegal”
New rules allow it for children to use the pavement as well as other cyclists who need to for safety in heavy traffic so long as they are considerate of other road users.

In addition, many pavements are shared use for both cyclists and pedestrians, so it isn’t established that the DD was mis-using the pavement at all.

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
https://www.eta.co.uk/2021/07/06/cyclists-may-ride-on-pavements-on-condition-they-do-so-considerately/

I agree i think it’s terrible that people can have their property damaged through no fault of their own then have to go through expensive court proceedings to get some recompense.

I hope OP sets a good example to her daughter and pays up. Then the daughter pays her back when she can.

Yes, but 'traffic' along a pavement should mean other people walking or running, not illegal cyclists. Collide with another walker and hopefully there is very little harm done. Runners should take care though since they could do more damage. Cyclists riding illegally on the pavement is a risk that toddlers/children/elderly people should not have to contend with.

You’re wrong. He wasn’t stationary according to the posts by the OP. They were both in motion when they collided. The DD had right of way by travelling along the main road AND by the hierarchy of road users.

It’s not illegal. Hasn’t been since 1999.

This is what the driver should have done, but didn’t.

What didn't he do? The vast majority of that doesn't apply.

on turning left- which is what he was in the middle of doing when DD moving along the main road collided with him:

She wasn't travelling along the main road.

Who while she could not see him, he could have seen her.

How? Was his car using an invisibility cloak? How was his large vehicle not visible but the bike was?