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?

Unless it's one like in the article I shared with you, then the shared path continues over the side road. Just because you haven't seen or noticed a junction like that doesn't mean they don't exist.

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

not cyclists just pedestrians.

“Cyclists don’t have the right to cycle on pavements, but it’s not a criminal offence. Mind you, in 1999, the Government introduced a fixed penalty, which means you could face a fine of up to £500. The rule isn’t one that police forces tend to impose, but you could still get a fixed penalty of £50.“

The fines are for inconsiderate use of the pavement per my earlier Home Office guidance not for merely cycling on the pavement, especially if a child under 18, as was the DD.
https://laka.co/gb/blog/cycling-liability-insurance/ultimate-guide-to-cycling-laws-uk/#pavement

The DD isn’t going to be arrested or fined for having been on the pavement.

Well she wasn't cycling "considerately" if she bombed across a junction without checking it was clear and ploughed into the SIDE of another vehicle, was she??

DD had right of way by travelling along the main road

she wasn't travelling along the main road. She did not have right of way.

Going so fast that she couldn't stop in time to avoid an obstacle is clearly "inconsiderate" at the very least!!

Seriously?

Cyclists going straight ahead have priority…

The driver should have given way

”211
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are waiting alongside you, coming up from behind, coming out of or moving off from junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think.

Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.
When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for and give way to cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when moving off, turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.”
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/motorcyclists-and-cyclists.html

it isn’t established that the DD was mis-using the pavement at all.

You've stated many things as fact which haven't been established 😂😂

The OP said pavement, not cycle path/shared use/yellow brick road.
The car was already turning when the DD hit him so she was not waiting to cross (because she didn't stop at the junction) nor already crossing.

As a aside: There's a twatty cyclist near me who's when challenged for cycling on a narrow pavement) declares that it's "shared use" despite there being not one single sign to say this. He is the kind of arrogant twat that gives cyclists a bad name. Many posters on MN give cyclists a bad name too. Luckily they re in the minority.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of who 'caused' this accident, this driver hit a vulnerable road user (child) and left the scene, when it was clear she had hit her head. How is she? At the very least he should have contacted you, or the police, tearing hurry or not. Consequences of just leaving her there could have been very serious.

True which is why my first comment was 'maybe, maybe not' about whether the daughter was at fault. If it was not a shared path then it was her fault, if it was a shared path then the driver was at fault and negligently blocked the pathway not giving the daughter enough time to stop.

None of that applies to this scenario.

Yes she was…. look at the OP’s drawing.

what is absolutely clear is that if she had been using the road as she was meant to, this accident would not have happened.

They should not get into the path of someone travelling along the main road, the road the car is turning into. That doesn't matter whether the person travelling is in a car, on a bike or on foot, the car coming up to that T junction has no right to cross their path

All of it applies. And if you are so sure, then why are you discouraging the OP from reporting the accident? The police will agree with you….or will they?

OP- I would take with a grain of salt any poster discouraging you from reporting the accident to the police who will know the Highway Code. If they were so sure, they would not be trying to get you and DD to suffer in silence.

I have. she was on the pavement, not the main road.

You can’t know this, cyclists are hit and killed every day while using the road perfectly and with zero errors.

Read the OPs explanation, the girl was riding her bike on the pavement , not the road. The drawing is ambiguous.

stop making things up. I haven't discouraged the OP from doing anything.

@Cherryon I am sure others have already made this point- she was on the pavement. Not the road.

And if she was on the road, she was riding on the wrong side of it!

But she was on the footpath.

The pavement along the main road is part of the main road.

@Cherryon Oh come on! You're now saying that a footpath is part of a road?

😂 Maybe that's the get out excuse for a cyclist stopped for cycling on a pavement.

'Sorry officer, but it's part of the road.'

Their point is irrelevant per the Highway Code, even if it is correct that the pavement was not a shared use pavement or dual use cycle route + pavement, which they cannot possibly know.

OK then, let's assume you're correct (you're not) and she was "travelling along the main road" (she wasn't) and therefore had right of way (she didn't).

In order to have ridden into the side of the car as per the diagram as he pulled out and turned left, which we know she did, that means she was travelling both a) in the wrong direction AND b) on the wrong side of the road.

Please stop. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

I am however wondering, as you make use of the phrase "driver's license" and not "driving licence", whether you might be an American, and may be imagining this arse-backwards. Because that's the only way that I can see that you could possibly think you are right.