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?

I understand the recovery of costs by insurers - I don't agree with it as it makes them lazy investigators.

I've been on the receiving end of a non-fault proposition by another party, and it took 14 months to have a successful settlement outside of court. I was most definitely not at fault, but had to argue for a long time via solicitors even with cctv and witness statements. Hence my opinion of what is it all really worth it here.... It was worth it for me, but for the sake of a £500 repair would I go through it again? Nope.

Driver in collision with injured cyclist asks age to determine if they’re an adult. As they’re not, driver takes charge and calls police himself. That’s the responsible course of action.

Leaving the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence. Even if you don’t believe you caused it.

Police would have contacted her if he had contacted them.

Driver in collision with injured cyclist asks age to determine if they’re an adult.

Why would they do that? He wouldn’t ask her age if she was driving a car.

What an excellent graphic. If this is an accurate reflection of what happened, then of course the daughter was responsible and should be paying for any damage. And what on earth is a 17 year old doing cycling on a pavement?

Are you not aware that most speeding and drink\driving offences are committed by men? Rose-tinted glasses…

You might want to consider the complete lack of logic in that. Because more men speed than women every male driver speeds all the time? 😭

The HWC gives priority to the bicycle crossing, the driver has left the scene of an incident & the police should have been called.

Id be letting the drive know you are contacting the police and going to give information as they shouldn't have left the scene - that could be counted as a hit and run. That you will seek advice from the police about what to do next

Why? Because the adult takes charge of the situation. If I was in a collision with a teenage boy under 18 of course I would call police and also his parents.

This is where the new Highway Code rule H2 is a bit mad. If she had been off her bike pushing it, then it's his fault under H2 because she's a pedestrian and he should have stopped to let her across. Because she's on a bike, she's not a pedestrian, so the rule doesn't apply, I don't think.

On balance obviously she should have slowed down and double checked before going out into the road, but drivers should be wary of people crossing the road at junctions nowadays too.

I'd call 101 and ask their advice but definitely get DD checked over also. Was she wearing a helmet?

If you have to go to a MIU to check her over, you might as well spend the time waiting in two queues - one to be seen and one to speak to someone at 101!

You wouldn’t know if a driver was under 18 and you have no right to interrogate a stranger about their age.

Actually that’s incorrect!

The cyclist has just as much responsibility to contact the police within 24hours

The cyclist was speaking and clearly able to get home and speak to OP worrying more that they’d have to pay up for ‘hitting a car’.!!
Did the cyclist ask how the driver was, not as far as OPs post it seems. Let’s not forget going through something like that can be a real shock. A car hit mine on the passenger side and whilst they went in slowly ( sliding on ice) I was a quivering wreck after.

Both parties can suffer, both parties can be in shock, both parties can report it!

You don’t get off all your responsibilities because you’re 17 and on a bike.

Don’t be ridiculous.

He was the adult in charge of the vehicle, the cyclist was the one who was hurt.

The cyclist could indeed have called police themselves, but they were under 18, ND and may not be aware of the Highway Code.

Because that's how car insurance works. Cyclists don't have to be insured, and if the cyclist doesn't have any money, the only way you can claim is via your own insurance.

Of course you can’t step out of a car and ask how old someone is
Dont be ridiculous !

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/n-a-3319/

It seems cycling on the pavement isn't illegal

If they’re injured and their parents need to be contacted of course you can.

Would you just leave a 14 year old in the street after a collision?!

She was ridiculous by on the pavement and hit him on the side? How on earth is it his fault?

*riding

How on earth is it his fault?

because of the changes int he HWC

coming up to a junction a driver should be looking out for cyclists and pedestrians, many don't even if a pedestrian is on the pavement they ignore the fact that the pedestrian has priority

It is utterly illegal, not technically.

And very very dangerous

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/andrew-holland-cyclist-who-ran-down-toddler-on-the-pavement-is-fined-in-court-10432159.html

Would you just leave a 14 year old in the street after a collision?!

no, as a driver that has been in a collision you should be calling the police, its what any driver should be doing if you are in a collision and someone is hurt

Wake up!
He doesn’t know how old she is nor has he any right to ask.
Im done responding to your posts like @yamuvva who wisely gave up a while ago.

Pointless
I hope OP you do the right thing and don’t teach your daughter to shurk her responsibilities .
Id tell her to stop riding on the pavement as well before she hurts someone!

It is utterly illegal, not technically.

no it isn't

see above post

And what on earth is a 17 year old doing cycling on a pavement?
As has been pointed out by multiple people already, it may be a shared path. We don't know that of course as the OP hasn't been back to clarify but it's a real possibility as lots of councils are currently drawing lines down the middle of pavements as a "solution" to the need for cycling infrastructure. It's generally a useless approach of course but it's cheap. I'm 57 and have been known to ride my bike on the pavement when legally entitled to do so. I prefer not to, and would generally stick to the road if the "cycle path" is actually just a bit of pavement but I do use them if the road is more dangerous,
The OP's daughter might have been using a pavement when she shouldn't have been but without further information it shouldn't be assumed. Lots of pavements are officially shared and lots of people don't notice that they are.