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 can wait...

There's a lot of arguments on this thread and someone referred to 'pavement cyclist scumbags'... let's remember this is a 17 year old child. The pavement may well have been a duel cycle path pavement but at any rate the current highway code states that cars at a junction should give way to those crossing so the driver is more than likely at fault. Even if he wasn't he can't claim against the child as it is not s legal requirement for cyclists to hold liability insurance.

OP block the number and seek medical advice for your child's potentional injury. I

He must have seen her go over the handle bars and heard the bump on his window. If he didn’t see it, all more reason to call for medical help.

She needed to be checked out at scene.

you could learn to read in that time

I know, I was using that example to show the legality of riding on the pavement is not relevant to culpability for the accident.

The accident could well have happened if she was cycling on the road so that is a ridiculous claim.

An offence which a ND 17 year old is not likely to get in trouble for, unlike an adult leaving the scene of an accident in which someone was injured.

How though does he give way.
She rammed into the side of the car
Is he supposed to back up to let her career past.

Its very clear from the OPs post and title of the thread that

1. she was on the pavement, OP would have said if it was dual use
2. ops thread title clearly states her daughter went into the car.

All OP wants to know is whether she should pay and if so how.
Shes not interested in potential head injuries, or she would have asked or gone to A&E
Shes not discussed whether her daughter wasn’t at fault
She just wants to know whether she should acknowledge the drivers text re costs and pay up or not.

Everyone should take responsibility for damaging another persons property and not doing so is disgusting behaviour !

And if they ask for a direct payment, then it's a major red flag.

@Motomum23 is right.

No it isn't!

In the UK minors are only responsible for debts incurred in respect of day to day necessities. I can't think of a single circumstance in which fixing his car could be a necessity. The law may not be fair but it is still the law.

So you have nothing then..

You argument is complete bollocks, the new rules for the highway code require car user to let more vulnerable road uses cross if they are waiting to cross.

But crucially, the bit you seem to be conveniently IGNORING, is the fact that they need to be at the road side waiting to cross, the can't be halfway down the street, this is the guidance for pedestrians, and it is for their own safety. I'm throwing you a bone here @MikeRafone , because this doesn't apply to cyclists as they shouldn't be cycling on the pavement in the first place (as per the HWC), but let's pretend for a minute that the same rules apply.

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170).

the rules you're so keen to bleat about don't apply to pedestrians, cyclists, or anyone approaching the junction on the pavement, after all, at that point you don't know where they are going so are under no obligation to stop and wait for them to make their mind up.

She wasn't there at the side of the road when he approached the junction. FACT.

Regardless of the fault of an accident hasn't he broken the law by leaving the scene?

I would make contact with the police.

Try learning the law before contradicting people on legal matters. This is not about debts. It is about negligence.

If someone under 18 causes damage through negligence, they are liable for that damage. The younger they are the higher the bar before the courts decide they are negligent. But, at 17, the standard is pretty much the same as for an adult.

100% call the police.

You’d be hard pressed to argue this as a case of negligence. It was an accident.

Thats not what highway code rule 8 states

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170).

And why do you think the driver wasn't looking. My car got a dent from being hit by a cyclist (MIL) whizzing down the street head down. Since I was stationary at the time it certainly wasn't my fault!

People cycling have priority when going straight ahead at junctionsThe code clarifies that when people cycling are going straight ahead at a junction, they have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of a side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
People cycling are asked to watch out for people driving intending to turn across their path, as people driving ahead may not be able to see them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022

That is for cyclists on the road.

she wasn’t ON the road so it is completely irrelevant, she also wasn’t waiting to cross the side street either so she isn’t covered by ANYTHING in the Highway Code that says she had right of way. She had NO right of way unless she was at the side of the road waiting to cross which she wasn’t.

where does it state that you have to be waiting at the side of the road to have priority?

Where does it state the cyclist has to be on the road to have priority? It states People cycling have priority when going straight ahead at junctions - nothing mentioned about road.

This is for cyclists on the road. If the OP's daughter had been on the road, she would have been on the other side of the road, and nowhere near this car. It seems that the driver, from the diagram, had limited visibility but enough to see that there was no pedestrian waiting and no pedestrian approaching the crossing.

Considering expected pedestrian speed the driver could also observe that there was not enough time for a pedestrian to be in a place where the driver could have potentially collided with such a pedestrian. What he wasn't expecting was a fast cyclist, going at a sufficient speed and with enough force to both be unable to stop and to put a dent in a car. Because cyclists are not supposed to be on the pavement.

If you are vulnerable and need to use the pavement to cycle you should also be cycling in a way that respects pedestrians' safety. Anyone going at that speed was not doing so.

TheRainItRaineth where does it state this is for cyclists on the road? You've decided it means the road, it doesn't state road and wouldn't as roads aren't the only place where there maybe conflict at junctions

No, I wouldn't. If someone is held to be at fault in an accident, that is negligence.

This is the full rule:

Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).

I do not think that someone on a pavement is likely to be overtaking lorries or slow-moving vehicles. In addition, 'road signs and markings' are mentioned. It also recommends that cyclists 'watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.' It is very clear that this is intended for cyclists on the road.

In addition, the car clearly reached the junction before the cyclist, given that she drove into the side of it, so regardless of priority the cyclist in this instance should have been cycling at a speed where she would be able to stop if necessary, bearing in mind her speed and position as advised.

She wasn't on the road.
She was on the pavement behind a hedge.

If she'd been on the road, on the left had side of the road, opposite the junction, the driver would have seen her.

She cycled into the side of the car therefore the car was already at the intersection. A pedestrian walking would have been seen and the car could have waited. Someone on a cycle on the pavement would be going at a speed that the car would not know it was there until too late.

Giving way isn't the same as having clairvoyance or the ability to see around corners. It also doesn't absolve others of responsibility. If a person darts out unexpectedly into traffic it's not a case of a driver not giving way.