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?

In this circumstance she’s highly unlikely to be found to be at fault as it’s not clear cut. By the info the OP neither of them saw each other.

Whether she’s classified as a cyclist or a pedestrian - she’s kind of both - the HC gives both right of way at a junction. Moreover “those in charge of vehicles that cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others”.

She shouldn’t have been riding on the pavement (unless she had been in a cycle lane that ended), but he should have been looking for anyone coming from the right or left, whether they’re walking, on a scooter, walking their bike etc.

It's illegal to cycle on footpaths unless they are signed as dual purpose for cyclists and pedestrians. In which case the cyclist needs to slow down as they come to the end of the footpath and approach a road junction.

If motorists should be treating cyclists on pavements as if they were cycling in the road, then cyclists on pavements should also be treating it as if it were part of the road. In that case, this cyclist was on the wrong side of the road.

And the motorist may well have been looking for people coming from the left on foot but not expecting or allowing for someone coming at a speed sufficient to damage a car because that speed would be impossible for a pedestrian.

She shouldn’t have been riding on the pavement but he should have been looking for anyone coming from the right or left, whether they’re walking, on a scooter, walking their bike etc.

Since when could humans see round corners?

The cyclist was unsighted because of the hedge.

It wasn't like this was a cyclist in the road, where they were visible.

She was tucked out of sight by a hedge.
(See diagram.)

Just because there is now this 'give way' rule in the HC, it doesn't mean pedestrians or cyclists can walk or ride onto junctions, into oncoming traffic without checking what's coming.

This appears quite simple

she carried on riding at speed across a T junction, without stopping, where a hedge was hiding her from the view of cars. She was lucky not to be killed.

Either way both pedestrians and cyclists are classed as vulnerable road users.

As scooters can be ridden on pavements and bicycles by children under 10, not only allowing for speed is dangerous.

Bwah ha ha!! You should stop now, honestly it’s embarrassing.. you’re lecturing people about the Highway Code and you don’t even understand what it is you’re reading.

and you told me to “learn to read” earlier, you utter amateur.

She didn’t see him either because of the hedge, so they are equal on that score.

One could equally argue he carried on driving at speed across a T junction because he didn’t look carefully enough left and right to ensure no-one was trying to cross.

That's what i thought. If she crossed on the pavement over the road without looking then sorry but it's her fault. There's no way the driver could have seen her coming if she rode straight over and he was pulling up at the junction.

...but you don't cycle straight across a road coming from a pavement in the opposite direction. You need to stop at that road and see if anything is coming!

My DH was hit by a car when on his bike. It was totally the driver’s fault. I was with him at the time. The driver stopped, we exchanged numbers, checked for damage, I took pics of his car and the bike and we went home. No one called the police at the time.
Later that day, DH did call the police for advice. He was concerned that the river may well try to avoid paying for the damage to the bike. The police said they would log the event and if DH wanted to peruse it they would take further action. Nothing was said about failing to report the accident.

I have never said it is clear. On the information posted by OP, it isn't. All I have said is that if OP's daughter caused the accident, she is liable for the damage caused.

I have absolutely never seen a child under ten on a bike on a pavement or a person on a scooter on a pavement going fast enough to damage a car or fast enough not to be able to stop in the sort of distance indicated on the diagram. If they are going that fast and I've just been lucky, they should not be. They should be riding their vehicles in a manner consistent with protecting the safety of more vulnerable road users ie pedestrians.

the car driver in this instance only has to give way to pedestrians (or vulnerable road users) ‘crossing’ or ‘waiting to cross’ the road .. the Highway Code gives ABSOLUTELY ZERO rights of way to someone ‘approaching’ a side road.. it’s only when they get there and wait, that car drivers need to stop to let them cross.. so even if he had seen her, which I doubt he would have seeing as she was going at a great rate of knots, he was under no obligation to stop unless she was already there waiting to cross.

you are talking absolute nonsense.

The driver didn't get that far. He was still on the side road when the cyclist hit him.

This diagram makes it look like she was on the pavement.

He carried on driving a T junction (turning presumably) not noticing a person crossing.

She was crossing.

They are not equal, he had right of way, she didn’t.. the only way she would have had right of way was to cycle up to the pavement edge and stop (still illegal), wherein he would have then stopped to let her cross.

do you think he should have binoculars strapped to his face when approaching junctions just in case someone half a mile away may want to cross in a minute?.. the HWC and the law is clear, that you should give way to people ‘waiting to cross’ or ‘already crossing’.

anything else you’re just making up to fit your agenda.

The speed is not the issue so much as the size and weight of an adult bicycle. If it had been an under 10 she would have been smaller and so would the bike so it may have caused just a scratch.

I’ve seen 100s of people on scooters on pavements going too fast around London. They’re everywhere.

I’m not the one making stuff up to fit my agenda. She was near enough to the pavement edge to drive into him when he didn’t stop ergo he should have seen her.

no she really wasn’t, if she was already crossing HE would have hit her (or given way to her more likely), as it happens she failed to stop and wait, we know that because she rode into the side of his car.

fucking cuckoo land.

There was no "child"

17 year olds are legally allowed to drive. Are they children too?

Hmm I said you’d be hard pressed to argue this as a case of negligence to which you replied “no I wouldn’t”.

Now you say it isn’t clear which I agree with.

I am genuinely looking forward to this thread hitting 40 pages... whoever makes the last post wins the argument!

she wasn’t waiting to cross or actually crossing so the rest is irrelevant, are you honestly telling me the rules in the Highway Code don’t apply to her? M

or is it just that you don’t understand them?