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?

If he had swerved she may not have run into him. It really depends how wide the road is.

I'm sorry but if I drive a bike's length from the curb on most roads especially at a junction, I'd be in the middle of the road and I don't think i should be driving at all tbh..

You think this has anything to do with the laws of motion 😂

Which one?

(1) Every object moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.
(2) The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force exerted and inversely proportional to the object's mass.
(3) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The point I have been making is that we don’t actually know how the accident happened, who was exactly where, what speed, who saw what when.

If the car had been in her path as she started to cross she would have seen it and stopped. It must have only been coming up to her path, so it may have come up fast/suddenly, with its nose just ahead of her as she collides into the side.

@sandyhappypeople

This from someone who can’t read OP’s posts accurately.

1. Yes. The point I am making is that we do not know exactly how the collision happened. There are many assumptions, many claims of imagination as fact, but little actual hard data from the OP.
2. Going over the handlebars doesn’t require speed, simply to break suddenly.
3. It matters if you claim the OP said something she didn’t.
4. A window could be the a side window or a front window. She very clearly does not mention door despite your claim. More likely to be the side window on balance, but another detail that is not clear.

You can't dent a window so it must have been part of the bodywork.

Really depends on the roads. Some of the roads round here are very wide, some very narrow.

It occurred because she didn’t see him and he didn’t see her.

Every object moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

Yes. And the force required to throw an adult-sized person (who weighs probably a minimum of 50kg) over the handlebars of a bike is quite substantial. 17 year olds are basically adult-sized. Given that the car was moving forwards, the only force exerted in order to do this must have been from the momentum of the bike moving forwards and then being brought to a sudden halt by the fact that the bike hit the car whereupon the cyclist continued to move at or close to the speed of the bike - if the car was moving sideways (ie turning towards the cyclist) at any speed, the cyclist would have been thrown backwards not forwards. The force of the car moving forwards and the bike moving forwards are perpendicular to one another. The only force that is relevant to the cyclist being thrown over the handlebars is the speed of the bike being brought to a sudden stop by the impact with the car in front of the cyclist. The other law of motion cannot be commented on since we don't know if the cyclist was accelerating or not.

TBH, I think the cyclist in question should probably do a cycling course or something because it doesn't sound like she is safe on the roads or pavements and I'm personally a bit concerned about pedestrians sharing a pavement with her.

@TheRainItRaineth Save me from cod physics.

I’ve gone over the handlebars when cycling slowly as I had to break suddenly. In this case there is the force of impact as well. It doesn’t take as much speed as you think.

I'm a cyclist too. I've never gone over the handlebars. I don't think you understand physics. The force of impact is proportional to the speed the cyclist was travelling at.

Doesn't change the fact that she didn't slow right down (or stop) as she approached that blind corner. As pp have said, she could have killed a pedestrian doing that. She had plenty of time to stop if she'd been slowing to cross - but she shouldn't have been on the pavement at all unless it was a shared path (which OP didn't indicate).

She's on the wrong side of the road in this pic.
Why is she cycling on this side?

OP has said and the entire conversation since has referred to it. RTFT

If the car had been in her path as she started to cross she would have seen it and stopped. It must have only been coming up to her path, so it may have come up fast/suddenly, with its nose just ahead of her as she collides into the side

you do realise that even a well maintained bike does not have the ability to stop dead. Obviously stopping distance will depend on speed as well as brake types and reaction time. Shimano once stated a stoping distance of 5.5m for a bike travelling at 9mph.

At a junction with a hedge obscuring vision it’s conceivable that she saw it as the car arrived at the junction, braked and still hit the side of it.

Yes and if he’d driven into her it would have been more likely he could be seen to be at fault (even though she was on the pavement when she shouldn’t have been). However she’s ridden into the side of him. Which makes her culpability greater.

Many pathways in the area I live in are dual pedestrian/cyclist and have signs confirming this so perfectly legal and right for cyclists to use them.

The OP left this thread on page 3 and now it's on 39. Who'd have thought it?

Why are you calling people dumb? You’ve instantly lost the argument there, grow up.

I was responding to your post claiming that an accident is not negligence and pointing out that it is. I was not saying who was negligent in this case, but the courts would find that one or both of those involved were indeed negligent.

The OP isn’t coming back. I expect she told her daughter to block the number and will get off lightly whilst the driver is faced with expense and hassle.

The daughter will join the ever-increasing number of entitled cyclists who think the roads belong to them and that rules do not apply to them on their bikes.

As a pedestrian in London, I encounter far more aggression and rule-violation from cyclists than motorists. Depressing. They feel untouchable.

My friends son was in a similar situation, he was driving his van out of the company gates when a cyclist came down the pavement at speed and was knocked off her bike. There were hedges blocking view in this case as well
Police and ambulance was called in this case.
Police told him it clearly wasnt his fault and not to worry.He finally got a letter from police closing the case A few months later she tried to sue his company fo 10,000 for loss of 2 weeks wages! He didnt hear any more so assume the claim was not successful.
Also when my 5 year old scratched a car, my buildings insurance paid out under the legal liability section.

If he'd driven into her as some are claiming, she'd have been injured or dead, and he wouldn't have damage to his passenger side door.

I hope she learns from this and takes lessons, because at this point she doesn't sound safe to be riding.

The OP says she didn't see him.
A car driving up to an intersection has no reason to stop short partway down the road a couple of meters back from the intersection on the off chance someone on a bike might be cycling along the pavement.

Sounds like the car was doing very normal thing of approaching an intersection when someone illegally riding their bike on the pavement appeared, was unaware of their surroundings and ran into the side of them.

Car drivers can not be responsible for people doing silly and unexpected things. Suddenly bolting out into traffic, falling off the kerb into moving traffic and illegally riding a bike on the pavement obscured by a hedge and suddenly appearing are examples of things that are not the car drivers fault.