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?

The incident needs to be reported to police if an injury occurred. Police will decide if there is a criminal case to bring charges of negligence against the cyclist (which could happen if the injury to the other party was severe). But the case would be heard in a youth court if the person is 17, and the penalty would take account of their age. If the court awards compensation the parents would be liable to pay, not the 17yo.

If the police decide there is not a criminal case to be brought against the cyclist for negligence, the injured party can still bring a civil case for damages. Which is complicated if the cyclist is a minor and less likely to succeed.

In OP’s situation, the car driver was not physically injured, so the police are vvv unlikely to bring a criminal case against the cyclist. They will basically say it’s a civil case and the car driver has to take it to court themselves if they’re out of pocket. Which is the current situation - car driver has to claim on their insurance and if they’re out of pocket they have to take the cyclist to small claims court.

Have you seen the diagram? And did you read tha OP’s DD was cycling on the pavement?

Or the car was stationary, at the junction, and the cyclist ran into him. The cyclist, possibly appearing more adult than child, didn't indicate that they were injured. The car driver didn't report to the police as he had the cyclist's contact details and didn't want to get them into more trouble with the police (as they were cycling dangerously). Possibly.

So why don’t you apply this principle to the cyclist situation? Why is it the case that the cyclist should be scamming the driver they’ve already caused damage to?

More dramatics.. the car didn't drive out in front of her at all, she slammed into the side of him while he was at a junction waiting to pull out.

You know from where she hit him that he was already past the point of being able to see her coming on the pavement or give way to her, and she was going too fast to stop, so you're literally just making things up. If another cyclist was in place of that car or god forbid a pedestrian coming round that corner she would still be in the wrong, but would be responsible for a lot more damage and injury or potentially death if it was an elderly person or a small child, she could have knocked them in front of an approaching car, she's lucky it was a car she hit and only injured herself.

I highly doubt an insurance claim would be successful seeing as she was riding illegally and dangerously.

If DD was at fault, it's on her/you to pay up. She ran into the car, was on the pavement, rode into the road without good visibility so wasn't riding to conditions, so it seems likely DD is at fault.

I'd get DD's head checked out to make sure she is okay. if you go to the police, they can clarify fault but it's possible she'd get a fine for riding on the footpath.

Disclaimer: I am an expert in none of this, so definitely don't take my word for it.

I never said the cyclist SHOULD scam the driver. I said a lot of them WOULD and COULD. The driver is fortunate if the cyclist is honest.

Look, the first question is should the police bring criminal charges against the cyclist for negligence? While the cyclist technically shouldn’t have been riding on the pavement because it’s illegal, the police won’t bring criminal charges if they didn’t seriously injure anyone. It’s a purely civil case.

The second question is can the cyclist claim on the driver’s insurance? Yes, if they can convince them that the driver was at fault. Lots of people would have a go at this because it costs nothing and could net them some cash. In the absence of a witness it’s the driver’s word against the cyclist so would probably end with fault being assigned 50/50, and the cyclist would still get some cash.

Obviously an honest cyclist would not try to claim, they would tell the police and insurance company that they were at fault. The driver then claims on their insurance for repairs, and has the option to bring a civil case against the cyclist (which likely won’t result in a compensation order because the cyclist is a minor and the insurance has already covered it).

Insurance companies do try to recover their costs though.

Well, presumably the hedge was at the side of the pavement, not growing in the centre of the pavement and blocking it! So instead of stopping at the side road to check for traffic coming down the side road your dd rode straight across the pavement and into the road.

I am sorry,but based on what you have said I think the accident was entirely her fault, both for riding along the pavement in the first place and then for riding across the side road without stopping to look for traffic. She is damn lucky she didn’t end up underneath the car with a broken pelvis or worse.

I am sorry she was injured, but if as she says the view of the pavement on the side road was blocked by the hedge then she could have caused serious injury to a pedestrian by riding into them. My cousin has been sent flying twice by cyclists riding on the pavement, both times she was given a mouthful of abuse by the cyclist, had a broken arm the first time and serious bruising the second time. Pavements are for pedestrians.

She would be at fault for riding illegally on the pavement, and obviously the car driver would say he was stationary when she hit him.

But all she has to do is claim that he pulled out in front of her and failed to give way, then he left the scene without providing his details or calling the police.

In the absence of an independent witness the fault would be assigned 50/50 and the DD would get a reduced amount of compensation.

Well that says a lot about you.

The OP said her DD went over the handlebars. According to the driver apologists this translates to a minor bump for the DD but a significant and costly damage to the car? Also the DD ‘deliberately’ cycled into the car according to a PP yet it is people correctly calling a 17yo a child who are being dramatic.

In case it needs to be spelled out again. If someone hits their head you don’t just rely on a cursory ‘you ok?’ check before you race off to work fuming about the damage to your bloody precious car. You stop safely, get them to sit down for a bit, check if they can see properly/have a headache/feel sick. Then you strongly suggest they don’t ride on and ask who can be called.

In the absence of a witness it’s the driver’s word against the cyclist so would probably end with fault being assigned 50/50, and the cyclist would still get some cash.

The wouldn't need to take anyone's word for anything, the damage to the car and photo's of the car in situ prove who was at fault 100%, that coupled with the fact that the cyclist was riding illegally on the pavement ensures there will be no such claim on the drivers insurance.

The driver isn't 'fortunate' that the cyclist isn't going to try and claim off them, they are bloody unfortunate that they hit them in the first place, and people like you are insisting he should be out of pocket and time by going through his insurance to recoup costs when what should actually happen is the girl or her parents should agree to pay for the damage that has been caused through no fault of his own, THAT is what should happen, not any of this "who claims off who, civil court blah blah blah, 50/50" bullshit that is being spouted here.

was she riding on the pavement or on a cycle lane?

he should have checked if she was alright properly. his single day of work, insurance prices and car dent arent more important than a young woman's potential head injury.

Why are you encouraging people to lie to get a payout?

Are you an ambulance chaser IRL?

They aren’t going to pursue a minor for the cost of a dinted car. Even if it went to court and she admitted fault, the court still probably wouldn’t order compensation.

They generally only order compensation if the minor has their own assets (ie they can pay), or the minor’s parents have insurance (ie the insurance can pay), or if the minor is expected to earn a decent amount within the next six years (so will be able to pay). They might order a nominal sum, and it really doesn’t help anyone to receive compensation of maybe just £50 after the hassle of a whole court case.

I’m not encouraging anyone to lie. I’m saying that’s how it works. Two people both say it’s the other person’s fault, clearly one of them must be lying, but the blame gets assigned 50/50 and each person gets half the compensation they would have got.

People do it all the time. Especially if one of them is a cyclist or pedestrian, because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

She rode into the side of the car because she rode across the pavement and straight over the side road without stopping. How is that the drivers fault? Whether he was stationary while checking for traffic on the main road, or moving forward to complete the turn he could not avoid someone driving across the pavement and straight into the road.

It CAN be the driver’s fault, if he was moving and pulled out in front of her when he should have stopped and given way. Clearly it was the cyclist’s fault too. Insurance would probably assign the blame 50/50.

That isn’t what happens though. The cyclist or pedestrian or uninsured driver does not pay, even when they admit they’re at fault, because they don’t have insurance. So the driver has to claim on his own insurance, and then attempt to pursue a civil claim against the other party.

Really this is for the insurance companies to sort out.
Assuming you are covered on your home insurance pass the information the driver gives you to your home insurance company.
As she was cycling on the path I really don’t know if she’ll be covered.

From your diagram and explanation she was at fault and will have to pay up. If it’s not paid for then the driver could take her to court.

But all she has to do is claim that he pulled out in front of her and failed to give way, then he left the scene without providing his details or calling the police.

Of course you're encouraging people to lie.. You're telling people exactly what to say to ensure they get a payout of some kind.. it's fraud, it's illegal AND it's immoral to stitch someone up who IS NOT at fault, just so you can get money out of them, it's you basic crash for cash scam.

You may as well do a guide on how to mug people and get away with it while you're at it.

You are quite right of course but the only reason I know about side affects of serious head injuries and how to assess for concussion is because I have an accident prone son.
A lot of adults don’t know this and there’s no training at school and no requirement to know it
So it is not unreasonable to assume the driver didn’t know

He asked if she was ok. She said yes.

That isn’t what happens though... apparently not in the world according to Stigglet.. meanwhile in the real world, it doesn't matter if they have insurance or not, if they cause damage it's up to them to make it right.

Are you honestly advising that they shouldn't make it right?

Just for the hard of hearing at the back: She does not have to pay up.

It’s up to the driver to take her to court if he wants to. And he would have to demonstrate a financial loss in order to be able to claim anything from her. If his insurance has covered it and he’s no worse off then he isn’t out of pocket, so he can’t claim against her.

He MIGHT be able to claim against her if his insurance premium goes up at the end of the year. And if he can demonstrate that the increased premium is solely due to that accident (which is difficult to prove because insurance premiums fluctuate all the time).

And even if he did succeed in proving that he was out of pocket, he’d have to persuade them to make a compensation order against a minor, which is unlikely.

It would be madness to leave it to a civil claim. This will cost OP a lot more as the driver will also be expecting compensation for time, premiums on his insurance due to the claim and court costs.