Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

17yo son bike collision - right thing to do?

82 replies

Number42 · 09/11/2022 13:34

ds has come home to say he had a minor collision on his bike with a car: he was going along a bike lane/pavement, crossed a side road, bumped into side of car which was driving up the road. Apparently car now has a dent. Morally, probably mostly his fault but we weren't there, who knows. Phone numbers were exchanged. Trying to work out what stance to take with the driver. Don't mind paying a few quid and certainly would rather do that than unpleasant exchanges of lawyers' letters etc - but am thinking, won't their insurance just cover it?

OP posts:
CloudybutMild · 09/11/2022 14:15

SilverPen · 09/11/2022 14:12

OK, sorry if I picked the wrong words , but the rule is pretty clear that the driver would be at fault.

Rule H3 " You should not cut across cyclists...when you are turning into or out of a junction...This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track....and you should give way to them. Do not turn into a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve"

Show quote history

Picked the wrong words? You simply invented a right that does not exist while getting on your high-horse about others’ knowledge of the rules.

You also seem pretty confused about which pieces are guidance, and which are rules. If you’d care to educate yourself (unlikely, I know) you’d learn the difference between the use of “should” and “must” in the code.

But if you want to keep posting rubbish while pretending to be expert though, please do continue.

notmyrealmoniker · 09/11/2022 14:15

Check the new Highway Code rules about pedestrians crossing a side road and having right of way. Does it apply to cyclists? If so you're son is not in the wrong.

fairgame84 · 09/11/2022 14:17

Nosleepforthismum · 09/11/2022 14:12

Pretty sure the driver of the car is automatically at fault on this one. Similar to if they hit a pedestrian. The responsibility is on them to see the bike as a potential hazard/danger and slow down and drive cautiously.

Not necessarily. A cyclist rode into the side of my car and it was deemed their fault by the police and insurance. They tried to sue me for personal injury but dropped the claim due to the police report.

Parky04 · 09/11/2022 14:17

SilverPen · 09/11/2022 13:54

It is really quite a worry that so many drivers don't know the Highway code.

Rule H1 "Drivers of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility tontake care and reduce the danger to others"

Rule H3 " You should not cut across cyclists...when you are turning into or out of a junction...This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track....and you should give way to them. Do not turn into a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve"

Do actually, it's hard to see how OP's DS could have been at fault.

The OP hasn't got a clue what happened, so how on earth have you come to the conclusion that the DS wasn't at fault!

SilverPen · 09/11/2022 14:19

CloudybutMild · 09/11/2022 14:15

Picked the wrong words? You simply invented a right that does not exist while getting on your high-horse about others’ knowledge of the rules.

You also seem pretty confused about which pieces are guidance, and which are rules. If you’d care to educate yourself (unlikely, I know) you’d learn the difference between the use of “should” and “must” in the code.

But if you want to keep posting rubbish while pretending to be expert though, please do continue.

Show quote history

It does say the driver should "give way".

I don't see how you can argue the general precept of the driver being at fault is wrong, assuming, as others have, that the cyclist was going straight on and the driver was turning.

I'm also not sure why you're so angry about it. I've just quoted the book.

CoffeandTiaMaria · 09/11/2022 14:22

CloudybutMild · 09/11/2022 13:47

Your son drove into the side of the car, so no, the relative speeds don’t matter.

He was in the wrong, don’t be a dick about it.

Show quote history

Exactly.
So, according to you, your son has right of way driving into the side of a car already proceeding along a road, I.e he rode straight off the pavement into the side of it?
You weren’t there, you just have your son’s version.

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 14:23

Might help to decide if you/ds should pay or not.
discerningcyclist.com/do-cyclists-have-right-of-way-at-junctions/

BinBandit · 09/11/2022 14:24

No idea why people have the impression that the cyclist was going straight on and the driver turning as the OP doesn't read like that but then she also wasn't there. It could be that the cycle lane/pavement went straight ahead but over a road, the OPs son could have been travelling at a speed unsuitable for a shared path/crossing a junction or it could be that the driver is completely at fault. There simply isn't enough information about any of this for an opinion as to who is guilty to be anything other than a guess tbh.

RedWingBoots · 09/11/2022 14:27

notmyrealmoniker · 09/11/2022 14:15

Check the new Highway Code rules about pedestrians crossing a side road and having right of way. Does it apply to cyclists? If so you're son is not in the wrong.

There is a hierarchy of road users.

There is not enough information in the OP's to know exactly what happened, and the car driver's insurance is likely not to chase the OP's son due to his age.

RedWingBoots · 09/11/2022 14:28

BinBandit · 09/11/2022 14:24

No idea why people have the impression that the cyclist was going straight on and the driver turning as the OP doesn't read like that but then she also wasn't there. It could be that the cycle lane/pavement went straight ahead but over a road, the OPs son could have been travelling at a speed unsuitable for a shared path/crossing a junction or it could be that the driver is completely at fault. There simply isn't enough information about any of this for an opinion as to who is guilty to be anything other than a guess tbh.

Great minds 😉

Have you noticed the cyclist is legally a child as well?

MarshaMelrose · 09/11/2022 14:29

SilverPen · 09/11/2022 14:12

OK, sorry if I picked the wrong words , but the rule is pretty clear that the driver would be at fault.

Rule H3 " You should not cut across cyclists...when you are turning into or out of a junction...This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track....and you should give way to them. Do not turn into a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve"

Show quote history

But the cyclist wasn't on the road. He was riding along the pavement. He should have stopped at the end of the pavement to check what coming. He didn't. He rode off the pavement and into the side of the car.

GerbilsForever24 · 09/11/2022 14:29

Rule H1 "Drivers of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility tontake care and reduce the danger to others"

I don't read that to mean that the driver is therefore to blame in an accident. It's more a sort of guideline/recommendation based on the reality of life.

Two teenagers were nearly hit by me in the car last week. It was 100% their fault as I had been stopped in traffic, and they were (I realised after) weaving through other stopped traffic and approached my car from my left but were hidden behind other cars most of the time. As I started moving forward, they started to move in front of my car. If I had hit them, I don't think there would have been any long term consequences for me - I did nothing wrong. BUT.... I was the one with the car and they were pedestrians so my fault or not, I'd have still been the one who hurt them so of course I had the responsibility to slam on brakes. which is what I did (well, tapped gently - I was stopped and was only moving forward slowly to inch forward in traffic!)

SilverPen · 09/11/2022 14:32

MarshaMelrose · 09/11/2022 14:29

But the cyclist wasn't on the road. He was riding along the pavement. He should have stopped at the end of the pavement to check what coming. He didn't. He rode off the pavement and into the side of the car.

Show quote history

He was on a shared cycle lane?

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 14:32

MarshaMelrose · 09/11/2022 14:29

But the cyclist wasn't on the road. He was riding along the pavement. He should have stopped at the end of the pavement to check what coming. He didn't. He rode off the pavement and into the side of the car.

Show quote history

Yes thats my take BUT the revised HW code now says the car driver should have seen the cyclist and given way.

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 14:35

...meant to say in the same way as if a pedestrian had stepped of f a pavement into the path of a car.

Remember the cyclist who killed a woman who walked out in front of him, he was jailed.

BigFatLiar · 09/11/2022 14:47

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 14:32

Yes thats my take BUT the revised HW code now says the car driver should have seen the cyclist and given way.

Show quote history

If he hit the car in the side the only way the car could have given way would be to stop and reverse. The car was going straight and was hit in the side, sounds like hercson simply wasn't looking.

TheOrigRights · 09/11/2022 14:49

If the car was already driving up the road and the cyclist went into their side then I don't see how the car could possibly have given the cyclist priority.

This would suggest that a car turns into a side road, drives at 1mph looking left and right JUST IN CASE a cyclist turns up so they can then give them priority.

It sounds like the cyclist possibly looked left and right, but not actually ahead.

DogInATent · 09/11/2022 14:50

BigFatLiar · 09/11/2022 14:47

If he hit the car in the side the only way the car could have given way would be to stop and reverse. The car was going straight and was hit in the side, sounds like hercson simply wasn't looking.

Show quote history

It's not that clear-cut. Without a diagram everyone's making assumptions biased towards their opinion.

ZeroFuchsGiven · 09/11/2022 14:51

Number42 · 09/11/2022 13:45

Because it's all about their relative speeds, isn't it? I wasn't there. Maybe the car was travelling faster than it should have been and that contributed to why he didn't have time to stop.

Show quote history

Dont be that person, it was your Sons fault and he needs to take responsibility.

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 15:02

BigFatLiar · 09/11/2022 14:47

If he hit the car in the side the only way the car could have given way would be to stop and reverse. The car was going straight and was hit in the side, sounds like hercson simply wasn't looking.

Show quote history

I think the idea is the car driver looks up the pavement/cycle lane and then acts accordingly, rather than just drives to end of road and stops until clear to turn etc ignoring the cyclist.

But of course a diagram is essential.

anotheropinion · 09/11/2022 15:08

"going along a bike lane/pavement"

Pretty useless description here.

A bike lane is a bit of the road with a lane marking between it and the rest of the road running parallel to it, but below the kerb - definitely in the road proper. A bike in this most definitely has priority over traffic from a side road.

A pavement is for pedestrians, and shouldn't normally have a 17yo on a bike on it at all. Depending on the exact circumstances there might still be some obligation for a motorist to take care anyway.

Perhaps you need to focus on some actual detail of the incident?

Their insurance isn't there to pay for someone else's negligence.

TheOrigRights · 09/11/2022 15:10

walkinginsunshinekat · 09/11/2022 15:02

I think the idea is the car driver looks up the pavement/cycle lane and then acts accordingly, rather than just drives to end of road and stops until clear to turn etc ignoring the cyclist.

But of course a diagram is essential.

Show quote history

There is a requirement to be aware of your surroundings, people on pavements, dogs etc, but I don't think you are required to creep along checking between each house in case there is a cycle path, or just someone coming out of their house - and then stop to give them priority.
I'm imagining driving around the small streets of Cambridge - it would be impossible.

TheOrigRights · 09/11/2022 15:12

A bike lane is a bit of the road with a lane marking between it and the rest of the road running parallel to it, but below the kerb - definitely in the road proper. A bike in this most definitely has priority over traffic from a side road

That's one sort of bike lane. There are lots of different sorts. Some are shared with pedestrians, some are completely separate to the road or pavement, some have a solid line meaning cars cannot pass into it, some have broken lines meaning cars can cross it to get to another part of the road.

girlmom21 · 09/11/2022 15:18

A bike lane is a bit of the road with a lane marking between it and the rest of the road running parallel to it, but below the kerb - definitely in the road proper. A bike in this most definitely has priority over traffic from a side road.

Most cycle lanes in the West Midlands are on pavements now.

ArcticSkewer · 09/11/2022 15:19

He would be a brave or foolish car driver to follow this up as your son could chase him for personal injury and damage to his bike. I wouldn't worry about it til it happens. Meanwhile perhaps try and establish exactly what happened. From what you've said I can't see how you are sure it's your son at fault. He may just have been in shock.