PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Who is at fault?, Car Vs cyclist on footpath.
jdh
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 13:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,627
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



A car is turning right onto their property, there is a solid queue of traffic blocking them due to traffic lights. The traffic shuffles up a bit leaving a gap so the car driver makes the turn. As they're crossing the footpath they become aware of a cyclist coming from their right on the footpath (not shared use, no cycle path) and brakes to a stop. The car and cycle collide, all the marks are along the side of the car rather than front, the cyclist falls off. The car pulls forward fully onto the driveway, the cyclist jumps back on the bike and pedals away before the driver can speak to them nevermind get any details. The driver reports the collisions to the police (took details and suggested it was cyclist's fault but they can't follow up without cyclist details). Driver also reported to insurance company for information only not a claim who said if there was a claim from the unknown cyclist they'd probably pay out anyway as the cyclist would be classed as a vulnerable road user.

Driver is a bit shook up about it all and looking at a repair bill (scratch & dent) around the same as their insurance excess so not likely to make a claim. Cyclist is no doubt a bit shook up too but didn't want to hang around so unsure of extent of injuries.

Is what the insurance company said correct and would that go down as an at fault claim?

If the cyclist does make a claim would the driver be able to get the cyclist's details to pass on to the police?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 13:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 14:33
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,844
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Very much doubt you'll hear any more. That the cyclist scarpered speaks volumes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 16:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 14:40) *
Is what the insurance company said correct and would that go down as an at fault claim?

If the other party is 'unknown' then annoyingly it's recorded as an at fault claim, regardless of actual fault.

For example, late last year my car had a couple of grands worth of damage done to it by, I believe, an articulated lorry that cut a corner into an industrial estate. My car was parked with no one in it at the time and the other driver didn't stop or leave a note (given that it was a glancing blow, I guess they may not have even felt the impact). With no CCTV or witnesses I had no way to ID the other driver.

Clearly this wasn't my fault as I wasn't in the car (and it was parked legally, in a marked bay) but it's still recorded as an at fault claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 16:34
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:08) *
QUOTE (jdh @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 14:40) *
Is what the insurance company said correct and would that go down as an at fault claim?

If the other party is 'unknown' then annoyingly it's recorded as an at fault claim, regardless of actual fault.

For example, late last year my car had a couple of grands worth of damage done to it by, I believe, an articulated lorry that cut a corner into an industrial estate. My car was parked with no one in it at the time and the other driver didn't stop or leave a note (given that it was a glancing blow, I guess they may not have even felt the impact). With no CCTV or witnesses I had no way to ID the other driver.

Clearly this wasn't my fault as I wasn't in the car (and it was parked legally, in a marked bay) but it's still recorded as an at fault claim.

But you made a claim?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 16:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,137
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



If anything does come of it, I would not be surprised if the insurance regarded the car driver at fault.
For pulling across the path of the cyclist.
That the cyclist should not have been there is irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Tue, 14 May 2019 - 16:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:34) *
But you made a claim?

--Churchmouse

The damage was obviously going to far exceed my excess, so yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 17 May 2019 - 20:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:56) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:34) *
But you made a claim?

--Churchmouse

The damage was obviously going to far exceed my excess, so yes.

That's why it was a fault claim against you: you made a claim.

The OP, however, had said "Driver also reported to insurance company for information only not a claim", so this won't go down as a "fault claim" against the OP unless the cyclist ultimately makes a claim against the OP's insurance. However, it will be recorded as an incident, which could cause the OP's next year's premium to increase, but not by as much as if it had generated an actual claim. The insurer's reasoning will be similar to why my insurer tried to increase my premium after I reported an incident of vandalism to them (but did not make a claim): such an incident suggests an increased risk, so they tried to re-price my premium based on that at renewal. I think that's when I switched companies instead...but I still had to mention the vandalism to my next insurer.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 21:12
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,915
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:36) *
That the cyclist should not have been there is irrelevant.

How do you figure that?

If the cyclist shouldn't have been there but the driver could and should have seen him, then the fact that the cyclist shouldn't have been there is irrelevant because the cyclist was "there to be seen". But if the cyclist wasn't meant to be there and rode into the car before the driver had an opportunity to see him or react, it's the cyclist's fault.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 19 May 2019 - 21:12


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 04:26
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,818
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I agree very much, if the cyclist was coming down the path at 20+mph then a careful and competent driver may well not see them as they wouldn’t be in a position where the driver would normally need to see someone on a pavement, if the come cyckist was doing the same speed as a fast moving pedestrian (say 6mph) then it changes it substantially.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 08:19
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,137
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:36) *
That the cyclist should not have been there is irrelevant.

How do you figure that?...…….



It was part of a paragraph, not a stand alone comment meant to stand on its own in all circumstances. biggrin.gif

I stand by the basic, given that a car driver was driving over a footway and a cyclist struck the side, the insurance would be likely to blame the car driver for cutting in front of a cyclist, to borrow Rookie's phrase, "who was there to be seen"
The driver would be on the back foot having to show why the cyclist was at fault and that they (the driver) had no chance to see the danger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 10:17
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:50) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:56) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:34) *
But you made a claim?

--Churchmouse

The damage was obviously going to far exceed my excess, so yes.

That's why it was a fault claim against you: you made a claim.

--Churchmouse

Err... A fault claim requires a claim in the first place? Well I never...

I was simply pointing out that if the other party was unknown it is automatically recorded as an at-fault claim, regardless of actual fault. I optimistically assumed it would be obvious that this must refer to a situation where the driver claimed for the damage to his car and the cyclist remained unknown.

This post has been edited by Spandex: Mon, 20 May 2019 - 10:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdh
post Mon, 20 May 2019 - 13:22
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,627
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



The driver was my wife, the cyclist is still unknown but 2 women on bikes have been spotted on our driveway apparently taking photos of her car so I wouldn't be surprised if a claim did go in. Insurance company rang her friday wanting more details which made her think a claim had been made but that turned out to be because 1 department hadn't fully updated another so it was on the system as needing a follow up (cyclist had been marked as details to follow rather than unknown). Insurance are classing it as a hit & run at the moment but have said that could change if the cyclist came forward with a different version of events, they want some photos to show layout, movement etc for now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 18:54
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 20 May 2019 - 11:17) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 17 May 2019 - 21:50) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:56) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 14 May 2019 - 17:34) *
But you made a claim?

--Churchmouse

The damage was obviously going to far exceed my excess, so yes.

That's why it was a fault claim against you: you made a claim.

--Churchmouse

Err... A fault claim requires a claim in the first place? Well I never...

I was simply pointing out that if the other party was unknown it is automatically recorded as an at-fault claim, regardless of actual fault. I optimistically assumed it would be obvious that this must refer to a situation where the driver claimed for the damage to his car and the cyclist remained unknown.

It generally helps OPs if you respond to the actual facts of the OP's case, rather than to ones you've made up to illustrate your point.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:35
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 21 May 2019 - 19:54) *
It generally helps OPs if you respond to the actual facts of the OP's case, rather than to ones you've made up to illustrate your point.

--Churchmouse

The OP doesn’t have a ‘case’.

They asked if it would go down as an at fault claim and I described a set of circumstances where that would happen. Given that they were considering whether is was worth claiming themselves (but felt this was unlikely) it seems relevant to point out what would happen.

That being said, if you’re ever so concerned with it going off topic, feel free to stop responding to me wink.gif

This post has been edited by Spandex: Tue, 21 May 2019 - 20:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdh
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 10:12
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,627
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



Repair quote has now come back as basically double the excess. If we don't claim we pay £600 to get it fixed and don't have a claim on the record. If we do claim we have a £300 excess but the quote was given privately rather than through insurance company so I don't know whether that would result in different figures if we have to go through them. What I don't know is if we'd end up £300 worse off through increased premium over the next X years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 12:39
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,915
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (jdh @ Wed, 22 May 2019 - 11:12) *
What I don't know is if we'd end up £300 worse off through increased premium over the next X years.

Do some dummy quotes with a claim 1, 2, 3 and 4 years ago, compare to dummy quotes with no claim, add up the difference in premiums over 5 years and you have the answer.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 23:29
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 21 May 2019 - 21:35) *
That being said, if you’re ever so concerned with it going off topic, feel free to stop responding to me wink.gif

Finally, something I can agree with.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Charlie1010
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 05:29
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324



The pavement cyclists tut here when you don’t get out of their way.
Not being fully able means I have no choice.
But they still have a go.

One shouted ‘what you playing at?’ as I tried to avoid him.

Thing is my walking stick could have easily got trapped in one of his wheels. Potentially launching the scrot into the traffic.

Who would be at fault then?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 09:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 00:29) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Tue, 21 May 2019 - 21:35) *
That being said, if you’re ever so concerned with it going off topic, feel free to stop responding to me wink.gif

Finally, something I can agree with.

--Churchmouse

You can agree with it, but still didn’t manage to do it...

But the fact that the OP is still considering making a claim without knowing the identity of the other party shows the relevance of my post. Still looking for the relevance of yours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 11:08
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,888
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Spandex @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 10:12) *
Still looking for the relevance of yours.

I wasn’t aware you were a moderator. I must have missed that memo.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 19th July 2019 - 13:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.