west kipper – surely small claims is the next stop then?

've had a quick scan through this and there are lots of suggestions of the guy claiming off his own household insurance – which would seem the obvious thing to do.

Have we worked out whether he's got any yet?

unfortunately he hasn't no.

But in the event that the opposite happens and a motorist causes damage to a bicycle only the essential mechanical damage will be fixed- no insurer will pay out for cosmetic damage, no matter how extensive, and no bike shop I know will give a quote for it.

You need to find a different bike shop and/or get a solicitor who deals with cycle claims (I've always used http://www.bikeline.co.uk/ ). When I got knocked off my bike I got a nice cheque to pay for the replacement cost of anything that had a scratch on it – most of which I carried on using. That's what you're legally entitled to whatever an insurer or bike shop might think – you may have to threaten to take them to court to get it though (I've yet to have an incident where that's not been necessary when claiming off somebody else's insurance).

Nope your friend will have to pay
The guy will simply call his insurance and
he will take it in to be repaired and his insurance
company will get in touch with him for the money.

You will find that he can make a payment aggrement
and pay in instalments.

Thanks for the suggestions folks, but at the time I really couldn't get anyone to take this seriously, whereas if its a car there'd be no question.
Again, sorry for taking things offtopic a bit.

while I agree the chap needs to take responsibility, I'm almost inclined to agree with ChopperT, although perhaps not that far. It's a car, the same damage could quite easily come from a thrown stone, would you take the person who's car threw the stone to court?

It's an accident and the person who caused it isn't insured because they don't have to be by law. I'm not convinced he legally has to pay for it. He should make a gesture and offer to pay what he can (this may be the full amount or it may be a hundred quid). Sounds tough but as ChopperT says, you drive around at 70mph and leave the thing lying around in a carpark, I have a big dint in my car from a carpark bang which I found when I got back to my car, what can you do?

I'd be interested to see if anyone has ever managed to reclaim the full amount (or indeed, anything), from a non-vehicular road user who has damaged a car *by accident*. Bet it's never happened. If it was me I'd be very sorry and I'd tell them so and I'd offer some money to pay for the damage (not a grand), if they weren't happy with that I'd say there's nothing more I can do and if they fancy taking me through a small claims court, good luck.

It's a car, the same damage could quite easily come from a thrown stone, would you take the person who's car threw the stone to court?

If you could identify them and had witnesses to prove it, yes of course! Why on earth would you think otherwise?

It's an accident

Yes, but I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident". Whatever you seem to think, a non-vehicular road user (or anybody doing anything on the road or not) is just as liable for their actions as car drivers. Car drivers are only a special case because of the volume of "accidents" caused by them. I'm quite sure that many people have managed to claim the full amount from non-vehicular road users – the only usual problem (as pointed out by motorists in those threads where they complain we're not licensed, taxed etc.) is one of identifying a road user who doesn't have a number plate.

if they fancy taking me through a small claims court, good luck.

In a case as clear cut as this where identification is straightforward and they have witnesses (the usual stumbling blocks) they wouldn't need any luck at all. You'd be pretty stupid to attempt to defend it rather than settle before court.

Samuri, not strictly speaking a road user, but a mate of mine was made to cough up after he was attacked in the street. While defending himself he managed to throw his attacker into a parked car causing several thousand pounds worth of damage.
He almost got charged with assaulting his attacker too, The police suggested they'd drop any charges if he payed up.
Nae luck, eh?

If you could identify them and had witnesses to prove it, yes of course! Why on earth would you think otherwise?

I've re-read my post and appreciate it was vague. I meant a stone thrown from a tyre, from a car driving along.

I'll still hold, (while accepting west kippers example is slightly different), that if by accident I ram my bike into a car, they will have to accept the best offer I give them and no court would suggest liability and therefore impose penalties.

I'll still hold, (while accepting west kippers example is slightly different), that if by accident I ram my bike into a car, they will have to accept the best offer I give them and no court would suggest liability and therefore impose penalties.

Try it if you like – you're completely wrong. I still don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident" in this context.

I still don't think you understand the meaning of the word "accident" in this context.

Well clearly I'm not going to try it on purpose, that wouldn't be an accident. I've tried an 'accident' though, lots of times. It's just one of those things that happens in life and anyone who treats it in any other way than 'shit happens', is heading for a whole world of disapointment IMO.

It was a long time ago but I snapped a crank riding up a hill and cannoned into the side of car putting a big dint in the door, I'm pretty sure this consitutes 'an accident'. The owner was stood next to the car and despite me apologising profusely (and I did feel very guilty), was unimpressed and spent the next few months trying to sue me for the damage. While I'm sure 15 years later there are lots more lawyers geared up for stringing unfortunates up for things that aren't their fault, I'm still reasonably confident that if the law doesn't demand you need insurance, that you're not going to be held liable for something that happened outside your control.

I'm still reasonably confident that if the law doesn't demand you need insurance, that you're not going to be held liable for something that happened outside your control.

If it was completely outside your control then you might have a point. However much as you might not have meant to hit the side of a car, it still happened because you made the choice to ride past it on a bike which you were in control of, which had a faulty component on it (if the faulty component really wasn't your fault, then you could always counter sue the supplier!) Why should the car owner accept an "accident" when it's quite clear that it wasn't an act of god and the damage was caused solely by your actions, whether or not they were intentional. You see that's the way the law works, if you caused damage you are liable to put it right, whether or not you did it on purpose. Insurance is a complete red herring, since you insure yourself to cover your liability.

I should explain the correct meaning of "accident". It simply means that the damage wasn't intentional. It doesn't mean there is nobody at fault – you could be being totally irresponsible and cycling/driving in a way likely to cause a crash, it would still be an accident as long as you didn't intend to crash.

BTW samuri, if you read the whole thread, there has already been an example to disprove your point.

Someone stepped out infront a friends motorcycle once. He flattened her, braking various bones (hers, not his). He took her to court and she had to buy him a new bike.

The moral of this story Girls and boys is-
if you accidentally run into someone's car
..Leggit 😉