My daughter and the young lad from down the road (both aged 12) were riding along the path on their bikes yesterday afternoon as kids do. The path dropped down a dropped kerb and crossed the entrance/exit to a pub car park.
At this very moment a vehicle came out of the car park and there was a very low speed collision involving the young lad from down the road and the car.
The youngster picked himself up, had a bit of a cry about his grazes and the scratches on his bike, car driver shouted and swore profusley at him (this is another matter that will be dealt with in due course) about the damage to his bumper.
The actual collison was witnessed ONLY by my daughter and she says the car "zoomed" out of the car park. Neither of the two youngsters involved are naughty kids and even if they had done wrong (certainly the case with my daughter), they would collapse within minutes if they were fibbing.
Other witnesses (adults) became involved when the guy (big brave man) started shouting.
He's now pitched up at my neighbours house with a bill for £600 to repair his car.
My question is (on behalf of my neighbour) what should he do with the bill? Claim on the hosue insurance? Tell the guy to put it through his insurance? Tell the guy there is insufficient evidence to say who was at fault so each party sorts their own damage (admittedly his damage would be touch up paint for a BMX bike) or what would you lot do?
Thanks

Tell him to eff off and call the rozzers.

Just casually state you're not sure where the blame lays with a small child being run down by a car exiting over a lowered kerb but you'd be happy to get the police involved to help solve this one – he'll be off like a shot if he's got any sense…

id go for the local paper

explain how big brave fella started shouting at 12 yr old boy

shame him into stuffing his claim up his arse

or pay up then sneak round one night and key the full length of his pride and joy

id go for the local paper

explain how big brave fella started shouting at 12 yr old boy

shame him into stuffing his claim up his arse

or pay up then sneak round one night and key the full length of his pride and joy

Police were informed by the car driver last night and my neighbour went in this morning not knowing that the driver had already. They have taken a statement from the dtiver and are coming to our houses this evening. NO traffic police involvement as it's too low key and it's rained quite heavily over night so little chance of evidence of sppeds anyway (apparently).
Both children are petrified of the police involvement because they see the police as major authority figures. My daughter freezes every time she sees one walk by despite my assurances that they're only generally nice people. You should see her when we're going to the match at Man City 😕

Tell your friend to get the child to hosp/GP to be checked out and injuries recorded.

Ask driver politely if he has notified the police that he was involved in an accident where a person was injured, or did he not consider that key element of the law applied to him.

With neighbour and driver, inspect the "damage" to the car – if it is likely it could only have happened because he hit the lad, tell him to go on his way. If it could be argued either way, maybe your neighbour should be prepared to take some cost on the chin. However, £600 sounds pretty pricey – your neighbour needs several separate quotes.

Mainly, though, get the law involved. I bet he (driver) won't like that.

car driver's responsibility to give way I would have thought.

Er, my post arrived with all the others.

Kimbers may have the best approach…..

I'd like to know the answer to this question: who has right of way across the pavement when accessing private land. I'm pretty sure it isn't the car, but EVERYONE drives as though it is.

Agree with the comment above about him leaving the scene of an accident, and getting injuries checked out. What kind of scum runs someone over and then moans about damage to their car! I'd let it run it's legal course, but would probably contact my home insurer for legal cover.

if the lad rode into him he would have hit the wing, or the corner of the bumper.

if hes hit the front of the car (even if its at the side, still on the front surface, if that makes any sense) hes clearly hit the lad.

in one hand, he should have been paying more attention
in the other hand, the kids should have been riding on the pavement.
no-one, public or policeman, will tell them to get off the pavement, and into the road but it may be worth bearing in mind, before you go all official, that legally speaking they were in the wrong place.

600 quid for a low speed collision?! turn up at his house with some hammerite and a paint roller! 😉 (and some bombers)

interested to see how this pans out, good luck to the cyclists of course.

Putting my nasty hat on, guessing he might be a regular at the pub? taking that he did drive out of the car park at speed and with out much due care.

What are the chances he might might have had a few pints?

Wonder if he might go back again, say to the same pub and have a few again and drive?

What would be the chances of that I wonder?

Does the crime stoppers number cover drink drivers?

I can't be much help as I'd only be guessing the ins and outs of the law, but if I was driving and hit a kid and the car was damaged, even if it was the kid's fault, and whatever the situation (unless kid being for want of a better word 'criminal'), I'd take it on the chin and accept that these things happen, and that cars do get scratched and dented. I don't know how you'd have the front to turn up with a bill. The guy is obviously a dick. If the coppers had any sense (ha ha!) they'd politely suggest to the guy that he give this one up I think. If he doesn't, go to the paper and make him look the tool he is.

So angry I had to put my lunch down to add my two-penneth worth.

I'm outraged to learn that F*#&ker in the car is chasing for repairs.

Had I been the driver I had said screw the metal and plastic, is the child OK. And as for him shouting at the children. Just makes my blood BOIL !.

There is no way on earth he can pin this on your friend, without his help.
I'd go along the lines of getting the driver to provide witnesses and evidence that the children are to blame and therefore that your friend should pay-up. Which I would hope was not possible from how you describe what happened.

In fact come to think of it, if the child was struck by the car, hence the damage to the bumper, then how on earth can the child be held responsible ?.

What was the boys crime ?, not getting out of the way of a moving car quickly enough, WHEN he was on the footpath ?.

Sorry to learn that the children are still upset about this, but hopefully no long term damage is done.

I hope that driver gets stuffed for the total cost, sc*mbag.

Solo.

>in the other hand, the kids should have been riding on the pavement.

It sounds like they *were* riding on the pavement, the pavement dropped as it met the pub turn-in. I guess the question is whether the turn in is part of the footpath and who has right of way.
Irrespective, the driver's a) a useless tosser for not taking care to see if anyone was trying to cross, and b) and utter **** for all the reasons previously mentioned..

I don't know if the law's changed yet, but the presumption in any bike/bike incidents is that the claim is from the driver's insurance (to much whinging from some of the driving fraternity) – iirc this was to bring the law in line with Europe and kinda redress the balance – ie that drivers must take more care. 'Course, in the case of a hit-and-run that's a bit academic.

jond behave man!! i wouldnt want my 12 year old riding on the road with the amount of dangerous drivers about!!

206
Drive carefully and slowly when

needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement
Cut and pasted from the highway code. Mark

The driver is legally obliged to report an injury accident to the police as soon as reasonably practcable so at the time if he has amobile or within a few minutes assuming a phone at the pub.
the driver is obliged to pay due care and attention when driving , a reasonable prudent driver exiting a pub car park ion a residential area would be on the lookout for pedestrians drunks and children on bikes. unless your mates son has ridden in to the side of his stationary car the driver is going to look in the wrong.
The boy is entitled to compensation for his cuts bruses and nervous shock and the scratches on his bike. The driver is legally obliged to provide his insurance details i suggest your friend asks for them and tells him that he intends to make a claim for his son's injuries and losses. Do not offer to pay for anything!

(Mr MC posting)
In most forces it is policy to breathlyse the driver(s) involved in a collision if police are called, especially if it is recorded as an injury accident. As a police officer I'd be VERY suspicious of him choosing to report it that night, not at the time.

I'd be very interested to hear what the landlord/staff of the pub recall, and whether theres any CCTV or till receipts that would indicate the driver had consumed alcohol (and how much) prior to the accident.

If the police don't follow up this line of enquiry (which they may not if it is written off as a non-injury, no blame accident) I would make the enquiries myself. Whether or not people are allowed to cycle on the pavement, from memory I'm pretty sure cars crossing it are supposed to give way to anyone on it (same goes for turning into a side road and yielding to pedestrians crossing that road) and I'd venture to suggest not being able to stop in time is careless driving.

CrankyBoy.

Good Post, sounds about right to me 😉

As for the age limit for cycling on the footpath. I drive, and most of the time, I'm happpy to see children riding on the footpath, rather than in the roads where I live. I've no problem with it and it certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor in this matter. The driver struck the child by the sounds of it, therefore his fault.

Solo

Was just thinking about the timing of his report as well Mr MC, if he did it earlier he may well have been over the limit?

Personally, I'd tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine.

Cars give way to pedestrians and cyclists. End of story. Even if they weren't directly in front of him, he should have stopped and given way.

If I understand this correctly, the driver was crossing a footpath, albeit with a dropped kerb.

The driver doesn't have right of way.

I'd suggest that the nice policemen will tell him to go away.

>jond behave man!!

Eh ? – think you've misread that, I definately *wasn't* saying they should be on the road ! Tho' at that age they should have the skills to use roads where it's safe to do so IMO – but the pavement's a lot more sociable 😉
Not sure at what age I'd expect kids to be on the road (don't have 'em myself) – certainly below a certain wheel size (20" ??) the bike is classified a toy and shouldn't be on the road anyway (so kinda takes care of itself wrt little kids)

I think Mark's quote needs to be waived at both the driver and the Police – I suspect a good proportion latter are pretty ignorance of the detail of highway code.

Not verbatim from the highway code btw, it's from http://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news-archive/the-new-highway-code-what-does-it-mean-for
so the latest might be a little different, but:
"Rule 206 of the new code, as in the previous code, has an entire section dedicated to road users requiring extra care. Previously, motorists needing to cross a pavement, for example to reach a driveway, were only advised to give way to pedestrians. The new rule now stipulates they must also give way to cyclists and pedestrians."

Ah, real thing's here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858

typo on my post, as jond says, i meant "shouldnt have been on the path"

having said that, that new 206 highway code blither, as above, states they still have right of way, so stuff him, its like pulling out of any other junction and getting smacked by an oncoming.

his fault, tell him he has a tiny willy and move on

FWIW that bit of legislation I mentioned is the Fifth European Union Motor Insurance Directive:

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motoring-lobby-furious-about-EU-plans-to-protect-cyclists-British-media-runs-wild-stories-about-bicycle-guerrillas

tho' this lot reckon it doesn't actually change anything wrt existing law:
http://www.medical-reports.com/5thEUdirective.html

Wee in his shoes *and* crap on his door handles for good measure ?

They only have right of way if its a dropped kerb crossing in a normal footpath, surely, if its a distinct car park junction then it gets a bit more comlpex.

As a driver I'd be fuming if kids had ridden into my car and damaged it (if it was there fault, Ive seen kids do some wacky and rather quick/dangerous riding on pavements), but at the same time I'd have to swallow it and be glad the kids were OK. If they had been being dangerous I might approach the parents to suggest the kids need to take a bit more care but I dont know if I'd present them with a bill. I dont much care for the chaps shouting and swearing, I can imagine being angry but shouting and swearing at kids who may have made a mistake isnt the best solution. I've shouted at kids before, and grabbed them to stop them from running away, but only when they were stealing from me. That worked lol.

It should be fairly obvious from teh damage on the car and the surrounding visibility whether or not the impact was due to the kids or the car. Car nosing slowly out of a hidden, tree/bush lined junction can find it very hard to do so without endangering high speed pedestrian traffic (cycling kids). Car coming out of a very clear, open junction onto a pavement should damn well see kids on bikes from a long way away.

Get the local paper involved, show what a prick the driver is. Insurance claim? Talk to CTC or alike about it, their lawyers are meant to be pretty useful.

Yeah – he must be in the wrong all the way, surely? What a c**t. This is the most infuriating story I have heard for some time!

He drove away from an accident – injury or not, his fault or not, this is illegal. I'd approach the police with a view to pressing charges.

Oh yeah – then name and shame him on here and any where else you can get a voice – and give out his address, and the number plate of his car. 😈

They only have right of way if its a dropped kerb crossing in a normal footpath, surely, if its a distinct car park junction then it gets a bit more comlpex.

Not according to that bit of highway code. Quite right too IMO, you should be giving way to more vulnerable users. Totally agree with your last point though, at some exits you don't have a clear view and need to nudge onto the pavement to see. If you're doing that, you're still pretty unlikely to have a collision. From what the OP said, that doesn't seem to have happened, more a case of someone driving like a ****.

more a case of someone driving like a drunk ****.

😉

So what did the nice policeman say, Barca?

I came round the bend in the road of our house last week and one of the neighbours sons was pedalling furiously along the pavement and into the road- he almost went over the side of my bonnet. I'd already stopped (less than 5pmh anyway) as one of them had shot through (chasing each other) I had a word with them- told them to avoid the bend as bloody dangerous. Thing is- why does it feel wierd talking to kids now? That you feel uncomfortable?

Anyway- if he had gone over my bonnet I most certainly wouldnt have shouted at him. It would be an accident. Your supposed to look out for kids running into the road etc with footballs as part of your driving test- its drummed into you. Hence he should have let it ride.

I still remember riding into a parked car as a kid and the owner checking I was ok and sending me on my way. That was a parked car – which is different. He could and should have claimed against my parents as I rode into his stationary property. I can still picture his bemused face when he asked why I was riding down the road with my eyes closed (he asked how it happened).

In your case he was moving and should be aware of all hazards. Its 50:50 at best. Shouting at a kid though? FAIL.

I still remember riding into a car as a kid and the owner checking I was ok and sending me on my way. That was a parked car – which is different. He could and should have claimed against my parents.

I hit a parked car last November, and I'm 32.

My sister fell off her bike onto a parked car when she was about 8 or 9 (riding down the pavement) Guy kicked off with our parents about it, my dad was going to pay up for repair, had the cheque written out and everything but when he went round to pay the guy went off on one big time, having a go about my sister riding on the pavement and stuff so my dad refused to pay up.

Anyway back to the point, solicitor said my parents weren't legally responsible for the damage caused and didn't have to pay up. I presume it's still the same.

ourmaninthenorth – but did you close your eyes on a open/straight road just to see how far you could go? 😆

Parked car- Yes moral obligation
Moving car/driver inside car- No. Its a road traffic accident.

All IMO. You could question whether he was driving with due care to developing hazards. Also his speed- did he had witnesses that he was driving with due-care?

Barca, somebody else has already mentioned getting the CTC involved. Their lawyers, if needed, will in all probability have the f**ker driving the car for breakfast. Its also worth mentioning to your neighbour that as the responsibly adult present when the police speak to the kids that he can challenge their line of quesioning.

The guy sounds like a bully and his behaviour towards the child immediately following the accident should be raised with the police. The validity of his quote for the repairs should also be questioned (if hitting a small child on a bike has caused £600 worth of damage I'm surprised the lad is still alive!). The fact that the guy drove away from the scene of what could have been a very serious accident also needs to be driven home to the plod. If they haven't picked up on the seriousness of him doing that then I'd take their badge numbers and report the procedural error they have made (or at least mention it; the threat of a complaint will hopefully knock some sense into them).

Other things for your neighbour to consider is whether or not the driver has a car that is roadworthy. Is it taxed, insured, are all of the tyres in good nick? Does the driver have previous for driving offences? Put doubt into the minds of the police of the guys claims at every stage as he is clearly a total arse and people like him are usually too stupid to have covered all of the bases.

if a 12 y.o is considered old enough to have sufficient responsibility to be liable to pay his damages, by the same token isn't the other 12 y.o. sufficiently responsible for her 'witness statement' to have credibility?

Traffic Police came round after all.
On the record, they wouldn't give anythomg away but did a great job of getting both youngsters on side. They even got to sit in the driving seats of the jam butty cars! I wasn't allowed though. Yep, both sets of parents (and two previously very worried indeed 12 year olds) are VERY impressed with how those two officers dealt with gathering statemets and stuff.
Off the record……I really shouldn't sat anything because a solicitor is now being emloyed by our neighbours but…..PC's said pretty much the sane as you guys. His responsibility to stop, evidence suggests front end impact, no independant witness other than my daughter. Her evidence is valid and can be given if it comes to it in written or video form and basically, the other bloke is an arse and isn't going ot ge tmuch joy, probably.
Thanks everyone.

Happy Days & hopefully now that solicitors are involved he'll end up getting the bill instead.