Forum menu
Does having a fixie (no 'brakes') matter here or is that irrelevant as it was the son who was hit rather than the other way round?
fixedwheel dose not mean no (rim) brakes most people have at least a front brake.
It is an offence to ride a pedal cycle intentionally on a footpath that is made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers, a penalty ticket may be issued with a fine
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q541.htm?letter=C
Liability
The cause of an accident is not always obvious. In many situations one party may be completely to blame. However it is also true that more than one, or several, factors may have contributed to the accident that has occurred. Moreover, one of the causal factors may have, in fact, been the negligence of the injured party himself e.g. the pedestrian stepped out onto the road without looking. How then can blame be apportioned? Is the injured party entitled to any form of compensation if he or she has contributed, albeit slightly, to their own injuries?Contributory Negligence
It may also be decided by the court, or indeed agreed between the parties, that both the defendant and the plaintiff were partially at fault for the plaintiff’s injury and in such circumstance the principle of contributory negligence will apply.Contributory negligence is the legal principle that an injured party i.e. the plaintiff may possibly have contributed to his or her own injury by acting in a negligent manner when faced with the obvious and known conditions. When this is compared with the negligence of the defendant (or defendants), the extent of contributory negligence may defeat the plaintiff’s case (i.e. the claim will be unsuccessful) or reduce the amount of compensation awarded. Often, for example, it may be agreed that the plaintiff bore 25% of the responsibility for his or her accident while the defendant was responsible to a degree of 75%. In such circumstances, the plaintiff’s damages, assessed by the severity of his or her injury and loss, will be reduced by 25%.
http://www.injury-compensation.ie/pedestrian-accident-claims/
Kid shouldn't have been on pavement - 30 quid fine by police
Car driver should look where he is driving - careless driving.
Kid shouldn't pay a penny, its the drivers fault. If he's got any sense, he wouldn't make a fuss.
but been unable to see a cyclist 'cos of the greater speed / distance.
Again TJ, what makes you think that two kids riding their bikes on a pavement would be faster than a runner?
Completely different but slightly similar story:
Cyclist runs red light
Driver sending txt message runs them over, killing the cyclist.
Driver jailed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7222690.stm
http://www.****/news/article-522943/Woman-driver-killed-teenage-cyclist-texting-jailed-years.html
drivers fault, it's his responsibilty not to hit anyone with the car. I'd let the driver take it to the police, my guessing is he'll run a mile, he's trying to take you for a few quid. The legality of a 13 year old on a pavement doesn't come into it imo.
You're still debating it just see what Mental Mickey has posted.
@ Poly I'm referring to this what Surrounded By Zulus - Member
"Driver at fault. Even more so if the driver was illegally reversing out of their driveway."
I think the driver is probably going to take you for a few quid Seosamh77 but at the same time you can't ride on pavements!
thought i'd add that although fixed, bike has front brake. it was only his good handling skills that kept him up. And the boys were riding at about 10 mph.
police will inform of their decision within a month. Son1 was most concerned about being on the pavement, but my more general point is that this perfectly legal on some of the roads.
and yes i have lcc cover if needed.
Can't see much coming out of it as far as your boy is concerned.
Make the son pay for the number plate out of his pocket money, valuable life lesson in personal responsibility.
what are you telling your son?
Make the son pay for the number plate out of his pocket money, valuable life lesson in personal responsibility.
indeed it is - drive a car and you have almost no personal responsibility.
Technically you are of course correct, although in some instances it is the more sensible place to ride, and accompanying a friend who had been specifically forbidden from riding on the road seems reasonable and better than 'forcing' him onto the road if his own parents weren't confident in his competence!.HoratioHufnagelKid shouldn't have been on pavement
except that as I remember it, FPNs can't be issued to persons under 16 yrs of age, and therefore it would need to go to court. I suspect the CPS and Court may think it is not the most efficient use of their time!- 30 quid fine by police
@ Poly I'm referring to this what Surrounded By Zulus - Member
"Driver at fault. Even more so if the driver was illegally reversing out of their driveway."
Yes, so go and read Highway Code rule 201. I'm not sure it is actually illegal (normally that would read [b]must not[/b] rather than do not) - but the principle SbZ refers to is definitely there.
except that as I remember it, FPNs can't be issued to persons under 16 yrs of age, and therefore it would need to go to court.
Correct
I suspect the CPS and Court may think it is not the most efficient use of their time!
One would have thought so. (CPS though, strange bunch).
For some reason, I was under the impression that you were allowed to cycle on a pavement if you judge it to be safer than the road, which would seem to be the case here. Thought I'd read it in one of the mags, but am probably wrong.
My turn to be a pedant 😉
rule 201:
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you CAN"
Oh and it clear about pavements:
Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement
How old are the kids anyway? If they are teenagers, who would really believe that they were only doing 10mph (only a parent could be that gullible 😉 )
Lol @ MSP ph so true he was probably lying to stop a rollicking!
Worth reading this: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ particularly the section "CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?"
I'm no defender of cyclists on the pavement, but I think children should be allowed to cycle on pavements. But the tenuous nature of whether children riding on pavements is right or wrong (or even if 13 counts as a child) is kind of by the by - at worst it's a misdemeanour whereas the driver is clearly negligent. He has a duty of care when crossing a pavement and has clearly failed.
I think Ampthill is on the money:
I think asking for cash is to wrong foot you when deep down he knows he's in the wrong
Munqe-chick - Member
You're still debating it just see what Mental Mickey has posted.
I'm no legal beagle, far from it, but my guess is that in a court of law, that paragraph about 'contributory negligence' may come into play considering the cyclist committed an illegal act in the first place, ie:- the theory that had the cyclist not been where they shouldn't of been in the first place, the accident would never had occurred which makes some kinda logical sense to me.
There are so many angles to look at this though and we, that don't actually have a degree in law can only guess at how this case could be viewed. People in this thread are guessing all kinds of stuff, such as the driver was negligent for not seeing him, but what about the same argument from the other angle, the cyclist was negligent for not taking extra care and attention while crossing driveways, while knowingly committing an offence, what about the the negligence of the parent who may have failed to advise the child of this accordingly? The list of possibles could keep this lot arguing for days.
One thing I do know though, If I was the OP, I certainly wouldn't be taking much notice of internet forum advice for a bunch of unqualified's, I'd be trying to find out where I can get some free legal advice to find out what the likely outcome would be.
I'd be very careful about making waves in a court of law as you might end up paying far more costs than the original out of court settlement.
But hey, why let any facts get in the way of a good thread? 😉
I don't really see how contributory negligence comes into this - not if the OP's son isn't planning on claiming against the driver. If the driver is mostly to blame (from information given I'd suggest quite a chunk of blame is attributable to them), then the cyclist being partly to blame doesn't really give the driver much of a case to claim damages from the cyclist.
I mean to shove the cyclist out into the road, and the cyclist to stay upright suggests both that the car driver wasn't being cautious enough and that the cyclist wasn't going that fast. If the driver is just wanting the money for the numberplate, personally I'd tell him to stick it - if he does want to pursue it he risks it costing him far more than if he just sucks it up (just reporting to his insurance company will cost him more than replacing the plate).
Neither has any action the police take against the cyclist got a direct relevance to the liability (though action against the driver might).
One thing I do know though, If I was the OP, I certainly wouldn't be taking much notice of internet forum advice for a bunch of unqualified's
Good point, given how yours is some of the poorer legal advice on this thread.
personally I'd get some legal advice from a experienced lawyer in the field, I imagine there will already be some case law around similar situations as it will not be an uncommon type of incident
Highway code says you shouldn't reverse from a minor road into a major. That would include reversing out of a drive onto a live carriageway.
Car requires to travel across a surface designated as pedestrian use. safe to assume that it will have pedestrians or other users on it.
The kid's 13 some roads around here I wouldn't let a kid of mine ride on (if I had kids...)
Contact Sustrans and ask their opinion. Campaign to have the surface redetermined as shared use.
Although, given that cyclists who have film evidence of dangerous driving get told where to go by our fantastic police force, I wouldn't hold your breath. A friend recently got driven into railings by a Bus, he was a bit upset and rather than charge the bus driver the police threatened to charge the cyclist with breach of the peace for shouting at the driver...
I thought we'd done pavement cycling.
From bomba's link above.
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so.
A 13 year old cycling on the pavement alongside a busy road is not a crime.
If you step outside the law does that mean everyone else can step outside the law too
Personally I wouldn't even waste my time if I was said Father. I'd tell driver to go stick and that's the end of that!
just because your son was riding on the pavement, that doesnt make it alright to drive into the side of him.
example: you are shouting and swearing at me in the street and you call me a ****er. does that make it legal for me to punch you in the face? of course not.
the fact that he drove into the side of your son shows that the driver wasnt paying attention to what was in front of him.
i doubt it will come to anything tbh.
Technically it's illegal to ride on a pavement and you can be fined, I know thus because I was stopped and issued with a ticket once BUT i think most police are more pragmatic and would hope they apply common sense in most cases ... BUT if you want real legal advice on this then it, obviously, brings up a lot of questions and everybody here will guess and give an opinion but you will probably find a chat with a lawyer better... Although I have some doubts as it sounds a bit of an unusual case and suspect they wouldn't know without research. One better place might be to post up on ukcyclingrules website. If I remember tightly the guy behind it is a lawyer who commutes to his office everyday in London and decided to list the laws on various scenarios he saw everyday going to work.
As I see it there are 2 completely separate issues here.
The police decision will not impact at all on whether your son has to pay for the damage. Worst case your son will get a fine but given - “The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option”, it seems unlikely any action would be taken in this regard.
On the other hand the driver is at risk of a charge of undue care as he demonstrated a lack of observation and likely came from the entrance too quickly. Did the police view the cctv?
If the driver wants recompense that is a totally civil matter and he would have take you to court. I can't see many courts having much time with a driver who after knocking over a child is then using the legal system to claw back £10 for a new number plate. Tell him to go jump.
The police WILL NOT fine your son for cycling on the pavement retrospectively because some car driver said he was. They will just give you some advice.
Maybe goes to show that the pavement isn't necessarily the safest place to be anyway. Reminds me of a bit of cycle path on the outskirts of Cambridge that for about a mile went along the fron of a load of hedge and wall-fronted houses. Virtually every one of their driveways felt like a chance to get knocked off, on the few times I used it I felt far more vulnerable there than on the road (and that's without the junctions, where you're constantly having to give way and check a far greater angle than you would on the road).
To the OP, I'm not trying to imply your kid shouldn't have been there BTW!
Final update, now I'm home. Police have ruled driver was wholly at fault, following review of the CCTV footage that captured the accident. They are considering a charge of careless driving (the minimum severity offence). They also said that they don't prosecute children under 16 for cycling on the pavement.
Driver had reported an "incident" to the police for insurance purposes, but seems to have failed to mention that he had hit a child! So the Police were more than a little interested in a possible failure to report charge as well. After hearing that, I hope he gets done for both offences.
For those that want the location, it was on Dedworth Road, Windsor, West bound at the [url= http://www.hand-clinic.co.uk/hc_maps.html#map2 ]Hand Clinic[/url], Windsor. I can't seem to embed an image link, I'm afraid. Son1 has cycled on the ROAD to his friends's house many times alone, but being with said friend, felt he had to ride on the pavement this time. I share the sentiments above about how dangerous such junctions can be - even though they are "cycle routes".
Son1 is fine and ankle is healing nicely.
Excellent common sense prevails!!!!
I think this is cause for celebration! Lets all go out and smash up some BMWs.
Nice one, sounds like a good outcome.
exactly why most of us in the driving seat hate fricking cyclists
🙄
cock.
GRF
he drove his car into a cyclist and them asked him to buy a new number plate. But you're still on the drivers side!!!!
" He was looking in the direction the traffic should have been coming from"
making sure he didn't hit a car but not looking to make sure he didn't hit a runner, mobility scooter or cyclist
well your a brave person
The poor bastard that hit the kid, I'm sure a)He was mortified
Where does your certainty come from? Reading the OP it appears that if he was mortified that was only because he'd damaged his car. Save your sympathy for cyclists getting hit by drivers who aren't really that bothered about them.
[i]most of us in the driving seat hate fricking cyclists[/i]
Now [i]that[/i] has to be a troll!
Piss off to pistonheads you cock.