[Closed] pavement cycling - one for the internet lawyers

Damaged someone's precious car?

30 years if lucky, I'd say. 😐

bombers......

Seriously though if they hit son1 on a bike then they in all likely hood would have hit a jogger. Driver was not paying enough attention (imo)

Cyclist at fault would be my guess

Could have been someone jogging that the driver hit. Car at fault sue him.

can we have a goggle map of the location please, not that it matters tbh 😉

sorry, forgot to add, hope your son is ok

How can the car driver be at fault - he does not have to anticipate a cyclist on the pavement

A bike is far quicker than a jogger

car at fault, should check pavement is clear before pulling out.

A bike is far quicker than a jogger

so a couple of children cycling on a pavement are faster than a good club runner? I doubt it very much

Probably a case of joint responsibility tbh bike riding illegally on the pavement, driver not paying 'due care' (although why would he be expecting something like a bike on pavement) to his surroundings.

[edit] reread OP.

A bike is far quicker than a jogger

Surely that depends on the speed of the bike/jogger.

he does not have to anticipate a cyclist on the pavement

True, but checking for a pedestrian would have resulting in them seeing the cyclist.

Offer to go 50:50. Its probably what an insurance company would do. Aren't number plates under a tenner?

By the sounds of it neither driver nor cyclist were paying enough attention so must both accept a bit of responsibility for what happened and be thankful no one was hurt rather than looking for blame

yes 50/50 is hwta insirance will try but if push comes to shove I blame the driver he crossed the pavement and hit something on it. Ergotthey did not look very well assuming your son was not travelling at interstellar speed [ and chose not to brake] he could have avoided this. I assume he would have hit them if they were on the road??
PS Could have been a jogger with a pram or a small child or a badger chasing a gay Islamic swam. Can we stop the hyberbole/hypotheticals now STW and try to answer his question?

Depends on visibility for both parties, speed of both parties. Illegality of riding on pavement in itself is irrelevant - issue is what duties were on both parties in the circumstances.

IMO generally a driver would have a duty to look out for whatever is known to commonly use thae pavement - which could include pedestrians, electric wheelchairs, wee kid on a bikes - and even adults on bikes at speed if they commonly use the pavement.

Prima faciae if he's no visibility and gone out fast enough not to give your son time to brake (assuming he wasn't going silly fast) then it's probbers the driver's fault IMO.

IANARTL

if you put a drive in now then there are regs covering visibility either side - can't remember what they are and to be honest on our drive because is very steep though walls are turned back as required have to edge out to make sure any joggers / pavement cyclists see front of car appearing before i can see them - older houses i assume no regs or is the drive recent but not to standard?
glad young man is ok

sadly i'm away so cant give google maps location. suffice to say it is a large exit with good visibility and all monitored from cctv from the doctor's surgery where the car was emerging from. if it had been into the side of the car then yes i am liable. but to drive into the side of a cyclist from an exit is pretty much unforgivable. As i sid, if this was on a similar road with small blue signs, there would be no contention. And yes joggers and small kids could also have suffered a similar or worse fate.

police were pretty understanding, actually. And I'd pay the fine to see three points added to his license

I reckon it's the driver's responsibility to avoid hitting anything when he's basically driving across the pavement. And I don't know that he shouldn't be expecting bikes (or runners, or dogs, or whatever) on the pavement- it's not exactly unheard of for them to be using the pavements. Surely it's better to pull out carefully assuming something's coming than just pull out assuming it isn't?

split responsibility IMO. Sounds like the driver pulled out without paying attention to the pavement but son is riding on the pavement. Tough one. I'm amazed the driver bothered to be honest. I'd be pissed off it was me but it's a teenager and teenager do silly things and also deep down think actualy I should have been more cautious pulling out. Get you son to write a letter of apology from your son to smooth the road politically.

What a jerk ! Hits a kid on his bike, whatever the circumstances, and wants money for his number plate ?? He was driving on the pavement.

I think he is one of those "attack is the best form of defence" personality types. I would offer to see him in court.

actually plotting stuff on a development site as we speak. It varys a little but where my site is it requires a visbility zone of 2m by 2m where access crosses a footway to enable emerging vehicles from private drives to see pedestrians.

Now for cycling it's a little vague. Even the Sustrans Manual only goes as far as saying adequate visibility should be provided. Digging a little further gives you data from TfL/LCN. This suggests that you should use a design speed of 10mph for cycle ways but does not state visiblity distances.

You then revert to Manual for Streets which suggest a stopping site distance of 11m for 10mph. Typically you use a setback of 2.4m for cars (you might be able to argue 2.0m for lightly trafficked accesses) so this gives you a visibility splay of 2.4 x 11.0m. Quite a jump up over what you need for see pedestrians.

Okay, who needs a transport planner? 🙂

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?

How can the car driver be at fault - he does not have to anticipate a cyclist on the pavement

Fek me TJ, you should know better than that. Does he not have to anticipate peds either?

Matters not to me, you give way to pavement users.
Driver at fault. End of.
Tell him to swivel.

PP - as MacGyver expalins above he could have looked for and seen any pedestrians but been unable to see a cyclist 'cos of the greater speed / distance.

Is it reasonable to expect to have to allow for a cyclist being where they should not be?

Just to be clear

The car is driving forwards out of the drive of a doctors surgery and drives into the side of your son on his bike. The visibility was good, I mean the potential existed for him to see your son

I'd go for drivers fault. What about some one in a wheel chair or an electric mobility scooter

I think asking for cash is to wrong foot you when deep down he knows he's in the wrong

Moments like this when a family membership of the CTC would be handy...

Get hold off the CCTV footage. I think seeing a video of a car pushing a kid into the road would carry alot of natural justice. I bet the doctors surgery has some potential liability

Is it reasonable to expect to have to allow for a cyclist being where they should not be?

Yes. 100%.

techknickerally the driver could spout on about:
S.28 RTA 1988 Dangerous Cycling
S.29 RTA 1988 Careless Cycling
S.72 Highways Act 1835 Any person wilfully riding upon a footpath blah blah blah

but as already mentioned he couldn't see a person and drove into them so you could throw it all straight back at him

And electric wheelchairs/scotters, some of which can do the best part of 10mph

Not read thread but it won't be simple! Cyclist shouldn't have been on the pavement it's illegal, driver should've been paying more attention however cyclist are also way quicker than joggers. Reality, it's not going anywhere.

Driver at fault. Even more so if the driver was illegally reversing out of their driveway.

Illegally driving out of driveway? What does this mean?

Just because someone is doing something they shouldn't, doesn't mean you shouldn't anticipate them doing it, or the possibility of them doing it, if you see what I mean. 😕

Djaustin,

I assume that your son has now developed some soft tissue damage which was not immediately apparent at the time due to the adreneline etc and will be issuing a counter claim for several thousand pounds of compensation. I'd also be going over that fixie with a fine toothcomb as any paint damage may just possibly indicate structural damage to the frame which will add to your claim (perhaps if you are lucky you'll get enough for a 'big boys bike, with gears and stuff!).

All of that as a claim against the drivers insurance / no-claims should cost him much more than a number plate - even if he is not at fault and has no claims protection!

I'd say that a reasonable and careful driver would look across a pavement for all sort of users including cyclists before driving over it. Just because they shouldn't be there doesn't mean they won't. Do you turn into 1 way streets without looking both ways?

munqe-chick - it doesn't say illegally driving out of their driveway now does it. Reversing is a different matter.

Poly the answer to your one way question it most people don't look both ways! The standards of driving on UK roads is shocking.

now wonder our country is f**** and insurance costs are going up! Something so minor what happened to "sorry", "yeah no problems mate" sighs....

As far as i'm concerned the driver can do one. Number plate. tut

munqe-chick - it doesn't say illegally driving out of their driveway now does it. Reversing is a different matter.

Is it illegal to reverse out of driveways in these isles? (I'm not too hot on finer points of the road code, being on an exchanged licence)

yes if he hit you son with hi snumber plate ther is no way he can claim he did not see him. not seeing him would be him carefully pulling across the path and your son hitting the side of him. he hits the side of your son with the middle of their car = their fault

blimey if i hit a kid of his bike in that situation, regardless of the legalities I wouldn't be chasing him to pay for new number plate. class a **** imo.
actually if it was my kid i'd tell him to f off, look before he pulls out his drive and stop being so cheap.

Okay pedant "illegally driving out of their driveway" not tell me what that is ALSO supposed to mean??

pavement may not be for bike but it deffo aint for bloody cars

I say take a picture of a turd and offer him that as way of payment.

So the driver drove over a pavement and ran into someone on it?

Irrelevent of what the police/courts say, tell your son to carry on riding on the pavement where they think its safer than the road.

Okay pedant "illegally driving out of their driveway" not tell me what that is ALSO supposed to mean??

I'd tell him to get tae fk just on general principle. Knocks your lad over and wants you to pay him for his car damage? In a pigs arse, my friend.

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.

HoratioHufnagelKid shouldn't have been on pavement

- 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."

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

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.