No fault collision with cyclist...

[jim_l]

So, my knowledgeable friends in the WSCC,   just been to pick up my daughter who, three weeks after passing her test, has been in a collision with a cyclist.   Fortunately there were numerous witnesses including an on duty policeman. 

 

The cyclist  was almost too drunk to walk, dressed in black on a bike with no lights, and simply rode out into the road, they issued him with an on the spot fine.  He was so well known to the police they didn't even have to ask him his name and address,

 

Some damage to the bumper and bonnet, but the smashed screen rendered the car undriveable so insurers have recovered it into storage for repair.

 

Is my worst case guess correct , that this will cost her the excess (£500!) and increase her premium at next renewal? I am aware of the existence of the MIB but understand that only covers cases involving another motor vehicle (uninsured or drives off and is untraceable)  It seems highly unlikely the insurers will recover any costs from the cyclist or any other source I can think of ?

 

As it happens I think the only reason the cyclist is not in hospital or worse is because in a 40 limit even approaching a green light she had slowed down quite a bit (Dad taught her that!) and she has managed to affect some braking in the short distance before the collision.

 

Looking at that screen I think when he sobers up he will ache a bit! 

 

Jim

[Wile E. Coyote]

Hope she's not too shaken up by the incident.

 

Why do you think it's unlikely that insurance will recover excess etc from the cyclist?

[User0083]

I hope your daughter is ok and I hope her driving hasn't suffered.

It sounds like her dad taught her well and she's sensible enough that a potential death was avoided...

This is the type of issue that has rendered my wife jelly behind the wheel a 30mile radious from the epicentre of Birmingham! Imagine if cyclists had to pay insurance.

However as far as the damage and everything goes...

Was there a police statement with the details of the cyclist taken?

Does your daughter have windscreen cover on her insurance?

Is your daughter prepared and ok with going to court (extreme case scenario)?

With my current case of being run over I'm clearly taking the driver to court. The driver has admitted liability and witness statements and police report say that he was, without doubt, at fault. In your daughters case, I think, she could actually take the cyclist to court for damages and he would require his own solicitor. Although a cyclist would have right of way, as a pedestrian would, in any RTC. However if he went for damages the above could work in her favor and she could come out with damages.

HOWEVER... As with many situations like this, insurance would be affected for a few years and yes morally it's very wrong, but if you can get over that (I find it very hard) it is psychologically far better to let the drunken weasel get his way and put it down to life's experiences. As I've had to do with many things in Birmingham.

My wife's on her third windscreen since moving to Birmingham (Dec 2012), had windscreen cover/personal accident... Etc on the insurance. So has had no effect on insurance and has had to pay no excess.

As for practical help, Google must be your friend! Find a solicitor specialising in RTC's and get some advice from them. What I have said above is a mixture of my experiences and opinion. So I suggest Google Search "Road Traffic Collision Solicitor" or similar and get advise. If there is a police statement confirming, without doubt, liability to be with the cyclist... I'm sure your daughter will be safe and covered.

As for £500 excess... I was hit by a guy who was better off paying £3500 repair bill than paying his excess! I've known people move from a military camp in Wales and insurance go from £700, with £250 excess to Birmingham and be uninsurable under £2000, unless excess put up to above the value of their vehicle (£2500+). Yes in theory they could be responsible for well over £100,000 in damages. But still ludicrous in my view.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Although a cyclist would have right of way, as a pedestrian would, in any RTC. 

 

Not true - they're treated as "carriages".

 

This pro-cycling site has an interesting article http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ which includes a section on cycling whilst drunk:

 

The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness - even in a pub - so is clearly never enforced.

 

In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same rules as motorists, including 'drink drive' rules.

 

Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle."

 

As an aside, unless things have changed, in Switzerland cyclists need insurance and number plates!

 

All that aside, if she has legal expenses cover on her policy I'd be pressing them to pursue uninsured losses (e.g. the excess). 

[s2rrr]

Several things first I hope your daughter has not been too shaken up by this lot, secondly the issue regarding blame in insurance speak is not necessarily clear especially when you get the ludicrous situation of a no blame claim leading to an increase in premium. Not a loss of no claims discount but the crafty insurance companies increase your overall premium then give you your no claims and hey presto you pay more for something which wasn't your fault, brilliant.

I think as you are aware that you need to firmly establish that the cyclist will be held responsible. That will as you stated I think involve the police and statements etc But that may not stop you having to put a claim in to recover those costs. Hence you will have a claim, all be it, a no blame and the extras involved. I would like to see someone claim for additional premiums payable due to the actual guilty parties actions, maybe claim for those as well as Wile says your excess. As suggested it may be necessary to engage an expert and they will obviously cost and the balance will be let the insurers sort it with a known increase in premium or in the worst case they may refuse to insure your daughter as she has had a claim ( again albeit no blame) I have no time for insurance companies as my belief is that will try every angle to rip you off. I am still trying to sort out my no blame claim and its been 17 months. I am now waiting for confirmation from my Insurers that I was not to blame and I want it in writing on a letter headed piece of paper, a bit anal but so far 17 months and the computer says no situation. Have you actual statements from the policeman because I would strongly suggest getting those statements if you have not already. Were the police involved you did say he was known to the police so I guess you did, but anything you can do to strengthen your case but if he was that well known he may not have the resources to pay up for the damage he caused in which case you may have to pay. The recovery and new screen cost may be overall less than letting your insurers charge you what they like. In fact it may be that as they have been informed the process is already started. I was told when I informed mine that I had to tell them but my belief is its my car and I will decide. In some cases as per injury it probably is wise to do so. I informed them only and made sure they recorded the conversation as information only not a claim. They have since read that statement back to me and you can hear them wince when they do. So all in all establish the guy is to blame and can pay, discuss with your insurers the no blame situation and potential or coming costs, decide which way you need to go either self funded or insurers but get everything recorded and if necessary in writing. My trust in Insurance companies is in the same league as bankers, solicitors and accountants over many years of use. Just an aside make sure the cyclist isn't intending claiming for damages that may be the way he funds his drink, cynical but not unknown.

 

Good luck and let us know how you get on, I suggest being prepared for a battle and some time, get your daughter re-settled back into driving and hopefully soon you can put this behind you with limited collateral damage.

 

Bob

[jeff oakley]

It is unfortunate but you will get no where with this. The insurance will sort your duaghter out but there will be an increase in the costs next year. The insurance could go after her and you could take out a private county court case to recover the excess but it is my experiance that cyclists are deemed always to be the victim regardless of blame and they will have a hard time collecting the money.

 

As wylie says if she has legal protection let them deal with it.

 

The good news is your daughter was fine, she did not have a death on her mind and the feeling of anger will pass in due course.

[SootySport]

That's a nasty shock for your daughter, hope it hasn't put her of driving. Unfortunately the only person you can claim cost of repairs and excess is the drunken cyclist. As he probably doesn't have two happenies to rub together there is no point taking him to court for damages. You may feel the need  on a point of principal to get a court order against him but will end up costing you more, you'll never recover your costs. As for getting the girls car back on the road I would not go through your insurance and pay for the repairs yourself.   £500 excess may seem a lot but I guess that option was to reduce your daughters yearly premium. I'm only guessing but the repair cost won't be much more than £500 if you do some of the repairs yourself and forget about going through the insurance claim. 

[ACW]

I would be inclined to minimise the insurance claim to a windscreen only (this is likely a minium excess and a minimal effect on next years premium) and get the rest sorted yourself as I imagine it cant be too bad.

 

Most important thing I imagine will be to minimise the scare and hassle factor for your daughter and get her driving again as soon as possible so an not to put her off driving or changing her way of driving as it seems certain this is a wrong place wrong time.

[User0083]

I was unaware of cycles being carriages. I shall research this further, for my own education.

This is positive as it gives them responsibility and takes it away from the driver.

As far as I know, and have experienced, ANY incident reported to insurance effects it. Even being sat stationary and someone driving into you increases insurance premiums. No claim has ever been made on my insurance and I have never been at fault. But my insurance has crept up due to being hit, as if hit once then high chance of being hit again. Mainly due to area's and time of day you drive in... So I was informed by insurers.

[User0083]

I would be inclined to minimise the insurance claim to a windscreen only (this is likely a minium excess and a minimal effect on next years premium) and get the rest sorted yourself as I imagine it cant be too bad.

Most important thing I imagine will be to minimise the scare and hassle factor for your daughter and get her driving again as soon as possible so an not to put her off driving or changing her way of driving as it seems certain this is a wrong place wrong time.

This is what I was attempting to include in my post.

[jim_l]

Thanks for all of your replies folks, though I have to admit I haven't read every line at this point.

 

Had he been seriously injured or worse I don't think she would ever have got back behind the wheel,  I think she realises though that only her responsible driving saved him from much worse, Thanks for all your concerns, it will cheer her up and I think she will be OK.

 

Liability is not in question -  the police documented the incident including the officer's own observations, statements from the witnesses,  and the cyclist admitted liability, he was issued with a fine, not for being drunk, but for 'Cycling Dangerously'.  The officer did give her his name and address but I think he is a known drunk, has no resources and probably doesn't take much notice when he gets a summons.

 

The car has been recovered , you couldn't see through the screen well enough to drive it, so with recovery and a screen we are probably up around her excess anyway,  I made a conscious decision to let the insurance get it fixed properly, anything less devalues both the car and her driving experience.

 

With a Liverpool postcode you start with a large excess or a mortgage (who decided to bring the unfortunate girl up there?)  I suppose the question is whether her insurers, having taken her money, act well in her interests and pursue costs from him, or cut their losses, we'll see.

 

Thanks All.

[Nick PC]

It is almost certain that the insurers will deem a recovery from the cyclist as a non-starter unfortunately, as the cost to them will be too high for no likely return.

[User0083]

This pro-cycling site has an interesting article http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ which includes a section on cycling whilst drunk:

I loved the video on this page. There was a blue 206 using the pavements, as I have witnessed many times in Birmingham. It also supports my belief that, as a group, school run mums are the worst drivers. I have been hit by school run mums shouting at children and not looking at road in front, blah, blah, blah... I could really go on and on... But most things are evident on the video and was a very interesting read.

[Wile E. Coyote]

It is almost certain that the insurers will deem a recovery from the cyclist as a non-starter unfortunately, as the cost to them will be too high for no likely return.

 

...but they most likely won't even try for uninsured losses (i.e. the excess).  

 

When our dozy neighbour reversed into my car I had to have a good argument with them to get the legal cover (that I'd already paid for) guys to start chasing for recovery of these.

Got them eventually though.  Although it had become a point of principle that the lying old **** wasn't going to wriggle out of responsibility for what he'd done.

[s2rrr]

Unfortunately that's what I mentioned earlier, if you can and its a big if, your insurers may be able to claim against the cyclist but then you are into claims, loss of excess and premium hikes due to no fault of your own. I suspect the cyclist will purely walk away and the cost will be to you either in the form of higher premiums or by fixing the car yourself. Now that, and I am assuming you have informed the insurance company the ball has started to roll. I wouldn't think for one minute you could take a civil action against him but its an option. Not many routes to go down and its all stress and money through no fault of your daughters.

 

Good luck whichever way you go

 

Bob