Damaged car - who pays?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

TommyEss wrote:

Cheers for the clarification W1 and Sketchley.

DD - of course the cyclist isn't required to have insurance to ride, and of course it's completely unreasonable of the taxi driver to expect cash on the spot - but it is the driver's right to put in a personal claim against the cyclist for damages he (the cyclist) caused through his own negligence - it's just easier for the cyclist to settle the claim if he has insurance - of course, if he doesn't have insurance he can settle it himself - but he should still pay for whatever damage he may have caused.

I'm not saying the cyclist shouldn't pay. Had the driver gone through proper channels then yes, cyclist should pay.

What I'm saying is that, for me, the minute the driver asked for on the spot cash would have lost the liklihood of me paying at all and a proper argument taking place.

Do it properly or not at all.

What are the proper channels?

You don't need to have insurance.

You don't needto go to court.

You don't needa written estimate.

You are perfectly entitled to settle things as you see fit - even at the roadside. The only problem arises if the parties do not agree the damages.

The driver is right to be cautious that he has no way to trace the cyclist. The cyclist has an incentive to lie. If that were me, I'd rather have the cash in my hand if at all possible.

jzed

DDD if you crash into me and dent my bumper and I know that it is going to cost roughly £200 to fix it. Why wouldn't I ask you for £200 to avoid the hassle of you disappearing never to be seen again.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TommyEss wrote:

Cheers for the clarification W1 and Sketchley.

DD - of course the cyclist isn't required to have insurance to ride, and of course it's completely unreasonable of the taxi driver to expect cash on the spot - but it is the driver's right to put in a personal claim against the cyclist for damages he (the cyclist) caused through his own negligence - it's just easier for the cyclist to settle the claim if he has insurance - of course, if he doesn't have insurance he can settle it himself - but he should still pay for whatever damage he may have caused.

I'm not saying the cyclist shouldn't pay. Had the driver gone through proper channels then yes, cyclist should pay.

What I'm saying is that, for me, the minute the driver asked for on the spot cash would have lost the liklihood of me paying at all and a proper argument taking place.

Do it properly or not at all.

What are the proper channels?

You don't need to have insurance.

You don't needto go to court.

You don't needa written estimate.

You are perfectly entitled to settle things as you see fit - even at the roadside. The only problem arises if the parties do not agree the damages.

The driver is right to be cautious that he has no way to trace the cyclist. The cyclist has an incentive to lie. If that were me, I'd rather have the cash in my hand if at all possible.

By the same token though, the cyclist is perfectly entitled ride off. It just makes him a knob.

joenobody

JZed wrote:

Why wouldn't I ask you for £200 to avoid the hassle of you disappearing never to be seen again.

I think the distinction here is the difference between asking and demanding

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TommyEss wrote:

Cheers for the clarification W1 and Sketchley.

DD - of course the cyclist isn't required to have insurance to ride, and of course it's completely unreasonable of the taxi driver to expect cash on the spot - but it is the driver's right to put in a personal claim against the cyclist for damages he (the cyclist) caused through his own negligence - it's just easier for the cyclist to settle the claim if he has insurance - of course, if he doesn't have insurance he can settle it himself - but he should still pay for whatever damage he may have caused.

I'm not saying the cyclist shouldn't pay. Had the driver gone through proper channels then yes, cyclist should pay.

What I'm saying is that, for me, the minute the driver asked for on the spot cash would have lost the liklihood of me paying at all and a proper argument taking place.

Do it properly or not at all.

What are the proper channels?

You don't need to have insurance.

You don't needto go to court.

You don't needa written estimate.

You are perfectly entitled to settle things as you see fit - even at the roadside. The only problem arises if the parties do not agree the damages.

The driver is right to be cautious that he has no way to trace the cyclist. The cyclist has an incentive to lie. If that were me, I'd rather have the cash in my hand if at all possible.

By the same token though, the cyclist is perfectly entitled ride off. It just makes him a knob.

Er, no. The cyclist is not entitled to ride off. By law, he is obliged to give details. He is then obliged to make good the damage. That can all happen at the same time. He has no entitlement to leave the scene.

DonDaddyD

JZed wrote:

DDD if you crash into me and dent my bumper and I know that it is going to cost roughly £200 to fix it. Why wouldn't I ask you for £200 to avoid the hassle of you disappearing never to be seen again.

Depending on how you ask me the jist of my answer would be "well I don't have £200".

What are you going to do then.

Same question W1?

shouldbeinbed

W1 wrote:

TommyEss wrote:

schlepcycling wrote:

TommyEss wrote:

It should be reported to the police within 24 hours as well, as it is a collision on the public highway involving a vehicle.

Isn't this only the case if someone's been injured?.

I don't think so - I think it's just the fact that there's been a collision, so there could be claims for either damage or injury in due course. Put it this way, if the cabbie does claim, and it's not been reported, he could be charged with failing to report.

Only if you can't give details at the scene.

You usally need a crime number for an insurance claim. The injury element is for the cops to actully turn up at the scene. TBH whilst I wouldn't be demanding money on the spot, I'm totally with the taxi driver being pissed off and wanting the guilty party to fund the repair. Cyclist (maybe the argument went further than gimme £300! - No) should have given their details, with phone number and proof of them if possible and left it at that, no slanging matches, a firm refusal to pay up there and then and gone on his way. As the guilty party he's adding insult to injury by getting into a slanging match and if it does go further will only reflect worse on him and potentially cost him more in the long run in damages.

We see plenty of comment against hit and runs on here the other way round (notwithstanding the lethal aspect, but happily we're all still here to let off steam about it) I suspect we've all been left hooked/rear ended o.n.o and suffered damage and invariably had to pay for it ourselves; with much sympathy on here; in similar after crash circumstances.

DDD why do you think it is ok to be the sort of dickhead that gets a few pages of BR abuse for each incident of vehicle hits cyclist, driver is a knob about it and leaves the repair costs to the innocent party just because the bad 'driver' is on a bike?

rideslikeagirl

This is why you call the plod: 'Hi, i'm a cyclist been in collision with a car, the driver is demanding cash, can you send someone out please? Thanks.'

DonDaddyD

shouldbeinbed wrote:

DDD why do you think it is ok to be the sort of dickhead that gets a few pages of BR abuse for each incident of vehicle hits cyclist, driver is a knob about it and leaves the repair costs to the innocent party just because the bad 'driver' is on a bike?

Why do you think I'm going to respond when you refer to me as a dickhead? I'm sure you feel big hiding behind your PC typing abuse.

el_presidente

TommyEss wrote:

In Switzerland you have to buy a £7-8 "Velo Vignette" sticker every year, which gives you third party liability. If you are found to be riding without one you can be fined. Parents also have to have insurance for their kids walking to school in case they damage anything on the way (like absent-mindedly scratching a car parked by the pavement with an oversized rucksack!)

or accidentally hoarding some Nazi gold?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

JZed wrote:

DDD if you crash into me and dent my bumper and I know that it is going to cost roughly £200 to fix it. Why wouldn't I ask you for £200 to avoid the hassle of you disappearing never to be seen again.

Depending on how you ask me the jist of my answer would be "well I don't have £200".

What are you going to do then.

Same question W1?

If you didn't have the physical cash, I'd see if there was a way you could get it - cash machine etc.

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

If you didn't have the cash or insurance, depending on how much time I had, I'd set the hounds on you and chase you until the ends of time.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

DDD why do you think it is ok to be the sort of dickhead that gets a few pages of BR abuse for each incident of vehicle hits cyclist, driver is a knob about it and leaves the repair costs to the innocent party just because the bad 'driver' is on a bike?

Why do you think I'm going to respond when you refer to me as a dickhead? I'm sure you feel big hiding behind your PC typing abuse.

Uh oh! Misreading flounce alert!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

By the same token though, the cyclist is perfectly entitled ride off. It just makes him a knob.

Er, no. The cyclist is not entitled to ride off. By law, he is obliged to give details. He is then obliged to make good the damage. That can all happen at the same time. He has no entitlement to leave the scene.

Unless its part of the collision report he isn't obliged to do anything. The taxi driver was asking for £300 on the spot, not to go down the normal insurance claim route.

DonDaddyD

rideslikeagirl wrote:

This is why you call the plod: 'Hi, i'm a cyclist been in collision with a car, the driver is demanding cash, can you send someone out please? Thanks.'

My point, in a way.

The cyclist is in under no obligation to pay. All the driver can do is ask. An argument, which Sewinman says he had to stop, suggests that the (i) the driver didn't ask and/or (ii) did take no for an answer.

Whether the cyclist should pay is almost irrelvant at this point because of the drivers insistance that the cyclist should pay on the spot, which in my mind is intimidation. And as I assert, what if it had been a girl, teenager, pensioner being confronted by an angry driver demanding £300 notes upfront.

What the motorist should have done is ask for details/contacted police to oversee the exchanging of details. Under these civilised circumstances then the cyclist should pay.

Motorists demanding cyclists should pay up front. Next you know a gang of big burly blokes march you to the bank at fist point.

el_presidente

Easy solution, suggest the taxi driver follow you to your office where you can get the cash to pay him. Once he's underway, head to the nearest bridge and traverse to the southern side of the Thames. Voila the cabbie has mysteriously declined to follow you and the problem is solved.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

By the same token though, the cyclist is perfectly entitled ride off. It just makes him a knob.

Er, no. The cyclist is not entitled to ride off. By law, he is obliged to give details. He is then obliged to make good the damage. That can all happen at the same time. He has no entitlement to leave the scene.

Unless its part of the collision report he isn't obliged to do anything. The taxi driver was asking for £300 on the spot, not to go down the normal insurance claim route.

Again, no.

He must give details at the scene.

If that isn't possible, he must report to the police asap and in any event within 24hrs.

The settlement of the claim is seperate. There is nothing to stop it beind done instantly on the spot, if agreed.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?

Yes, ideally.

I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

If you didn't have the physical cash, I'd see if there was a way you could get it - cash machine etc.

Nah, I would assure you that would probably call forth my inner Hulk. I've got real issues with people demanding money off people on the street going to the point of suggesting cash machine. Too close to mugging in my opinion.

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

There is no legal requirement for a cyclist to be insured or be able to cover their liabilities regardless of whether you believe they should be able to.

Fact is you're faced with a person who won't pay, can't pay. In the event that this is likely to be the case with cyclists your first port is to call the police so that there is a record of the collision.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

By the same token though, the cyclist is perfectly entitled ride off. It just makes him a knob.

Er, no. The cyclist is not entitled to ride off. By law, he is obliged to give details. He is then obliged to make good the damage. That can all happen at the same time. He has no entitlement to leave the scene.

Unless its part of the collision report he isn't obliged to do anything. The taxi driver was asking for £300 on the spot, not to go down the normal insurance claim route.

Again, no.

He must give details at the scene.

If that isn't possible, he must report to the police asap and in any event within 24hrs.

The settlement of the claim is seperate. There is nothing to stop it beind done instantly on the spot, if agreed.

Thats the crux of it though isn't it? Your use of the word obligation in this case implies that the pedestrian in my case, or Sewinman's mate is risking sanction by walking/riding off. When in reality both myself and the taxi driver are powerless to oblige anyone to do anything unless the collision is reported.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you didn't have the physical cash, I'd see if there was a way you could get it - cash machine etc.

Nah, I would assure you that would probably call forth my inner Hulk. I've got real issues with people demanding money off people on the street going to the point of suggesting cash machine. Too close to mugging in my opinion.

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

There is no legal requirement for a cyclist to be insured or be able to cover their liabilities regardless of whether you believe they should be able to.

Fact is you're faced with a person who won't pay, can't pay. In the event that this is likely to be the case with cyclists your first port is to call the police so that there is a record of the collision.

Indeed, there is no legal requirement. But it's cockish to leave someone else to pay a liability for your mistake. So either get insurance, or pay up, or don't take the risk in the first place.

It's equally a bit like mugging to crash into someone's car and ride off, which is what you suggest. The difference is, taking someone to a cashpoint so they can settle the damage they've caused is legitimate. Buggering off after causing damage isn't.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?

Yes, ideally.

I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.

So ideally we'd all have personal liability insurance?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Thats the crux of it though isn't it? Your use of the word obligation in this case implies that the pedestrian in my case, or Sewinman's mate is risking sanction by walking/riding off. When in reality both myself and the taxi driver are powerless to oblige anyone to do anything unless the collision is reported.

The sanction is leaving the scene of an accident, a criminal offence.

You are physically powerless, yes - hence why I can easily imagine a taxi driver getting fairly irate with a cyclist who isn't prepared to pay for the damage they have caused.

The argument, if any, would be over whether the cost was taking the wee wee or not. And we don't know that.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?

Yes, ideally.

I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.

So ideally we'd all have personal liability insurance?

Yes.

Most people who have house insurance already do.

nation

For what it's worth, unless someone has been injured (and that's the first thing they'll ask, if you call, and then they'll send an ambulance as well), the police usually won't attend the scene unless it is a very slow day.

There's nothing inherently wrong with requesting settlement right there and then, if you want to do that. Taxi drivers actually do this pretty routinely (especially when they hit each other) because taxi insurance is so expensive and they don't want to claim and risk not getting the money back. £2-300 per panel as an estimating guide will usually give you a reasonable ballpark figure.

The trouble arises when someone decides after the fact that they didn't ask for enough and the argument becomes about whether or not the money exchanged at the scene represents full and final settlement.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Indeed, there is no legal requirement. But it's cockish to leave someone else to pay a liability for your mistake. So either get insurance, or pay up, or don't take the risk in the first place.

In your opinion it's cockish and ultimately it means nothing. Fact is, much like you don't need to have licence to ride a bike, you don't need insurance, you aren't obliged to pay up and the (subjective) risk is one of person choice.

As I said previously, what if it was a teenager who isn't old enough to have insurance or a student? Or a person on a Boris Bike, are those casual 'cyclists' expected to have insurance or £300 readies as well. £300 is a lot of money - a months work for some not everyone has it.

Cycling is either a free, easy and cheap to engage sport/hobby/past time/means of travel. Or it is a heavily regulated activity. You can't have both.

It's equally a bit like mugging to crash into someone's car and ride off, which is what you suggest.

If I've crashed into someone who confronts me in an aggressive angry manner demanding £300 there and then. I may ride off to the nearest police station for fear of my (or their) safety.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Thats the crux of it though isn't it? Your use of the word obligation in this case implies that the pedestrian in my case, or Sewinman's mate is risking sanction by walking/riding off. When in reality both myself and the taxi driver are powerless to oblige anyone to do anything unless the collision is reported.

The sanction is leaving the scene of an accident, a criminal offence.

You are physically powerless, yes - hence why I can easily imagine a taxi driver getting fairly irate with a cyclist who isn't prepared to pay for the damage they have caused.

The argument, if any, would be over whether the cost was taking the wee wee or not. And we don't know that.

There is no requirement for a car driver to be able to pay there and then for any damage caused should they have a collision with another car.

nation

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you don't have the money at all, then you should be insured as you can't cover your liabilities, or you shouldn't be on the road.

Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?

Yes, ideally.

I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.

So ideally we'd all have personal liability insurance?

Yes.

Most people who have house insurance already do.

Usually excludes liability arising from road traffic accidents, though.

DonDaddyD

My issue is the expectation that you are going to be paid there and then.

I was in a taxi one night and the person in the back vomited in the cab. The cab asked for £50notes. Was promptly told that the person didn't have £50quid. His response was to lock our bags in the boot as though it was his right to be paid there and then and his right to withhold our propety/lock us in the car at one stage.

He shouldn't have done that. He really shouldn't have done it. It's amazing how these things escalate.

bails87

DDD: I don't think W1 is talking about being obliged to pay immediately in cash, I think he means that if you damage something that belongs to someone else, through your mistake, you should pay to put it right. Either through your insurance, immediately, or after having the damage inspected and valued.

That's something that I'd have thought any reasonable person would agree with.

If someone on a Boris Bike scraped up the side of your car, putting gouges in two doors, and you said "you need to pay to sort it out" but made no immediate demand for cash, you just wanted their details, I don;t think you'd be happy if they just rode off while shouting "not obliged..."