Damaged car - who pays?
Comments
-
So you don't think it's cockish to ride around knowing that you are unable to properly attend to the consequences of your actions? You're content to have to pay the cost of someone damaging your property because they don't have (a) the personal responsbility to get insurance or (b) the money themselves?DonDaddyD wrote: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.
You can have both provided people take responsibility for their actions. What will cause regulations on cyclists to be increased will be people causing accidents and riding off. Just like you advocate.0 -
It usually does for cars, yes. Not necessarily for bikes or peds though.nation wrote:W1 wrote:
Yes.notsoblue wrote:
So ideally we'd all have personal liability insurance?W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?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.
Yes, ideally.
I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.
Most people who have house insurance already do.
Usually excludes liability arising from road traffic accidents, though.0 -
bails87 wrote: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..."
Indeed. But also that, if you can pay by the roadside I (as the victim) would much rather that you did, rather than running the risk of getting false details. There is no obligation to do so, nor have I said that there is.0 -
bails87 wrote: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.
I agree with that. W1 seems to think that it i OK to expect to be paid there and then, going as far as to suggest the person goes to the cash machine.
I take issue with that. With that approach you get into situations like Sewinman's mate where you say you won't pay and can't pay there and then and end up in an argument with the driver.
Situations like this always turn foul when one party expects to be paid upfront for any damage caused.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..."
But they aren't obliged to pay upfront. It's a legal fact. If laws need to be changed so that cyclist must stop and/or have insurance fine. But in that cycling becomes a different beast entirely.
The problem here is expectation. I don't expect a cyclist to pay for damage caused to my car.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Yeah, my point was really that you shouldn't assume the liability cover that comes with your home insurance will cover your liabilities in the event of a cycling prang. Some do, not all. It's one of those areas of the policy that people aren't really widely aware of so it's an obvious place for insurers to reduce cover and hence premium.0
-
Aren't Barclays Cycle Hire users covered up to £2m of liability? Something like that.bails87 wrote: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..."0 -
It's not what I think that matters. The fact remains this.W1 wrote:
So you don't think it's cockish to ride around knowing that you are unable to properly attend to the consequences of your actions? You're content to have to pay the cost of someone damaging your property because they don't have (a) the personal responsbility to get insurance or (b) the money themselves?DonDaddyD wrote: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.
You can have both provided people take responsibility for their actions. What will cause regulations on cyclists to be increased will be people causing accidents and riding off. Just like you advocate.
Cyclists are not legally required to have insurance or the means to readily pay for any damage they may cause.
If a cyclist does hit another vehicle causing damage and the person says "pay me now" (or words to that affect) the cyclist isn't legally required or obliged to pay up front.
Whether they should pay from a moral standpoint is nonconsequential to the above point.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote: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..."
But they aren't obliged to pay upfront. It's a legal fact. If laws need to be changed so that cyclist must stop and/or have insurance fine. But in that cycling becomes a different beast entirely.
The problem here is expectation. I don't expect a cyclist to pay for damage caused to my car.
I didn't say "upfront".
The cyclist in that scenario is obliged to pay, to compensate the innocent driver for the damage that's been caused. Exactly the same as if a driver rolled forwards at lights and squashed your bike's back wheel. He does not have to hand over cash immediately, but he can if he and the driver are both ahppy to do so. I don't think W1 said what you think he did. He wasn't saying anyone was obliged to pay *immediately*.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:But they aren't obliged to pay upfront. It's a legal fact. If laws need to be changed so that cyclist must stop and/or have insurance fine. But in that cycling becomes a different beast entirely.
The problem here is expectation. I don't expect a cyclist to pay for damage caused to my car.
The law already says that cyclists have to stop and exchange details in the event of an accident.
Common law also says that a person is liable for other's losses arising as a result of their negligence. That includes if they negligently damage someone's car while cycling. If the cyclist won't pay voluntarily, then that's what the courts are there for (although enforcing a CCJ is likely to cost more than any damage a cyclist is likely to cause to a vehicle).0 -
nation wrote:Yeah, my point was really that you shouldn't assume the liability cover that comes with your home insurance will cover your liabilities in the event of a cycling prang. Some do, not all. It's one of those areas of the policy that people aren't really widely aware of so it's an obvious place for insurers to reduce cover and hence premium.
Indeed, although the question was regarding pedestrian liability - which (I think) is usually covered.0 -
JZed wrote:Oh - I forgot - some fecker hit my door and drove off. Dent on the door crease - new door and half a respray - £1,800.
£1800! Kerist. That's another stat for my "reasons I don't want a car" list. £1800! What a waste of money. F*ck me.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
For the moment - but if there are too many cockish cyclists about, that might change.DonDaddyD wrote:
It's not what I think that matters. The fact remains this.W1 wrote:
So you don't think it's cockish to ride around knowing that you are unable to properly attend to the consequences of your actions? You're content to have to pay the cost of someone damaging your property because they don't have (a) the personal responsbility to get insurance or (b) the money themselves?DonDaddyD wrote: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.
You can have both provided people take responsibility for their actions. What will cause regulations on cyclists to be increased will be people causing accidents and riding off. Just like you advocate.
Cyclists are not legally required to have insurance or the means to readily pay for any damage they may cause.
If a cyclist does hit another vehicle causing damage and the person says "pay me now" (or words to that affect) the cyclist isn't legally required or obliged to pay up front.
Whether they should pay from a moral standpoint is nonconsequential to the above point.
What do you think?0 -
It is preferably to be paid up front. I've never said there was an obligation to do so. I would do everything I (legally) could to ensure that I had money in my hand before anyone left the scene. That doesn't amount to much though. Hence the hounds.DonDaddyD wrote:bails87 wrote: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.
I agree with that. W1 seems to think that it i OK to expect to be paid there and then, going as far as to suggest the person goes to the cash machine.
I take issue with that. With that approach you get into situations like Sewinman's mate where you say you won't pay and can't pay there and then and end up in an argument with the driver.
Situations like this always turn foul when one party expects to be paid upfront for any damage caused.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..."
But they aren't obliged to pay upfront. It's a legal fact. If laws need to be changed so that cyclist must stop and/or have insurance fine. But in that cycling becomes a different beast entirely.
The problem here is expectation. I don't expect a cyclist to pay for damage caused to my car.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
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.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?
Please read what I actually put. I didn't call you a dickhead, I actually agree with your viewpoint very frequently on here.
my reference to dickhead is the driver that hits and runs or gives false details to avoid the consequences of their actions. I hoped that was clear from the context of the post, clearly not and I apologise, no offence was intended to you,
All I want to know is why you seem to condone that sort of behaviour when it is a cyclist in the wrong as I can't ever remember you; or anyone on here; suggesting a driver hitting a cyclist and causing minor damage to their bike should be telling them to F.U.C.K OFF and leave the scene of their accident.
Now thats hopefully clearer, will you answer the question?0 -
I really don't think you should have called him a dickhead, shouldbeinbed...shouldbeinbed wrote:Please read what I actually put. I didn't call you a dickhead, I actually agree with your viewpoint very frequently on here.0 -
Now I think failing to pay a fare means the driver can keep you locked in the cab until the rozzers arrive.DonDaddyD wrote: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.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
I really don't think you should have called him a dickhead, shouldbeinbed...shouldbeinbed wrote:Please read what I actually put. I didn't call you a dickhead, I actually agree with your viewpoint very frequently on here.
0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Would you say this applies to pedestrians that cause accidents?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.
Yes, ideally.
I don't know how many pedestrians cause accidents though - I would presume the risk is much smaller than for cyclists.
I've never collided with a car but I have had a pedestrian run out infront of me and bring me down. TBH, I'm not particularly scared of cars but I try to avoid areas where there are too many pedestrians. And needless to say the ped sidled off without offering to pay for damage to me or the car he pushed me into.
Bit suprised at DDD here. If you damage someones property you should pay for it yourself or via any insurance you have. It's fairly obviously the morally correct thing to do. If a driver knocks us off our bikes, we expect them to pay for it - whether there is a legal requirement for them to have 3rd party insurance to cover it is neither here nor there; their duty is to pay up by whatever way both agree is OK.Faster than a tent.......0 -
bails87 wrote:I think DDD is confused. No-one said that the driver had the right to frogmarch the guy to a cashpoint.
No one has said that cyclists are obliged to pay up front.
Why are you refuting a point that no-one has made?
Actually W1 asserted that (i) he would 'see' if the cyclist could get the cash i.e. cash machine etc.
Here: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.
Given the fact that the goal is not to let the cyclist go without giving you cash it amounts to frogmarching them to the source of said funds or waiting for the source to come to them.
You're right, no one has said that the cyclist is obliged to pay up-front.
But their is an expectation that the cyclist should or should be able to pay up-front.
Here: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.
The point for me is the assumption of the above.
A cyclist isn't required to be insured, therefore there shouldn't be an expectation that they should be insured. There isn't a requirement for them to be able to cover their liabilities. Therefore there shouldn't be an expectation placed on them to pay up front for causing damage to another vehicle.
In the case of Sewinman's friend. He caused damage to the drivers vehicle, regardless of whether the driver had a right to be angry, the driver demanded £300 "there and then". When Sewinman's friend said no, as was his right to do so, the two starting arguing. This implies that the driver expected to be paid on the spot. At this point the cab driver can go fluff himself, he shouldn't expect an up front payment. The expectation of this in my opinion is wrong. The driver has no legals grounds to expect this. The cyclist has no legal requirement to pay up front. I'm not saying the cyclist should not pay the motorist, but the driver should go fluff himself given his expectation on how and when he should be paid (and not that he should paid for the damages).
If I'm met with aggression from a person demanding £300 (which is a lot of money) there and then that I couldn't pay and the person wouldn't accept no and started arguing with me. Then I would (i) call the police or (ii) ride off to report the collision. There is a question of safety here, none of you can say how far taxi driver was willing to go to et the £300 had sewinman interjected.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
What about a kid on a bike? Should they be insured? I mean, if I'd crashed into a car when I was 11, my pocket money wouldn't have covered it.
EDIT: I'm surprised to say that I kind of agree with DDD, if I read between the lines enough, the overall principle that nobody should have the right to demand money from you up-front with no calculation or proof of the cost seems correct to me.
If I'd hit someone's car and they demanded a number they'd plucked out of the air from me, and then suggested I might like to head over to a cash machine to get it for them, you bet your a** I'd be out of there. I'd feel threatened.0 -
Welcome back DDD“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
DonDaddyD wrote:bails87 wrote:I think DDD is confused. No-one said that the driver had the right to frogmarch the guy to a cashpoint.
No one has said that cyclists are obliged to pay up front.
Why are you refuting a point that no-one has made?
Actually W1 asserted that (i) he would 'see' if the cyclist could get the cash i.e. cash machine etc.
Here: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.
Given the fact that the goal is not to let the cyclist go without giving you cash it amounts to frogmarching them to the source of said funds or waiting for the source to come to them.
You're right, no one has said that the cyclist is obliged to pay up-front.
But their is an expectation that the cyclist should or should be able to pay up-front.
Indeed I did - "see" as in "an option". No-one has mentioned frog-marching. No-one has mentioned obligation, nor expectation. I said it was preferable.DonDaddyD wrote:Here: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.
The point for me is the assumption of the above.
There's nothing there about paying up-front, or any "obligation" to do so.
And attitudes such as that is what will cause cyclists to (eventually) need to be insured.DonDaddyD wrote:
A cyclist isn't required to be insured, therefore there shouldn't be an expectation that they should be insured. There isn't a requirement for them to be able to cover their liabilities.
It's about personal responsibility and if that is abdicated, the state has to step in.
So please don't advocate buggering off and not taking responsibility.0 -
But no-one is saying there is any "right" to do so? Simply that, given that cyclists are uninsured and untraceable, in those circumstances it would be preferable to have cash in hand before the cyclist leaves.lost_in_thought wrote:What about a kid on a bike? Should they be insured? I mean, if I'd crashed into a car when I was 11, my pocket money wouldn't have covered it.
EDIT: I'm surprised to say that I kind of agree with DDD, if I read between the lines enough, the overall principle that nobody should have the right to demand money from you up-front with no calculation or proof of the cost seems correct to me.
If I'd hit someone's car and they demanded a number they'd plucked out of the air from me, and then suggested I might like to head over to a cash machine to get it for them, you bet your a** I'd be out of there. I'd feel threatened.
The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.0 -
LiT: W1 and DDD aren't actually arguing opposite points, as I see it anyway.
DDD is saying that cyclists shouldn't have to pay up immediately. Which I agree with.
W1 is saying that if a cyclist damages a car he should pay to get it fixed, which could be immediately if both parties agree, or they could exchange details and do it later. Which I agree with.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I'm surprised to say that I kind of agree with DDD, if I read between the lines enough, the overall principle that nobody should have the right to demand money from you up-front with no calculation or proof of the cost seems correct to me.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
bails87 wrote:W1 is saying that if a cyclist damages a car he should pay to get it fixed, which could be immediately if both parties agree, or they could exchange details and do it later. Which I agree with.
If the guy demands £300 up front there is less of a chance that I would be willing to pay up front.
I acknowledged that the cyclist should pay. I disagree with any view point that lends itself to expecting that a cyclist should pay up front or be prepared to pay up front.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
How many instances where a kid does significant damage in traffic to warrant this? I don't know the answer, but I'd imagine it's pretty low.
Can't imagine how I would have done noticeable damage in an accident when cycling round aged 11.0
