Damaged car - who pays?
Comments
-
W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect an up front payment of any cyclist when it isn't a requirement for the cyclist to pay up front.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.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 -
Kids' insurance - parents take responsibility for their children.lost_in_thought wrote:0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
In the OPs scenario, the driver has no right to demand cash. The cyclist should be getting the damage repaired though, as his negligence has left the driver out of pocket. If the cyclist wants to deal with it through his insurance, or wants to get it checked out first then he is in the right to give his details to the driver, report the accident and then deal with it later on. That's fine. That's what I'd want if I was the cyclist, because I'm insured.
Kid's insurance: I don't know. I don't think insurance should be compulsory for cyclists, but it is a good (cheap!) idea. That said, we don't expect pedestrians to be insured, and plenty won't be covered by home insurance.
But if a kid damaged my car then I'd expect his/her parents to pay for it, or I'd expect any insurance to cover it.0 -
"For safety reasons" you'd tell someone to F-off?DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect this of any cyclist.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.DonDaddyD wrote:Tell your mate to tell the Taxi driver to "F.U.C.K OFF!"
....had ridden away. (Which is what your mate should have done.....)0 -
bails87 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
In the OPs scenario, the driver has no right to demand cash. The cyclist should be getting the damage repaired though, as his negligence has left the driver out of pocket. If the cyclist wants to deal with it through his insurance, or wants to get it checked out first then he is in the right to give his details to the driver, report the accident and then deal with it later on. That's fine. That's what I'd want if I was the cyclist, because I'm insured.
Ironically in the OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.
Honestly, a kid crashes into your car damaging it. One, how do you locate the parents? Do you take the kid home (questionable). Even when you eventually find out where the kid lives how do you even approach the subject of payment without potentially evoking a butt kicking from a frightened worried - soon to be angry - parent?Kid's insurance: I don't know. I don't think insurance should be compulsory for cyclists, but it is a good (cheap!) idea. That said, we don't expect pedestrians to be insured, and plenty won't be covered by home insurance.
But if a kid damaged my car then I'd expect his/her parents to pay for it, or I'd expect any insurance to cover it.
Sometimes you just have to shoulder the costs.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 -
Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
(Interesting point - IIRC if your dog causes damage you are liable....this doesn't apply to your cat. Ergo and QED cats are rubbish)“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
BUT - what if you are liable, and can't pay?TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
(Interesting point - IIRC if your dog causes damage you are liable....this doesn't apply to your cat. Ergo and QED cats are rubbish)0 -
Has happened. The OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.W1 wrote:
"For safety reasons" you'd tell someone to F-off?DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect this of any cyclist.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.DonDaddyD wrote:Tell your mate to tell the Taxi driver to "F.U.C.K OFF!"
....had ridden away. (Which is what your mate should have done.....)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 -
TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
Yes and from a moral standpoint you should pay.
However, you are not required to pay up front as the driver in the OPs scenario expected.
If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance. The driver can seek to make a claim having taken the cyclists details.
If the cyclist has given details but refuses to pay then you make a claim hrough whatever process there is.
If he won't give details, call the cops. But you should never expect someone to pay up front when it isn't a legal requirement to do so - as the driver expected in the OP.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:bails87 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
In the OPs scenario, the driver has no right to demand cash. The cyclist should be getting the damage repaired though, as his negligence has left the driver out of pocket. If the cyclist wants to deal with it through his insurance, or wants to get it checked out first then he is in the right to give his details to the driver, report the accident and then deal with it later on. That's fine. That's what I'd want if I was the cyclist, because I'm insured.
Ironically in the OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.
Honestly, a kid crashes into your car damaging it. One, how do you locate the parents? Do you take the kid home (questionable). Even when you eventually find out where the kid lives how do you even approach the subject of payment without potentially evoking a butt kicking from a frightened worried - soon to be angry - parent?Kid's insurance: I don't know. I don't think insurance should be compulsory for cyclists, but it is a good (cheap!) idea. That said, we don't expect pedestrians to be insured, and plenty won't be covered by home insurance.
But if a kid damaged my car then I'd expect his/her parents to pay for it, or I'd expect any insurance to cover it.
Sometimes you just have to shoulder the costs.
What about, say, a pedestrian who keys your car? Well, I say pedestrian. A cyclist could do it just as well if not better!
What about the uninsured drivers' thing? Could you apply that to a cyclist if they disappeared?0 -
W1 wrote:
BUT - what if you are liable, and can't pay?TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
(Interesting point - IIRC if your dog causes damage you are liable....this doesn't apply to your cat. Ergo and QED cats are rubbish)
Then you're entered onto the register of unsatisfied judgements (aka "having a CCJ"). That's why it exists.
Incidentally I'm fairly sure that you can't hold the parents liable for damage resulting from the the actions of a child unless they were in a position to have prevented it.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
Yes and from a moral standpoint you should pay.
However, you are not required to pay up front as the driver in the OPs scenario expected.
If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance. The driver can seek to make a claim having taken the cyclists details.
Not just morally but legally.
Of course you're not required to pay up front - nobody has said that. ('cept the taxi driver)
Define - 'can't pay'.........Spen will no doubt advise but I would have thought this was for the Small Claims Court [/Layman]“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:What about, say, a pedestrian who keys your car? Well, I say pedestrian. A cyclist could do it just as well if not better!
What about the uninsured drivers' thing? Could you apply that to a cyclist if they disappeared?
You can take someone that keys your car to court for the costs (or, more likely, your insurance company could/would under their subrogated recovery rights). It usually relies on them having been caught and convicted, though.
The MIB Untraced/Uninsured drivers agreement only applies to damage caused by drivers, and you can't claim through that if you have other insurance that would cover the costs (e.g. you can't claim from the MIB for damage caused by an uninsured driver if you're comprehensively insured).0 -
Which of course gets you no-where in reality. A CCJ won't magic the money out of nothing.nation wrote:W1 wrote:
BUT - what if you are liable, and can't pay?TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
(Interesting point - IIRC if your dog causes damage you are liable....this doesn't apply to your cat. Ergo and QED cats are rubbish)
Then you're entered onto the register of unsatisfied judgements (aka "having a CCJ"). That's why it exists.
Incidentally I'm fairly sure that you can't hold the parents liable for damage resulting from the the actions of a child unless they were in a position to have prevented it.
That's why people who do not have the ability to cover their liabilities should have insurance.0 -
nation wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:What about, say, a pedestrian who keys your car? Well, I say pedestrian. A cyclist could do it just as well if not better!
What about the uninsured drivers' thing? Could you apply that to a cyclist if they disappeared?
You can take someone that keys your car to court for the costs (or, more likely, your insurance company could/would under their subrogated recovery rights). It usually relies on them having been caught and convicted, though.
The MIB Untraced/Uninsured drivers agreement only applies to damage caused by drivers, and you can't claim through that if you have other insurance that would cover the costs (e.g. you can't claim from the MIB for damage caused by an uninsured driver if you're comprehensively insured).
And I think only applies to injuries and not damage?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
Yes and from a moral standpoint you should pay.
However, you are not required to pay up front as the driver in the OPs scenario expected.
If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance. The driver can seek to make a claim having taken the cyclists details.
If the cyclist has given details but refuses to pay then you make a claim hrough whatever process there is.
If he won't give details, call the cops. But you should never expect someone to pay up front when it isn't a legal requirement to do so - as the driver expected in the OP.
And, again, no one has said they should!
If someone damages your car/bike/pogo stick they should pay to fix it, either through [A] insurance, by handing over cash there and then or [C] by getting it assessed and paying what it costs to put it right. It might be that both parties are happy with option B, in which case, great. Get it sorted and move on. In the OPs case we had a cyclist who was insured, so he obviously didn't want to pay out of his own pocket. The driver did nothing wrong by asking for the money, but he has got no right to demand it.0 -
It's funny - you didn't mention the safety of the cyclist in your first post in this topic. You just said he should tell the driver to F off and then ride away.DonDaddyD wrote:
Has happened. The OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.W1 wrote:
"For safety reasons" you'd tell someone to F-off?DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect this of any cyclist.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.DonDaddyD wrote:Tell your mate to tell the Taxi driver to "F.U.C.K OFF!"
....had ridden away. (Which is what your mate should have done.....)0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance.
Which is where the compulsory insurance argument kicks in.
And licenses for cyclists.
So as usual, the irresponsible minority (who cannot cover their liabilities, and do not have insurance "because they aren't obliged to" and therefore cannot be held responsible) and just ride off, mean the rest of us may be burdened with additional regulation.
You cannot have it both ways - either you advocate personal responsibility, or the state forces it on you. Which is why I find it odd that you seem to advocate abdicating personal responsibility?0 -
bails87 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
Yes and from a moral standpoint you should pay.
However, you are not required to pay up front as the driver in the OPs scenario expected.
If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance. The driver can seek to make a claim having taken the cyclists details.
If the cyclist has given details but refuses to pay then you make a claim hrough whatever process there is.
If he won't give details, call the cops. But you should never expect someone to pay up front when it isn't a legal requirement to do so - as the driver expected in the OP.
And, again, no one has said they should!
I think I made it clear I was referencing the expectation of the driver in the OP.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 -
Applies to cyclists and small children on bikes, no?nation wrote:The MIB Untraced/Uninsured drivers agreement only applies to damage caused by drivers, and you can't claim through that if you have other insurance that would cover the costs (e.g. you can't claim from the MIB for damage caused by an uninsured driver if you're comprehensively insured).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:bails87 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Compulsory cycling insurance is irrelevant.
You damage the car and it's your fault - you're liable.
Your kid causes damage and it's his/her fault - you're liable
Yes and from a moral standpoint you should pay.
However, you are not required to pay up front as the driver in the OPs scenario expected.
If you are essentially uninsured and can't pay, then what? You aren't legally required to have insurance. The driver can seek to make a claim having taken the cyclists details.
If the cyclist has given details but refuses to pay then you make a claim hrough whatever process there is.
If he won't give details, call the cops. But you should never expect someone to pay up front when it isn't a legal requirement to do so - as the driver expected in the OP.
And, again, no one has said they should!
I think I made it clear I was referencing the expectation of the driver in the OP.
Sorry, thought you were saying it as a counter-argument to TWH's point.0 -
If they aren't legally required they don't have to. Whether you think they should from a moral perspective, legally they don't.W1 wrote:That's why people who do not have the ability to cover their liabilities should have insurance.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 -
Then we agree. The sticking point is that I think the driver should have no right to demand money up front to the point of arguing with the cyclist. The cyclist is not obliged, legally or otherwise to pay up front.bails87 wrote:If someone damages your car/bike/pogo stick they should pay to fix it, either through [A] insurance, by handing over cash there and then or [C] by getting it assessed and paying what it costs to put it right. It might be that both parties are happy with option B, in which case, great. Get it sorted and move on. In the OPs case we had a cyclist who was insured, so he obviously didn't want to pay out of his own pocket. The driver did nothing wrong by asking for the money, but he has got no right to demand it.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 -
But, was the driver only asking for the money? I think this whole discussion has centred on the belief (by some) that there whould have been no argument between the driver and the cyclist if that had been the case.bails87 wrote:The driver did nothing wrong by asking for the money, but he has got no right to demand it.0 -
The cyclist admitted fault and had insurance. The driver demanded £300 "there and then". An argument ensured and sewinman stepped in. As the driver wasn't accepting no to his unreasonable "£300 there and then" terms I think it acceptable to tell him to f-off.W1 wrote:
It's funny - you didn't mention the safety of the cyclist in your first post in this topic. You just said he should tell the driver to F off and then ride away.DonDaddyD wrote:
Has happened. The OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.W1 wrote:
"For safety reasons" you'd tell someone to F-off?DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect this of any cyclist.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.DonDaddyD wrote:Tell your mate to tell the Taxi driver to "F.U.C.K OFF!"
....had ridden away. (Which is what your mate should have done.....)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 -
So that's not for his safety then.DonDaddyD wrote:
The cyclist admitted fault and had insurance. The driver demanded £300 "there and then". An argument ensured and sewinman stepped in. As the driver wasn't accepting no to his unreasonable "£300 there and then" terms I think it acceptable to tell him to f-off.W1 wrote:
It's funny - you didn't mention the safety of the cyclist in your first post in this topic. You just said he should tell the driver to F off and then ride away.DonDaddyD wrote:
Has happened. The OPs scenario the cyclist was also insured but the driver demanded £300 "there and then". In that scenario the driver can 'do one'.W1 wrote:
"For safety reasons" you'd tell someone to F-off?DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Whether it is preferable or not, very few people have cash of the amount the taxi driver was asking for to hand. It was unreasonable for him to expect the cyclist to pay there and then as sewinman had written. It is in fact, unreasonable to expect this of any cyclist.The problem is, what DDD is also saying is that the rider should have just ridden off.
The Taxi driver demanded a large sum of money up front and wouldn't take no for an answer. For the safety of the cyclist I think it would have been reasonable to leave.
In the event that the taxi driver suggested/demanded/asked that the cyclist go to a cash machine I think, again for safety reasons, it would have been reasonable for the cyclist to leave.DonDaddyD wrote:Tell your mate to tell the Taxi driver to "F.U.C.K OFF!"
....had ridden away. (Which is what your mate should have done.....)
It's a bit absurd for you to say he should tell the driver to F-off, and then should ride off "for his safety"! If you're concerned for your safety, telling someone to F-off is probably not a great idea....0 -
Fight or flight is caused by the same chemical reaction in the brain.W1 wrote:So that's not for his safety then.
It's a bit absurd for you to say he should tell the driver to F-off, and then should ride off "for his safety"! If you're concerned for your safety, telling someone to F-off is probably not a great idea....
My first reaction was to tell the taxi driver to F-off. Upon reflection, as is normally the case in these scenarios, it may very well be ride off.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 -
Don't have time to read all posts but just to clarify. The damage was a few small dents in the rear wing. The taxi driver was worried that he would never get his money if my colleague rode away, hence the cash demands. At one point he said he was going to take his bike away as insurance. It was all a bit heated and as I was not in an aggrieved mood I just explained that no exchange of cash was happening, or taking away of bikes and they should exchange details. I think my colleague ended up handing over his drivers license as some form of guarantee, but I had stepped back then as it seemed to have calmed down.
The taxi bloke was a prat but I can see his point, my colleague could have just cycled off never to be heard of again. I think the approach of telling the guy to F off etc would have made things worse and actually having a calm voice interrupt (me) speeded up a reasonable resolution.0 -
Plus my colleague could not remember if he did have insurance or not (shaken up) and was dithering about whether he did have cover.0
-
W1 wrote:nation wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:What about, say, a pedestrian who keys your car? Well, I say pedestrian. A cyclist could do it just as well if not better!
What about the uninsured drivers' thing? Could you apply that to a cyclist if they disappeared?
You can take someone that keys your car to court for the costs (or, more likely, your insurance company could/would under their subrogated recovery rights). It usually relies on them having been caught and convicted, though.
The MIB Untraced/Uninsured drivers agreement only applies to damage caused by drivers, and you can't claim through that if you have other insurance that would cover the costs (e.g. you can't claim from the MIB for damage caused by an uninsured driver if you're comprehensively insured).
And I think only applies to injuries and not damage?
It can be used to claim for anything you would usually pursue an at-fault third party for. Injury, damage, hire, loss of earnings, etc.DonDaddyD wrote:Applies to cyclists and small children on bikes, no?
Nope. Motor vehicles only. The money comes from motor insurers, the cost of running the MIB and compensating innocent parties involved in accidents with uninsured or untraced drivers is spread across all motor insurers according to market share.0
