child cyclist versus car - liability?

[Rebuttal]

@Rebuttal But I'm not posting that other posters are off topic with their comments.

Anyone in control of a vehicle must approach a junction at a speed that allows them sufficient braking time; failure to do so may render the vehicle operator liable to prosecution under laws governing careless or dangerous driving. As a motorist I make sure to allow myself sufficient braking time. I do not make myself (or hold myself) responsible for the actions of others on the roads (or footpaths). I may avoid a collision by anticipating stupidity / lack of experience but that is due to my experience and skill, nothing else. Therefore as I stated correctly in my preceding post, the cyclist is in the wrong.

An experienced cyclist might have anticipated the car turning in to the driveway and adjusted her speed accordingly. The signs would have been for example, a change in engine note, indicators, brake-lights etc. A 7 year-old doesn't have the experience to look out for these signs (or has never been tutored by lazy parents to look out for them) and therefore must be supervised while cycling in a public place. This unfortunate case bears all the hallmarks of careless / useless parenting as I said originally

Mathepac,

what if the driver in question was entered their driveway to quickly, was on a mobile phone etc. In relation to anticipation, that duty also applies to the driver of an mpv, ( more so ). Did they not anticipate that the 7 year old would not be able to stop in time, because if they did not, or if they did not see the child, they can be found guilty of dangerous driving.

The fact that the child cyclist was not able to anticipate due to their age, as referred to by you, should have alerted any driver to be extra vigilant, so that argument by you, actually bolsters my opinion, that in this particular case, the driver was in the wrong.

 

[Mrs Vimes]

The fact that the child cyclist was not able to anticipate due to their age, as referred to by you, should have alerted any driver to be extra vigilant, so that argument by you actually bolsters my opinion, that in this particular case, the driver was in the wrong.

So you have accepted that it is possible for a cyclist to be in the wrong in a collision with a car?

 

[Leo]

Just too many assumptions being assumed as 'facts' here. If the OP wishes to update the thread or clarify any aspect, please reply. No more assumptions or alleged facts without evidence.

 

[Rebuttal]

So you have accepted that it is possible for a cyclist to be in the wrong in a collision with a car?[/QUOTE


Mrs Vimes,

Yes, but they can still claim off the car's insurance. The only time an insurance company will defend such an action by a cyclist is if it is a clear cut case that the cyclist is 100% wrong and the driver of the vehicle is 100% right. ( balance of probabilities and risk assessment as to likely success in defending case in court )

Mrs Vimes,

Yes, but they can still claim off the car's insurance. The only time an insurance company will defend such an action by a cyclist is if it is a clear cut case that the cyclist is 100% wrong and the driver of the vehicle is 100% right. ( balance of probabilities and risk assessment as to likely success in defending case in court )

 

[Mrs Vimes]

Mrs Vimes,

Yes, but they can still claim off the car's insurance. The only time an insurance company will defend such an action by a cyclist is if it is a clear cut case that the cyclist is 100% wrong and the driver of the vehicle is 100% right. ( balance of probabilities and risk assessment as to likely success in defending case in court )

So, not never, just rarely. You previously insisted that there were no circumstances in which a driver could win a case for damages against a cyclist.

 

[Rebuttal]

where is that post ?

 

[Mrs Vimes]

That's what you say in post #26 where you copied a post in which a person is complaining that a cyclist hit into her:

My insurance company were given all the above information. Their 'liability assessor' has advised me that in a collision between a cyclist and a car, that the car driver is always deemed to be at fault. When I asked for details of the law or rules that indicated this, he said it was their company policy and not a law nor in the highway code. He said that they were going to write to the cyclist to ask him if he intended to claim for injury or damage. I asked him not to invite a claim and he said it was their decision and not mine.

 

[Leo]

OP, PM me if you've anything further to add...

 

[Leo]

Wednesday asked me to let everyone know the conclusion:

My god-daughters gum infection has been resolved. Her adult teeth have not been compromised by the impact and my friend (her mother) has no intention of taking any action against the driver. The driver has finally been in touch with my friend (albeit some 4 days post accident) and he has no intention of trying to claim for his car damage from my friend.

All is good in the world

Thank you so much for all your insights