Cycle vs. car RTA - provision of contact details.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:03:27 -0000 someone who may be Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Did you ride the bike away afterwards?
>
>No; there was an interference fit of a couple of inches between wheel
>and frame.

So, you are confirming my inference, which is based on the assertion
that the cyclist rode away after causing the alleged damage we are
discussing.

>The point I made in my second paragraph stands, however.

That point being, "Wheels can therefore be stronger than bike
frames, which can be stronger than car panels; I don't find it at
all difficult to believe that a front wheel could damage a panel
without any damage occurring to the bike."

Except that your belief is not based on the experience you referred
to.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:19:54 -0000 someone who may be "Nigel Cliffe"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> So far nobody has convinced me that my scepticism is misplaced.
>
>Believe what you like. You asked for credible explanations,

I expressed scepticism that the original second-hand claim was
accurate.

>I have provided you with a few.

You have yet to provide a convincing explanation.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 1:28 am, iarocu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Jan, 04:47, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm cross-posting this query from a local newsgroup
> > (southportforums.com) as, being both a cyclist and a car-driver, I'd
> > be interested in what the legal position is regarding accidents in
> > which a cyclist causes damage to a car. Does a cyclist have to give
> > their name and address, allowing the car driver to claim for damages?
>
> > "A cyclist hit the side of my new car (it was the cyclists fault), it
> > cost to me £350 to get fixed. He refused to give me his name and
> > address - he just got back on his bike and rode away. I went to the
> > police station and I was told it was a civil matter."
>
> Incorrect. If the cyclist was at fault there is likely to be the
> criminal offence of careless or dangerous cycling depending on the
> circumstances.
> RTA 1988
> 28 Reckless cycling
>
> A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an
> offence.
>
> In this section "road" includes a bridleway.
> 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling
>
> If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or
> without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he
> is guilty of an offence.
>
> In this section "road" includes a bridleway.
>
> Having said that in practise the chances of tracing the cyclist look
> to be slight.
>
> Iain

Interesting. But can you make a citizens arrest if you suspect the
rider of reckless of careless cycling?

The opinion on uk.legal is that in the event where one party causes
accidental (rather than criminal) damage to another's property, unless
it is the special case of that damage being caused by a motor vehicle
on the highway, then the one who's done the damage is under no
obligation to offer up his identity. So if you accidentally drop a
plate in a shop you can just walk away and "All breakages must be paid
for" signs are unenforceable.

I have no idea about the details or outcome of the incident in my
original posting - it was just something I saw on a local internet
forum.

To those who doubt that a cyclist can cause expensive damage to a car
and ride away - utter tosh!
I recall an incident when a chav kid on his BMX rode out of an
alleyway straight into the road that my mother was driving down. A
second sooner and he'd have been under the wheels but he just hit the
side of the car. Result - small dent in door (not worth fixing) and
wing mirror totally smashed (about £100 to replace - and that was over
15 years ago). Kid and bike bounced and were undamaged. My mum took
the kid home and had a word with his dad - the result was a clip round
the earhole for the kid and £20 towards the damage "It's all I can
afford - I'm on benefits you know".
I happen to drive a silly sports car with a fibreglass clamshell body
- I imaging that a glancing blow from a cyclist could cause damage
that would run into thousands of pounds to fix. Perhaps the fact that
modern cars are so fragile and expensive to repair is a good thing for
road safety.

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:12:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
[email protected] wrote this:-

>To those who doubt that a cyclist can cause expensive damage to a car
>and ride away - utter tosh!

Ah, proof by assertion.

>I recall an incident when a chav kid on his BMX rode out of an
>alleyway straight into the road that my mother was driving down. A
>second sooner and he'd have been under the wheels but he just hit the
>side of the car. Result - small dent in door (not worth fixing) and
>wing mirror totally smashed (about £100 to replace - and that was over
>15 years ago). Kid and bike bounced and were undamaged.

Children often walk away from things adults would not walk away
from. Has the cyclist in the original assertion now become a child?

>I happen to drive a silly sports car with a fibreglass clamshell body
>- I imaging that a glancing blow from a cyclist could cause damage
>that would run into thousands of pounds to fix.

You may imagine that, but I doubt that your imagination is correct.
Fibreglass is remarkably strong for its weight.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Clive George]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:12:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
> [email protected] wrote this:-
>
>>To those who doubt that a cyclist can cause expensive damage to a car
>>and ride away - utter tosh!
>
> Ah, proof by assertion.
>
>>I recall an incident when a chav kid on his BMX rode out of an
>>alleyway straight into the road that my mother was driving down. A
>>second sooner and he'd have been under the wheels but he just hit the
>>side of the car. Result - small dent in door (not worth fixing) and
>>wing mirror totally smashed (about £100 to replace - and that was over
>>15 years ago). Kid and bike bounced and were undamaged.
>
> Children often walk away from things adults would not walk away
> from. Has the cyclist in the original assertion now become a child?
>
>>I happen to drive a silly sports car with a fibreglass clamshell body
>>- I imaging that a glancing blow from a cyclist could cause damage
>>that would run into thousands of pounds to fix.
>
> You may imagine that, but I doubt that your imagination is correct.
> Fibreglass is remarkably strong for its weight.

David -

I'm not entirely sure why you're persisting with this. I've posted twice in
this thread mentioning incidents where the car has received damage and the
bike/rider remained unscathed - I know these happened, because I was that
rider.

Unless you believe I'm lying, or am a fabrication of some motor-obsessed
conspiracy, it would seem prudent to accept that my experience demonstrates
very well that it's possible to cause damage to a car at no cost to a
cyclist. The bill for one of them was several hundred pounds about 20 years
ago, which suggests that it's also possible for that damage to be quite
expensive to fix.

(points about the wisdom of travelling around in such fragile expensive
objects are a different issue...)

cheers,
clive

 

[al Mossah]

On 21 Jan, 10:24, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:21:48 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Tony
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> "A cyclist hit the side of my new car (it was the cyclists fault), it
> >> cost to me £350 to get fixed. He refused to give me his name and
> >> address - he just got back on his bike and rode away. I went to the
> >> police station and I was told it was a civil matter."
>
> >As a matter of interest where & when did this happen?
>
> It is also interesting to ponder on how the cyclist managed to hit
> the side of a car, cause the alleged damage, yet still ride off.
>
> Perhaps the cyclist has something mounted on their vehicle which
> extends beyond the front wheel and thus prevents it from buckling.
>
> Perhaps the car is so fragile that a glancing blow from a cyclist
> damaged it so much.
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

A couple of years ago my son was knocked off his bike at a roundabout
by a Renault Espace driver. Son rode his bike home. Espace had a
broken front "quarterlight" - the glass on the side wall of the car in
front of the driver's door. I guess that this was the handlebar end
doing the damage.

So it *can* happen.

Peter.

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:26:49 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I'm not entirely sure why you're persisting with this.

Does that matter? Those who don't want to mull this over can simply
ignore the thread.

I remain unconvinced. All sorts of strange things can happen rarely,
but that does mean that they happen all the time and it does not
mean that they happened in a particular instance.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Clive George]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:26:49 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I'm not entirely sure why you're persisting with this.
>
> Does that matter? Those who don't want to mull this over can simply
> ignore the thread.

Depends how silly you want to make yourself look, really. You're arguing
against stuff people have real world experience of. It's not a question of
you persisting with the discussion, it's a question of you persisting with
the clearly fallacious idea that it's not possible for a bike/rider to cause
significant damage to a car and yet come off unscathed themselves.

> I remain unconvinced. All sorts of strange things can happen rarely,
> but that does mean that they happen all the time and it does not
> mean that they happened in a particular instance.

I don't believe anybody is suggesting that they happen all the time. Whether
it happened in the particular instance isn't going to be able to be
determined within the confines of this NG, since we only have a very vague
report about what happened.

cheers,
clive

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:08:09 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Depends how silly you want to make yourself look, really.

Opinions may vary on who is making themself look silly.

>You're arguing against stuff people have real world experience of.

You appear to be making the assumption that I do not have "real
world experience" of this. Some might think that a silly assumption.

You may have the last word.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Clive George]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:08:09 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Depends how silly you want to make yourself look, really.
>
> Opinions may vary on who is making themself look silly.

If somebody comes to me and says "look, that field is bright pink" when it's
a perfectly normal grassy field, and then persist in saying it, I'd suggest
they're making themselves look silly. Persisting in denying the truth is not
a good way of making yourself look good.

>>You're arguing against stuff people have real world experience of.
>
> You appear to be making the assumption that I do not have "real
> world experience" of this. Some might think that a silly assumption.

(are you getting into a huff? I'm not actually engaging in a uk.t-style
personal attack on you.)

Why, if you've got real world experience of it, did you persist in
questioning those who claimed that it was entirely possible for a bike/rider
to cause damage to a car while remaining unharmed?

clive