A cautionary tale & reporting an accident - who is has to?
Discussion
Mk3Spitfire said:
Mill Wheel. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the law and as such, the answer to your question. There are offences riders of pedal bikes can be prosecuted for. For example, "furious and wonton cycling". But as far as RTC's go, the cyclist was not liable. His morals clearly leave a lot to be desired, no doubt, but from an RTC point of view, he had no duty.
How, then, was a cyclist prosecuted and convicted for hitting and killing an old lady in my neck of the woods?mybrainhurts said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Mill Wheel. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the law and as such, the answer to your question. There are offences riders of pedal bikes can be prosecuted for. For example, "furious and wonton cycling". But as far as RTC's go, the cyclist was not liable. His morals clearly leave a lot to be desired, no doubt, but from an RTC point of view, he had no duty.
How, then, was a cyclist prosecuted and convicted for hitting and killing an old lady in my neck of the woods?mybrainhurts said:
How, then, was a cyclist prosecuted and convicted for hitting and killing an old lady in my neck of the woods?
Well, like I said....cyclists can, and are prosecuted for offences...but they are not liable to report RTC's. Have you actually read what has been posted?!7db said:
Cyclist clearly culpable.
Requirement for the coach driver to stop and report only where his collision results in harm, I think. It didn't so no RTC obligation.
Cyclist not covered by RTC so that's not the relevant legislation -- S28 and S36 RTA apply, and death/injury by wanton and furious carries upto 2 years in prison.
But the bus did cause injury? "Bruising to the back". There's a requirement to stop for injury or damage, but becomes a recordable when it's injury.Requirement for the coach driver to stop and report only where his collision results in harm, I think. It didn't so no RTC obligation.
Cyclist not covered by RTC so that's not the relevant legislation -- S28 and S36 RTA apply, and death/injury by wanton and furious carries upto 2 years in prison.
Mk3Spitfire said:
mybrainhurts said:
How, then, was a cyclist prosecuted and convicted for hitting and killing an old lady in my neck of the woods?
Well, like I said....cyclists can, and are prosecuted for offences...but they are not liable to report RTC's. Have you actually read what has been posted?!Mk3Spitfire said:
But as far as RTC's go, the cyclist was not liable
mybrainhurts said:
I'm not really sure what you're getting at?? The cyclist was not liable to report the rtc, as technically there was no rtc at this point. But the cyclist could potentially be liable for other offences? There's no ambiguity there as far as I can see?
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Thursday 24th April 22:52
Mk3Spitfire said:
mybrainhurts said:
I'm not really sure what you're getting at?? The cyclist was not liable to report the rtc, but could potentially be liable for other offences? There's no ambiguity there as far as I can see?
Yes, my fault for reading too quickly and not linking your statement to reporting. I thought you meant the bicyclist bore no responsibility for the accident.
Mill Wheel said:
The first responder checked his arms and ribs, and determined that nothing was broken
That's quite a skill, i wish i had X-ray eyes! Would be really handy in my job. Someone should have called 999 really so your son could have been checked over by actual medical professionals, instead of a first responder, who is basically a first aider and not trained in trauma or road traffic accidents or anything like that.
Sounds like he's had a lucky escape though, and i wish him well.
Just throwing this out there.
If the bike isn't capable of causing an rtc then I'd suggest the cyclist should have been reported for assault or something similar.
There has clearly been a 'crime' commited.
Exactly how it's recorded is down to plod and the courts, but jumping a red light and knocking someone over does require all parties to stick around and a police call.
If the bike isn't capable of causing an rtc then I'd suggest the cyclist should have been reported for assault or something similar.
There has clearly been a 'crime' commited.
Exactly how it's recorded is down to plod and the courts, but jumping a red light and knocking someone over does require all parties to stick around and a police call.
It's likely the cyclist uses that route regularly. Get you son to wait at about the same time in the same place for a few days. If the errant cyclist comes along, tell your son to push him off, and then, in the process of helping back on his feet, accidentaly trample all over his precious bike.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Ah! No problem then! I totally agree the cyclist was solely responsible for the accident!
Interesting.. what about the issue of the cyclist propelling a pedestrian into the path of a vehicle - who takes responsibility in the case of an injury? And if an insurance claim arose, would the vehicle insurers seek redress from the cyclist - if they could be found?Mk3Spitfire said:
Well, like I said....cyclists can, and are prosecuted for offences...but they are not liable to report RTC's. Have you actually read what has been posted?!
That's an interesting one.... Many years ago I was knocked of my bike by a car. We exchanged details, and a couple of days later plod called asking "were you involved in a collision? why didn't you report it? - can you come to the station". This I did and was treated as a crim and told I should have reported etc, then it became clear the other party had told a whole pack of lies - said I'd extensively damaged the rear of his car! I pointed out to plod that a pedal bike hitting the side of his car (he pulled across my path), is unlikely to cause such damage, and the car registration number was different! Don't know what his game was (insurance fraud?) but plod's tone changed completely, and I heard no more. Guy paid up for damages in a few days also, having previously said "you were going too fast?" - so plod did help I guess.Well that all depends on what the guy lied about. Could have made out you did it intentionally or whatever. Anyway, that situation WOULD class as an RTC as "due to the presence of a MPV....damage/injury was caused". Perhaps saying a cyclist can't CAUSE an rtc is misleading. I should have said it won't be an RTC until a MPV becomes involved.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Have I used the wrong wonton?! It's a hardly ever used offence and I always think of food whenever I hear it mentioned! Wanton, wonton?
Wanton = without regard for what is right; malicious; careless; reckless etcWonton = a tasty dumpling served in Chinese restaurants
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff