Cyclist on pavement - causing injury - BiB action?
Discussion
On Friday, I received a voicemail from my wife to ring immediately. I could tell something was wrong.
It was. She was in A&E having been hit by a lad (17/18ish) on a bike going like the clappers on the pavement. She's got a broken ankle & broken elbow - in absolute bloody agony.
She was a bit out of it with the pain but said the WPC attended seemed very unsure & inexperienced. Fair enough, we all have to start somewhere. And after going away to check, announced that it wasn't an RTC as he was on the pavement but they could class it as assault.
Wife (too soft for her own good) said he was very apologetic & upset so told the Police not to press any charges...
I popped into the Bank she'd just come out of today when collecting her car from where it was parked to thank them for the First Aid and they said the Police had been in for the names/details of witnesses.
So wondered if any of our BiB could shed light...
What law had the oik actually broken? And would you expect that it might still be dealt with even with her saying to do nothing? Or will it now have just been shelved? We do have a log number but no details of the Station/Officer.
The Police are probably unaware of the extent of her injuries as both Paramedics & an off-duty Doc both thought nothing broken at scene, only came to light in A&E.
Personally I think the lad needs to have the impact of his actions rammed home but it's not my call. Just wondering how our BiBs would see such a situation unfolding.
It's not about compensation, young lad probably a man of straw anyway but I'd liek to see hs eyeballs brought together with a resounding click & a large dose of attitude readjutment take place...
It was. She was in A&E having been hit by a lad (17/18ish) on a bike going like the clappers on the pavement. She's got a broken ankle & broken elbow - in absolute bloody agony.
She was a bit out of it with the pain but said the WPC attended seemed very unsure & inexperienced. Fair enough, we all have to start somewhere. And after going away to check, announced that it wasn't an RTC as he was on the pavement but they could class it as assault.
Wife (too soft for her own good) said he was very apologetic & upset so told the Police not to press any charges...
I popped into the Bank she'd just come out of today when collecting her car from where it was parked to thank them for the First Aid and they said the Police had been in for the names/details of witnesses.
So wondered if any of our BiB could shed light...
What law had the oik actually broken? And would you expect that it might still be dealt with even with her saying to do nothing? Or will it now have just been shelved? We do have a log number but no details of the Station/Officer.
The Police are probably unaware of the extent of her injuries as both Paramedics & an off-duty Doc both thought nothing broken at scene, only came to light in A&E.
Personally I think the lad needs to have the impact of his actions rammed home but it's not my call. Just wondering how our BiBs would see such a situation unfolding.
It's not about compensation, young lad probably a man of straw anyway but I'd liek to see hs eyeballs brought together with a resounding click & a large dose of attitude readjutment take place...
Pot Bellied Fool said:
She was a bit out of it with the pain but said the WPC attended seemed very unsure & inexperienced. Fair enough, we all have to start somewhere. And after going away to check, announced that it wasn't an RTC as he was on the pavement but they could class it as assault.
What???????There's plenty he could be charged with if they could be bothered.
https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/bicycle-law
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q763.htm
Even a cyclist defence website says there are a number of matters he could be reported for so I don't understand what the PC was told & by whom.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/minor-cyclin...
This from wiki (!) might also be of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_bodily_harm_...
Can't see the 'assault' side of things.
As far as compensation for loss of earnings etc is concerned as cyclists don't have to have any insurance I would say your wife's only option would be to sue him. If he has no money or assets it would be a pointless exercise.
Hopefully she will make a full & speedy recovery.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/minor-cyclin...
This from wiki (!) might also be of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_bodily_harm_...
Can't see the 'assault' side of things.
As far as compensation for loss of earnings etc is concerned as cyclists don't have to have any insurance I would say your wife's only option would be to sue him. If he has no money or assets it would be a pointless exercise.
Hopefully she will make a full & speedy recovery.
Edited by paintman on Sunday 6th September 02:06
The footway is part of the road.
The problem for the police is identification. One would assume that your wife would be unable to recognise the kid so it is, in effect, a dead end. The police have to triage nowadays and one of the first ticks is whether there's any chance of identifying the offender. No chance, no investigation.
The offence would be dangerous cycling, the '88 Road Traffic Act. Whilst I might agree with any suggestion that it falls within Offences Against the Person Act, the police, the cps and the courts will not consider it.
I know it means little, but I am sorry for your wife's injuries and wish her a quick recovery. Nasty incident.
The problem for the police is identification. One would assume that your wife would be unable to recognise the kid so it is, in effect, a dead end. The police have to triage nowadays and one of the first ticks is whether there's any chance of identifying the offender. No chance, no investigation.
The offence would be dangerous cycling, the '88 Road Traffic Act. Whilst I might agree with any suggestion that it falls within Offences Against the Person Act, the police, the cps and the courts will not consider it.
I know it means little, but I am sorry for your wife's injuries and wish her a quick recovery. Nasty incident.
Derek Smith said:
The problem for the police is identification. One would assume that your wife would be unable to recognise the kid so it is, in effect, a dead end. The police have to triage nowadays and one of the first ticks is whether there's any chance of identifying the offender. No chance, no investigation.
The lad/bloke stopped and provided a name & phone number (at least) to someone - I believe the Police have it - I would have hoped they'd check his details at the scene.Derek Smith said:
I know it means little, but I am sorry for your wife's injuries and wish her a quick recovery. Nasty incident.
Thanks Derek, appreciated. I shudder to think what the outcome would've been if it'd been a frail, elederly person he hit...The Bank guy told me someone else had popped in to tell them that the lad had clipped them on his way down the pavement so he must've been going some!
Assuming the name & address they gave was correct.
Other than them producing photographic ID at the time or a check that the details given are confirmed by checking the voter's list - assuming the person is on it - there isn't a way of verifying that & bicycles don't have registration numbers.
Made more difficult if action was started involving court the offender could try the 'it wasn't me' approach. Would your wife still be able to recognise them some months later when their appearance could be very different?
Cyclists on pavements or in pedestrianised areas has always been a problem - one of my pet hates TBH - & unfortunately collisions of this nature aren't unusual.
Other than them producing photographic ID at the time or a check that the details given are confirmed by checking the voter's list - assuming the person is on it - there isn't a way of verifying that & bicycles don't have registration numbers.
Made more difficult if action was started involving court the offender could try the 'it wasn't me' approach. Would your wife still be able to recognise them some months later when their appearance could be very different?
Cyclists on pavements or in pedestrianised areas has always been a problem - one of my pet hates TBH - & unfortunately collisions of this nature aren't unusual.
Edited by paintman on Sunday 6th September 10:14
Pot Bellied Fool said:
Derek Smith said:
The problem for the police is identification. One would assume that your wife would be unable to recognise the kid so it is, in effect, a dead end. The police have to triage nowadays and one of the first ticks is whether there's any chance of identifying the offender. No chance, no investigation.
The lad/bloke stopped and provided a name & phone number (at least) to someone - I believe the Police have it - I would have hoped they'd check his details at the scene.Derek Smith said:
I know it means little, but I am sorry for your wife's injuries and wish her a quick recovery. Nasty incident.
Thanks Derek, appreciated. I shudder to think what the outcome would've been if it'd been a frail, elederly person he hit...The Bank guy told me someone else had popped in to tell them that the lad had clipped them on his way down the pavement so he must've been going some!
In all probability there's little chance of getting any money from him but from a frequent pedestrian's point of view, he needs to be taught a lesson. I would not dream of suggesting that someone as badly injured as your wife should do anything other than what's best for her though. Such injuries can take it out of you. My wife broke her wrist and she was in some discomfort for months.
Best of luck.
Sorry to hear about your wife-I hope she is feeling better. Sadly there seems to be many of this kind of selfish and antisocial incidents. I wonder if the best way to deal with it is for the Police to arrange for him to meet with you and your wife (maybe at a Police Station). Your wife can tell him and show him the impact his actions have had on her mentally and physically and also the hardship she and your family are now facing as she heals and goes through physio etc. Then you can tell him in no uncertain terms what you think.
This may ultimately be a better outcome for all than pressing charges (if that is possible).
Just a thought.....
This may ultimately be a better outcome for all than pressing charges (if that is possible).
Just a thought.....
kowalski655 said:
Criminal Injuries Compensation is a possibility,if he has no insurance,but I'm not sure if her saying not to press charges would help the case. Doesn't matter,I think,if he is not identified.
A claim against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) could be made, but would be rejected if she said not to press charges- identity of the offender does not matter as long as she has co-operated with the police (which she will be classed as not doing). You can claim loss of earnings through the CICA, but only if you are off work for more than 28 weeks and they will only pay from the 29th week onwards
Sorry about your wife OP.
If it makes you feel any better, I think the fact that the boy hung around and gave details suggests he was genuinely remorseful and this will change his ways (as opposed to some scumtwunt who just rode off and left her on the ground).
If it makes you feel any better, I think the fact that the boy hung around and gave details suggests he was genuinely remorseful and this will change his ways (as opposed to some scumtwunt who just rode off and left her on the ground).
paintman said:
Cyclists on pavements or in pedestrianised areas has always been a problem - one of my pet hates TBH - & unfortunately collisions of this nature aren't unusual.
It is annoying, but fortunately quite unusual that somebody is hurt or killed http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_pub...That's interesting as friend clipped a woman on the pavement as she went around someone in a rush roadside and her arm hit his wing mirror. He stopped and turned around but woman had gone. To cover himself called police on 101 and they wanted a full RTC statement back at the station incase the woman complained.
budgie smuggler said:
Sorry about your wife OP.
If it makes you feel any better, I think the fact that the boy hung around and gave details suggests he was genuinely remorseful and this will change his ways (as opposed to some scumtwunt who just rode off and left her on the ground).
I was thinking the same, based on the OP's Wife's description, he sounds genuinely upset at hurting her.If it makes you feel any better, I think the fact that the boy hung around and gave details suggests he was genuinely remorseful and this will change his ways (as opposed to some scumtwunt who just rode off and left her on the ground).
Accidents do happen.
So if I drive my car on the pavement its not a RTC ? Thats interesting
OP hope your missus feels better soon , I was knocked over on the pavement by a cyclist as a child and almost lost my recently acquired front teeth as well as cuts and bruises but kids bounce better . There was no talk of the Police but my granddad very nearly lamped him !
OP hope your missus feels better soon , I was knocked over on the pavement by a cyclist as a child and almost lost my recently acquired front teeth as well as cuts and bruises but kids bounce better . There was no talk of the Police but my granddad very nearly lamped him !
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff