Hit and run by a cyclist! What can we do?

[Dave *]

can a 15 year old be cautioned?
If someone is purposefully trying to harm themselves I think they can be put under watch. The cyclist purposefully ran away.

Anyway I think you are slightly confusing matters here (just because of the way conversation had turned not blaming you)

To be clear there are two possibilities:
1 - as you say the cyclist fleeing an incident is legally not an offence (unlike in case of other motor vehicles) so the police can't do anything. In which case I feel the law needs updating and I'll talk to my MP to see what he says.
2 - there is a possibility that under the law It's possible to carry out an investigation in which case the police will do something about it.

Either way I need to contact the police first to see where we stand.

You know if the police were to track down the cyclist they will likely also pass on the details of the culpable party (your brother) if requested and it could open the door to legal action being instituted against him for any injuries or damage his negligence caused?

Have you heard of Pandora’s box?

 

[cambsno]

can a 15 year old be cautioned?
If someone is purposefully trying to harm themselves I think they can be put under watch. The cyclist purposefully ran away.

Anyway I think you are slightly confusing matters here (just because of the way conversation had turned not blaming you)

To be clear there are two possibilities:
1 - as you say the cyclist fleeing an incident is legally not an offence (unlike in case of other motor vehicles) so the police can't do anything. In which case I feel the law needs updating and I'll talk to my MP to see what he says.
2 - there is a possibility that under the law It's possible to carry out an investigation in which case the police will do something about it.

Either way I need to contact the police first to see where we stand.

Do you not think the police have better things to do with their time ref point 2. What could they possibly uncover that could lead the police to do something?

 

[cambsno]

Charge a 15 year old with assault for poor crossing?
Sure that sounds very plausible doesn't it.

Well you seem to want the cyclist cautioned for an accident (that based on evidence in the thread) was not his fault at all!

 

[Dave *]

Well you seem to want the cyclist cautioned for an accident (that based on evidence in the thread) was not his fault at all!

Not to mention he also wants police action because the “cyclist purposefully ran away” and “the cyclist fleeing an incident” when the cyclist was not legally obliged to remain at the scene.

It’s almost like @nandbytes wants the bad manners/attitude of the cyclist to be criminalised and the actual culpability of the negligent party who caused the accident to be swept under the rug.

 

[cambsno]

Some of you should read this from Cycling UK

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

It seems none of us totally know the law
Much of it dates back to Victorian times and let's be honest things have moved on a lot since then
So, I agree the laws on cycling do need updating, I get fed of hearing it's always someone else's fault when
something happens,.
I drive around most of the day, on a local road that is heavily used by cyclist and most weekends for races,
the behaviour of some of the cyclist and their lack of anything bright to help us mere mortal drivers see them
is astounding.
A couple months back I saw quite a few near misses when crossed the path of vehicles instead of slowing down.
As to speed, I can also confirm that these guys can definitely do in excess of 30mph on a flat road

Had an interesting experience this morning, student (guessing around 16) weaving on the busway cycle part (much wider than a cycle path) - no hands on handlebars and on his phone! I came up the inside as there was a big gap (plus there was traffic ahead on the right) and as I pass he weaves into me. Luckily I was on my guard and shouted as he moved over, he tumbled off. I did slow and spin round as he was shouting at me!!! So somehow, he was not sticking to the left, no hands on the bars and on his phone! I told him what I thought of his biking and rode off.

 

[nandbytes]

Well you seem to want the cyclist cautioned for an accident (that based on evidence in the thread) was not his fault at all!

For the millionth time I have already said the cyclist is NOT at fault!!! Why would I want action to be taken for what is NOT his fault.

If you think hit and run is fine just because it's a cyclist then we have nothing more to discuss here.

 

[nandbytes]

Not to mention he also wants police action because the “cyclist purposefully ran away” and “the cyclist fleeing an incident” when the cyclist was not legally obliged to remain at the scene.

It’s almost like @nandbytes wants the bad manners/attitude of the cyclist to be criminalised and the actual culpability of the negligent party who caused the accident to be swept under the rug.

Ok let's play your game. What punishment do you want to dish out to a 15 year old for poor crossing?
Culpable homicide? That seems very fair and logical doesn't it. Just the possibility that my brother could have got up and chased the cyclist down the underground with a machete.

 

[cambsno]

For the millionth time I have already said the cyclist is NOT at fault!!! Why would I want action to be taken for what is NOT his fault.

If you think hit and run is fine just because it's a cyclist then we have nothing more to discuss here.

For the millionth time, I said legally (AFAIK) he has done nothing legally wrong but was morally wrong.

So how come in post 112 you say you wanted a caution (or a talking to) for the cyclist - that will be on his criminal record I believe!

 

[Fuji Dave]

The young lad who got hurt was at fault, but the cyclist was at fault for just riding off, so imo BOTH should get a warning.

 

[cambsno]

Ok let's play your game. What punishment do you want to dish out to a 15 year old for poor crossing?
Culpable homicide? That seems very fair and logical doesn't it. Just the possibility that my brother could have got up and chased the cyclist down the underground with a machete.

I am playing devils advocate. You were the one that said cyclists should legally have the same rules as car drivers. As you rightly say, if I had driven off in my car that's a hit and run and I am in trouble. So if cyclists should have the same rules as car drivers, shouldn't pedestrians be subject to similar stuff if they cause injury or damage.

 

[Dave *]

Ok let's play your game. What punishment do you want to dish out to a 15 year old for poor crossing?
Culpable homicide? That seems very fair and logical doesn't it. Just the possibility that my brother could have got up and chased the cyclist down the underground with a machete.

The 15 year old has already been punished for his idiocy, your running around shouting for more action could backfire on him as he is the guilty party.

The young lad who got hurt was at fault, but the cyclist was at fault for just riding off, so imo BOTH should get a warning.

What would the cyclist get a warning for?

 

[Box Brownie]

Firstly, yes it seems very bad form that the cyclist did not stop long enough to check all was well or not as the case maybe!

However, if I read it right you appear to say that in the briefest moment after the impact the cyclist remounted and rode off ..........possibly noting that others were coming to the aid of your brother, whose injuries at that point were not clearly obvious to the cyclist or those present.

Therefore is it possible that as opposed to your inference that he rode off knowing your brother was seriously injured, he did not and could not know the extent of the damage?

Also, though the cyclist rapidly ride away......he and/or his bike could have sustained injury/damage???

Why he rode off is open to speculation but in regard to your overall desire to make road users more responsible for their actions, is legislation overdue for everyone to have liability insurance....... including pedestrians.

Afteral, should the cyclist be found/come forward claiming against your brother (you said i think that he admitted he walked into the path of the cyclist) for the injury to him or damage caused by his jaywalking(?) who will pay???

More to any such incident than at first meets the eye.

 

[nandbytes]

Firstly, yes it seems very bad form that the cyclist did not stop long enough to check all was well or not as the case maybe!

However, if I read it right you appear to say that in the briefest moment after the impact the cyclist remounted and rode off ..........possibly noting that others were coming to the aid of your brother, whose injuries at that point were not clearly obvious to the cyclist or those present.

Therefore is it possible that as opposed to your inference that he rode off knowing your brother was seriously injured, he did not and could not know the extent of the damage?

Also, though the cyclist rapidly ride away......he and/or his bike could have sustained injury/damage???

Why he rode off is open to speculation but in regard to your overall desire to make road users more responsible for their actions, is legislation overdue for everyone to have liability insurance....... including pedestrians.

Afteral, should the cyclist be found/come forward claiming against your brother (you said i think that he admitted he walked into the path of the cyclist) for the injury to him or damage caused by his jaywalking(?) who will pay???

More to any such incident than at first meets the eye.

My brother has not admitted to anything (fault or otherwise). We haven't really discussed it with him as it's not appropriate given the condition he is in.
I only gave the account I know from talking to the other brother who was with him. He still says they checked and the "cyclist came out of nowhere". I am personally assuming their check was insufficient but only the other witnesses can confirm otherwise. I haven't and can't talk to the witness but the police have done that. Another reason I would like to go speak with them, will give a clear unbiased idea of what happened.

The police only spoke one sentence to my mum as far as she can remember and that was "no one is liable for the incident". Make of it what you will.

 

[nandbytes]

I am playing devils advocate. You were the one that said cyclists should legally have the same rules as car drivers. As you rightly say, if I had driven off in my car that's a hit and run and I am in trouble. So if cyclists should have the same rules as car drivers, shouldn't pedestrians be subject to similar stuff if they cause injury or damage.

Cyclist should have similar rules (not same) as cars especially for such incidents.

If a pedestrian hits an individual on purpose that's assault and there are laws dealing with that. If a pedestrian accidentally injures some (regardless of who is at fault) I'd expect them to stay and not run off same as cyclist.

 

[Fuji Dave]

What would the cyclist get a warning for?

Leaving the scene of an accident.

 

[viv1969]

Leaving the scene of an accident.

Not an offence.

 

[Fuji Dave]

Not an offence.

If someone ran out in front of me while I was riding a bike, and I smashed into them and they are screaming in pain I`d still stay behind till the police came out, but that`s just me.

 

[andya700]

My brother has not admitted to anything (fault or otherwise). We haven't really discussed it with him as it's not appropriate given the condition he is in.
I only gave the account I know from talking to the other brother who was with him. He still says they checked and the "cyclist came out of nowhere". I am personally assuming their check was insufficient but only the other witnesses can confirm otherwise. I haven't and can't talk to the witness but the police have done that. Another reason I would like to go speak with them, will give a clear unbiased idea of what happened.

The police only spoke one sentence to my mum as far as she can remember and that was "no one is liable for the incident". Make of it what you will.

So, was this when they did or didn't cross the road together, the brother collided with the cyclist as soon as he stepped off the kerb, or maybe as he was nearly across the road?
If the cyclist came out of nowhere, was he in fact riding a Delorean bicycle?
If you talk to six witnesses, you will probably get six different accounts.

 

[Nod]

And a combination of those 6 accounts might come somewhere near what actually happened. MIGHT!

 

[nandbytes]

So, was this when they did or didn't cross the road together, the brother collided with the cyclist as soon as he stepped off the kerb, or maybe as he was nearly across the road?
If the cyclist came out of nowhere, was he in fact riding a Delorean bicycle?
If you talk to six witnesses, you will probably get six different accounts.

They did not cross together. In fact one of them didn't try to cross at all.

Basically a person who was standing at the same crossing decided to quickly cross. One of my brother's decided to follow his lead. The collision happend few steps into the road (hence the need for barricading to road to avoid further collisions).

No idea what bike he was riding. Obviously a nice strong one if was still fit for riding after the collision.

Possible but speaking to witnesses is really the only way to deduce what happened. Having said that I had a look around this morning and there are plenty of CCTV cameras in the area (since it's right in front of a tube station). So not too hard for the police to figure out what exactly happened if they wanted to.

 

[viv1969]

If someone ran out in front of me while I was riding a bike, and I smashed into them and they are screaming in pain I`d still stay behind till the police came out, but that`s just me.

Me too.

 

[Gremlin]

If someone ran out in front of me while I was riding a bike, and I smashed into them and they are screaming in pain I`d still stay behind till the police came out, but that`s just me.

and that in my opinion is the whole point of this thread, it's not about who's fault it was, it's about the decision to just ride away from the scene leaving some lying injured on the road without even checking and it is such things as this that means further laws are made to cover what should be basic common sense

 

[Dave *]

Leaving the scene of an accident.

Why would the police even feel it was in their power to give a warning or caution for something that isn’t an offence?

You don’t think that could be portrayed as an abuse of power by someone on the receiving end of it?

 

[Dave *]

and that in my opinion is the whole point of this thread, it's not about who's fault it was, it's about the decision to just ride away from the scene leaving some lying injured on the road without even checking and it is such things as this that means further laws are made to cover what should be basic common sense

Except the OP wants the police to take action, which is a nonsense, no offence was committed however heartless or bad mannered people perceive the cyclists actions were.

 

[nandbytes]

Except the OP wants the police to take action, which is a nonsense, no offence was committed however heartless or bad mannered people perceive the cyclists actions were.

@Gremlin has exactly explained my standing on the matter. I couldn't have put it any better myself.

The whole point of the thread was to find out where we stood and it has achieved that. I am not an idiot, I understand it's not an offence so the police can't enforce anything. But I feel the law needs updating (of course I know the police can't do that)

 

[andya700]

@Gremlin has exactly explained my standing on the matter. I couldn't have put it any better myself.

The whole point of the thread was to find out where we stood and it has achieved that. I am not an idiot, I understand it's not an offence so the police can't enforce anything. But I feel the law needs updating (of course I know the police can't do that)

I reckon you should contact Theresa May, she isn't that busy at the moment.

 

[nandbytes]

I reckon you should contact Theresa May, she isn't that busy at the moment.

Funnily enough she went to same primary school as my brothers.

 

[Cobra]

The highway code says that a no vehicles sign, red circle with no vehicles, means "no vehicles except bicycles being pushed".
A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention.

Surely both of these define a bicycle as a vehicle?
Which leads nicely on to


"In the UK the maximum penalty for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident is 6 months imprisonment, a £5,000 fine, a discretionary ban (at the magistrates will) and 5-10 penalty points

And from the police web site

If an officer attended the incident they would probably have provided you with their collar/badge number and name. If the matter was reported at a police station it may be several days before an officer is allocated and this officer may be involved in other investigations etc. and not immediately able to contact you.

 

[nandbytes]

The highway code says that a no vehicles sign, red circle with no vehicles, means "no vehicles except bicycles being pushed".
A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention.

Surely both of these define a bicycle as a vehicle?
Which leads nicely on to


"In the UK the maximum penalty for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident is 6 months imprisonment, a £5,000 fine, a discretionary ban (at the magistrates will) and 5-10 penalty points

And from the police web site

If an officer attended the incident they would probably have provided you with their collar/badge number and name. If the matter was reported at a police station it may be several days before an officer is allocated and this officer may be involved in other investigations etc. and not immediately able to contact you.

thanks for the information but i have some reference that says otherwise i.e. cyclists not included. Legislation on hit and run:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

BUT:

“pedal cycle” means a unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case mechanically propelled unless it is an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such class as is to be treated as not being a motor vehicle for the purposes of the 1984 Act;"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1519/made

 

[Cobra]

but i have some reference that says otherwise i.e. cyclists not included.

Fairy nuff

 

[Major Eazy]

I wasn't really sure where to ask for opinions, so this place seemed as good a place as any
...

So my brother was in an accident this morning and I wanted to access where we stand legally or otherwise.

Being an irresponsible 15 year school kid he jumped on the road when the signals were green to quickly catch his school bus on the other side of the road. He quickly scanned for cars but didn't care to look for cyclists. So as soon as he jumped on the road a cyclist who was traveling at some speed ran into him. They both fell.



Should I bother going to the police or is it not worth it since it was a cyclist.

Cyclists follows the same Highway Code as drivers do. Rule 71: Cyclist MSUT NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.

You said your brother crossed the road when the signals were green?

For the signal to be green, the traffic light would have to be red. Both lights can't be green at the same time otherwise drivers would be mowing down pedestrians as they are crossing the road while the cars are crossing the stop line! Both lights can't be red at the same time, otherwise both would be standing still asking each other "The red is against me, what are you waiting for? Get moving!"

One light would be red while the other is green. Thus if your brother says it was green, then the cyclist sees a red light. He broken Rule 71, no difference from a driver jumping the red light!

Your brother may have scanned for cars, that is good, even thought he got a green light, and cars are likely to face a red light, there may be the idiot who wants to jump the red light, or crooks trying to get away from the cops in their getaway car. So he was doing the right thing, make sure nobody is trying to jump the red light.

But cars are on the road, and can only come from the road. Cyclist can come from anywhere. A cyclist could be on the pavement, see too many people in the way, decided to jump off the pavement and onto the road at the last moment. Thus, even if your brother looked down the road for cyclist, see no cyclists, looked forwards and crossed quickly, BAM! a cyclist knocked him down.

If your brother looked for cyclists or did not looked for cyclist, it hardly make a difference. He could have looked for cyclists, see no cyclists, and still BAM! get knocked down by one.

Nevertheless, Highway Code is not for car drivers, it is for anyone who use the roads, including joggers, horse riders, cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, and even a tank driver if the tank driver was under orders to take the tank to Buckingham Palace to guard The Queen.

Cyclist and drivers must stop when there is a red light, if your brother crossed the road because there is a green light, thus it must be a red light for the cars and cyclists. More likely cyclists jumped the red light.

It is up to your brother to press charges against a cyclist who jumped the red light, when your brother had the right of way.

Don't forget: It could have been worst! Remember that news some months ago, about a guy wanting to press charges against a cyclist for knocking down his wife, who later dies. Government is thinking of changing the law to give serious sentences for cyclists who knocked down people. If police gets the cyclist, he gets fined or whatever, it should teach other cyclists to wake up and smell the coffee. The Highway Code is for ANY road users, including cyclist.

It is up to you and your brother to think about pressing charges.

 

[Major Eazy]

From what I gather it's perfectly fine to gravely injure someone while on bicycle and run away (regardless of which party is at fault) but it's a criminal offence to drive off in a car even if an accident results in no serious harm (regardless of which party is at fault).

Doesn't make logical sense does it?

I work in Cambridge and a there a lot of cyclist s. 5 out of 6 of my team members cycle to work. Every single one of them said hit and run is plainly wrong regardless of the mode of transportation. What is to say he won't do the same thing if and when he is in a car?

I am not trying to place the blame or grief on to the cyclist. If what he has done is wrong he should at least be made aware of it! Not too much ask from the law is it!

if it was a car or a bus as per your example it wouldn't have been fine to drive away but just because it's a bicycle it's fine? Are you suggesting one can go around causing grave harm to others and it's fine as long as it's on a bike because they can simply run away?

It was lucky that my brothers were in a crowded area where others could help. What if this happens on a quiet street? It's ok to leave some one to die because it's not your fault and you are on a bike but if you were in a car suddenly that's a criminal offence. Just doesn't sound very fair or logical.

p.s. I also cycle so I am not anti-cyclist. The law should be fair to everyone.

I agree with you.

The Highway Code is for road users, it is not only for car drivers. It is for all road users, meaning anyone who use the roads, including jaywalkers, horse riders, cyclists, and any drivers.

So in a sense, the law in the Highway Code is for everyone (who used the road) and not limited to drivers only.

If a driver jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the driver. If a cyclist jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the cyclist. Rule 71 for cyclist same as Rule 171 for drivers.

You are a good cyclist who seems to have some ideas of the rules, he is a bad cyclist who seems to have not bothered to read the Highway Code. Yes, he should be made aware of it, regardless of mode of transportation.

 

[Dave *]

You said your brother crossed the road when the signals were green?

He means the lights were green for the cars/cycles, it was said in another post. They basically played chicken running against the green traffic light.

 

[Dave *]

If a driver jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the driver. If a cyclist jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the cyclist. Rule 71 for cyclist same as Rule 171 for drivers.

Other than the fact that isn’t what happened you may have had a point...

 

[Byker28i]

Not an offence.

Correct - the nearest I could think of would be Section 170 of the road traffic act.

Under Sec 170 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a motorist is under a statutory duty to stop and give information or documents when ‘an accident occurs by which–
(a) personal injury is caused to a person… or
(b) damage is caused–
(i) to a vehicle… or
(ii) to an animal (defined as cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog)… or
(iii) to any other property…
(2) The driver must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3) If for any reason the driver does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.’

Sec 170 does not apply to cyclists or pedestrians who may cause a collision.
Cyclists don't have to have insurance so theres no comeback there either.

So thats the legal part out the way. The moral part - I've no doubt the cyclist is justifying his actions somehow, or believes it wasn't serious...but as many have said, most people are good people and would have stopped.

 

[cambsno]

Cyclists follows the same Highway Code as drivers do. Rule 71: Cyclist MSUT NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.

You said your brother crossed the road when the signals were green?

For the signal to be green, the traffic light would have to be red. Both lights can't be green at the same time otherwise drivers would be mowing down pedestrians as they are crossing the road while the cars are crossing the stop line! Both lights can't be red at the same time, otherwise both would be standing still asking each other "The red is against me, what are you waiting for? Get moving!"

One light would be red while the other is green. Thus if your brother says it was green, then the cyclist sees a red light. He broken Rule 71, no difference from a driver jumping the red light!

Your brother may have scanned for cars, that is good, even thought he got a green light, and cars are likely to face a red light, there may be the idiot who wants to jump the red light, or crooks trying to get away from the cops in their getaway car. So he was doing the right thing, make sure nobody is trying to jump the red light.

But cars are on the road, and can only come from the road. Cyclist can come from anywhere. A cyclist could be on the pavement, see too many people in the way, decided to jump off the pavement and onto the road at the last moment. Thus, even if your brother looked down the road for cyclist, see no cyclists, looked forwards and crossed quickly, BAM! a cyclist knocked him down.

If your brother looked for cyclists or did not looked for cyclist, it hardly make a difference. He could have looked for cyclists, see no cyclists, and still BAM! get knocked down by one.

Nevertheless, Highway Code is not for car drivers, it is for anyone who use the roads, including joggers, horse riders, cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, and even a tank driver if the tank driver was under orders to take the tank to Buckingham Palace to guard The Queen.

Cyclist and drivers must stop when there is a red light, if your brother crossed the road because there is a green light, thus it must be a red light for the cars and cyclists. More likely cyclists jumped the red light.

It is up to your brother to press charges against a cyclist who jumped the red light, when your brother had the right of way.

Don't forget: It could have been worst! Remember that news some months ago, about a guy wanting to press charges against a cyclist for knocking down his wife, who later dies. Government is thinking of changing the law to give serious sentences for cyclists who knocked down people. If police gets the cyclist, he gets fined or whatever, it should teach other cyclists to wake up and smell the coffee. The Highway Code is for ANY road users, including cyclist.

It is up to you and your brother to think about pressing charges.

I think the OP said the lights were green for the road user, not the pedestrian

 

[cambsno]

I agree with you.

The Highway Code is for road users, it is not only for car drivers. It is for all road users, meaning anyone who use the roads, including jaywalkers, horse riders, cyclists, and any drivers.

So in a sense, the law in the Highway Code is for everyone (who used the road) and not limited to drivers only.

If a driver jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the driver. If a cyclist jumps the red light and knocked down someone, book the cyclist. Rule 71 for cyclist same as Rule 171 for drivers.

You are a good cyclist who seems to have some ideas of the rules, he is a bad cyclist who seems to have not bothered to read the Highway Code. Yes, he should be made aware of it, regardless of mode of transportation.

Again, read the thread, the OP said it was 100% not the cyclists fault! The pedestrian was the one that jumped the red light. So I assume then (to be fair to all) that the pedestrian should be booked?

Are you anti-cyclist?

 

[nandbytes]

but as many have said, most people are good people and would have stopped.

May be I have bad luck. I have been knocked off my bike twice by bad drivers and they both ran away. Well first one at least shouted sorry before he drove away

 

[nandbytes]

pedestrian should be booked?

Yeah sure. Let's send everyone who has an accident to prison. Even the dead ones. That makes perfect sense. Very fair indeed.

 

[Major Eazy]

He means the lights were green for the cars/cycles, it was said in another post. They basically played chicken running against the green traffic light.

Jeez! This tread is like 4 pages long by the time I got interested, I read almost all, but must've missed that.

Well, in that case, it is the brother's fault.

It would make more sense to say when the lights were red which would imply from the brother's viewpoint, it is the red standing man light while the cars see green light. If someone said "He crossed the road when the lights were green!" that someone would be a driver who saw the green light, because it is from a driver's viewpoint.

Or did the OP meant a traffic light set but without a pedestrian crossing lights?

Guess I'll have to re-read the whole tread.