van and cycle "in collision"

[Irina Voiculescu]

This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
was bent.

The van stopped a little way down the road, but the
driver and passenger didn't get out until myself and
the victim went along to speak to them. (The cyclist
didn't speak English so I stayed to translate for him.)

After some negotiation, they offered him 30 pounds to
get himself a new wheel. (In the meantime I've checked
with a local bike shop, and they say they'd charge more
like 40 pounds for a back wheel plus labour, but that
the frame may also need to be looked over.)

Being afraid that the 30 pounds may not cover the full
cost of the repairs and the inconvenience, I suggested
as an alternative that the van driver take the bike,
have it repaired and deliver it to the cyclist's home
address. They both agreed, and exchanged details, then
the van drove off and the cyclist went to catch a bus.

The cyclist also has the van number plate and contact
details for two witnesses.

Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
realise that without the translation he may not have
had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I couldn't
think on my feet fast enough.

For example, I should have asked them to reimburse the
cyclist for any bus tickets (or, indeed, taxi rides). I
could have asked them to give him some cash straight
away for the inconvenience.

More importantly, I should have known more about what a
cyclist's rights are in such circumstances.

Where can I read more about this?

What would you have done?

[Pete Biggs]

Irina Voiculescu wrote:
> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
> was bent.
>
> The van stopped a little way down the road, but the
> driver and passenger didn't get out until myself and
> the victim went along to speak to them. (The cyclist
> didn't speak English so I stayed to translate for him.)
>
> After some negotiation, they offered him 30 pounds to
> get himself a new wheel. (In the meantime I've checked
> with a local bike shop, and they say they'd charge more
> like 40 pounds for a back wheel plus labour, but that
> the frame may also need to be looked over.)
>
> Being afraid that the 30 pounds may not cover the full
> cost of the repairs and the inconvenience, I suggested
> as an alternative that the van driver take the bike,
> have it repaired and deliver it to the cyclist's home
> address. They both agreed, and exchanged details, then
> the van drove off and the cyclist went to catch a bus.
>
> The cyclist also has the van number plate and contact
> details for two witnesses.
>
> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I couldn't
> think on my feet fast enough.
>
> For example, I should have asked them to reimburse the
> cyclist for any bus tickets (or, indeed, taxi rides). I
> could have asked them to give him some cash straight
> away for the inconvenience.
>
> More importantly, I should have known more about what a
> cyclist's rights are in such circumstances.
>
> Where can I read more about this?
>
> What would you have done?

Get the driver's details. Accept no money from the driver on the spot.
Certainly do not give the bike to the driver. The cyclist should deal with
any claim at a later date once the bike and themself has been examined
properly. There may be hidden damage to the bike, and the rider may be
injured even if they felt OK at the time.

Compensation can be claimed from the driver or the driver's insurance
company. A solicitor should be consulted in a serious case.

~PB

[Toom Tabard]

On 24 Jul, 11:43, Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
> was bent.
>
> The van stopped a little way down the road, but the
> driver and passenger didn't get out until myself and
> the victim went along to speak to them. (The cyclist
> didn't speak English so I stayed to translate for him.)
>
> After some negotiation, they offered him 30 pounds to
> get himself a new wheel. (In the meantime I've checked
> with a local bike shop, and they say they'd charge more
> like 40 pounds for a back wheel plus labour, but that
> the frame may also need to be looked over.)
>
> Being afraid that the 30 pounds may not cover the full
> cost of the repairs and the inconvenience, I suggested
> as an alternative that the van driver take the bike,
> have it repaired and deliver it to the cyclist's home
> address. They both agreed, and exchanged details, then
> the van drove off and the cyclist went to catch a bus.
>
> The cyclist also has the van number plate and contact
> details for two witnesses.
>
> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I couldn't
> think on my feet fast enough.
>
> For example, I should have asked them to reimburse the
> cyclist for any bus tickets (or, indeed, taxi rides). I
> could have asked them to give him some cash straight
> away for the inconvenience.
>
> More importantly, I should have known more about what a
> cyclist's rights are in such circumstances.
>
> Where can I read more about this?
>
> What would you have done?

Liability for road accidents comes under the common law of legal
liability for negligence. It can be rather complicated, and I can't
point you to a simple explanation.

However, in this case, where the vehicle driver is at fault, and seems
to have accepted liability, the cyclist is entitled to the cost of
repairing the bike (or the value of the bike if it is beyond repair).
In addition he could claim for any expenses resulting from the loss of
use of the bike for a reasonable period whilst it is repaired or he
seeks a replacement. As you've found, it's better to find the actual
cost of repair rather than accept a cash offer.

In this case it is simple if it is a small amount of damage and there
are definitely no injuries, but usually it is better to get details of
the other driver, check the full extent of the damage, and ensure you
suffer no after-effects, and then claim from the other person (or
their insurers) once full costs are known, rather than negotiate at
the roadside. In most circumstances, it might also be better for the
cyclist to arrange repairs and ensure they are to his satisfaction,
rather than hand the bike over to the other person.

Toom

[Pete Biggs]

Peter Fox wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Irina Voiculescu wrote:
>>> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
>>> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
>>> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
>>> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
>>> was bent.
>>> What would you have done?
>>
>> Get the driver's details. Accept no money from the driver on the
>> spot. Certainly do not give the bike to the driver. The cyclist
>> should deal with any claim at a later date once the bike and
>> themself has been examined properly. There may be hidden damage to
>> the bike, and the rider may be injured even if they felt OK at the
>> time.
>
>
> The OP pointed out the _reputation_ of the _local_ fruiterer

So it's alright to drive over a cyclist if you are a local fruiterer of good
repute? He might drive more carefully in future if he gets into some
trouble over this case.

> Now,
> while one way is to bring the police and solicitors into it, there
> are times when it is better to use goodwill, which despite what you
> see on the telly still exists, to get things sorted out with the
> minimum of fuss. I think the OP *did very well in the
> circumstances* and should be congratulated on getting a reasonable
> result for somebody who doesn't have good/any English. (Can you
> imagine the police trying to get a statement from them?)

No matter how much goodwill there was, I would not hand my bike to the
driver if I was able to ride or take it away myself, or get it collected by
someone I know.

It will be better to decide on how much money (if any) to ask for once
everyone has got over the shock and had a think about what happened and had
good look at the bike, etc. That's just being calm and sensible, not making
a fuss.

~PB

[[email protected]]

On 24 Jul, 12:37, Toom Tabard > wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 11:43, Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
>
>
>
> > This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
> > fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
> > the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
> > wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
> > was bent.
>
> > The van stopped a little way down the road, but the
> > driver and passenger didn't get out until myself and
> > the victim went along to speak to them. (The cyclist
> > didn't speak English so I stayed to translate for him.)
>
> > After some negotiation, they offered him 30 pounds to
> > get himself a new wheel. (In the meantime I've checked
> > with a local bike shop, and they say they'd charge more
> > like 40 pounds for a back wheel plus labour, but that
> > the frame may also need to be looked over.)
>
> > Being afraid that the 30 pounds may not cover the full
> > cost of the repairs and the inconvenience, I suggested
> > as an alternative that the van driver take the bike,
> > have it repaired and deliver it to the cyclist's home
> > address. They both agreed, and exchanged details, then
> > the van drove off and the cyclist went to catch a bus.
>
> > The cyclist also has the van number plate and contact
> > details for two witnesses.
>
> > Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> > realise that without the translation he may not have
> > had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I couldn't
> > think on my feet fast enough.
>
> > For example, I should have asked them to reimburse the
> > cyclist for any bus tickets (or, indeed, taxi rides). I
> > could have asked them to give him some cash straight
> > away for the inconvenience.
>
> > More importantly, I should have known more about what a
> > cyclist's rights are in such circumstances.
>
> > Where can I read more about this?
>
> > What would you have done?
>
> Liability for road accidents comes under the common law of legal
> liability for negligence. It can be rather complicated, and I can't
> point you to a simple explanation.
>
> However, in this case, where the vehicle driver is at fault, and seems
> to have accepted liability, the cyclist is entitled to the cost of
> repairing the bike (or the value of the bike if it is beyond repair).
> In addition he could claim for any expenses resulting from the loss of
> use of the bike for a reasonable period whilst it is repaired or he
> seeks a replacement. As you've found, it's better to find the actual
> cost of repair rather than accept a cash offer.
>
> In this case it is simple if it is a small amount of damage and there
> are definitely no injuries, but usually it is better to get details of
> the other driver, check the full extent of the damage, and ensure you
> suffer no after-effects, and then claim from the other person (or
> their insurers) once full costs are known, rather than negotiate at
> the roadside. In most circumstances, it might also be better for the
> cyclist to arrange repairs and ensure they are to his satisfaction,
> rather than hand the bike over to the other person.
>
> Toom

Liability for 'tort' is established through civil law. Liability for
collisions is another matter, civil and criminal law are both used to
establish different things. Hence the action of running over the rear
wheel of the cycle might give rise to a civil claim for damages due to
the negligence of the driver, but the same act might also give rise to
a statutory criminal prosecution for careless driving at the same
time.

Sniper8052

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Irina Voiculescu wrote:
>> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
>> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
>> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
>> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
>> was bent.
>> What would you have done?
>
> Get the driver's details. Accept no money from the driver on the spot.
> Certainly do not give the bike to the driver. The cyclist should deal with
> any claim at a later date once the bike and themself has been examined
> properly. There may be hidden damage to the bike, and the rider may be
> injured even if they felt OK at the time.


The OP pointed out the _reputation_ of the _local_ fruiterer. Now, while one
way is to bring the police and solicitors into it, there are times when it is
better to use goodwill, which despite what you see on the telly still exists, to
get things sorted out with the minimum of fuss. I think the OP *did very well
in the circumstances* and should be congratulated on getting a reasonable
result for somebody who doesn't have good/any English. (Can you imagine the
police trying to get a statement from them?)


--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[[email protected]]

On 24 Jul, 11:43, Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
> was bent.
>
> The van stopped a little way down the road, but the
> driver and passenger didn't get out until myself and
> the victim went along to speak to them. (The cyclist
> didn't speak English so I stayed to translate for him.)
>
> After some negotiation, they offered him 30 pounds to
> get himself a new wheel. (In the meantime I've checked
> with a local bike shop, and they say they'd charge more
> like 40 pounds for a back wheel plus labour, but that
> the frame may also need to be looked over.)
>
> Being afraid that the 30 pounds may not cover the full
> cost of the repairs and the inconvenience, I suggested
> as an alternative that the van driver take the bike,
> have it repaired and deliver it to the cyclist's home
> address. They both agreed, and exchanged details, then
> the van drove off and the cyclist went to catch a bus.
>
> The cyclist also has the van number plate and contact
> details for two witnesses.
>
> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I couldn't
> think on my feet fast enough.
>
> For example, I should have asked them to reimburse the
> cyclist for any bus tickets (or, indeed, taxi rides). I
> could have asked them to give him some cash straight
> away for the inconvenience.
>
> More importantly, I should have known more about what a
> cyclist's rights are in such circumstances.
>
> Where can I read more about this?
>
> What would you have done?

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) Part VII
170: Duties in case of accident

Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or
documents.

(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
Mechanically Propelled Vehicle on a road or other public place, an
accident occurs by which -
(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of
that vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused -
(i) to a vehicle other than that mechanically propelled vehicle
or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that
mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically
propelled vehicle, or
(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in
or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road in question is
situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2) The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle 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 of the mechanically propelled vehicle
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.

(5) If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection
(1)(a) above, the driver of the vehicle does not at the time of the
accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other
evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act -
(a) to a constable, or
(b) to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so
doing, has required him to produce it, the driver must report the
accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.
This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(6) To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or
to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other
evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver
-
(a) must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b) must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in
any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.

(7) A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5)
above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason
only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if,
within seven days after the occurrence of the accident, the
certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was
specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

(8) In this section "animal" means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep,
pig, goat or dog.



Sniper8052

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:43:43 +0100
Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
>
> What would you have done?
>
Taken the vehicle and driver details, reported it to the police and the
driver's employer, certainly not let the driver take the bike away (you
could probably find a shop that would take it in so it could be
collected later), arranged for a bike shop to pick it up and do a full
check and repair estimate ...
I'd be highly suspicious of any driver who offered cash on the spot for
any damage caused - why does he want to keep the incident out of the
system?
Also it's possible that the cyclist has injuries that won't show up for
a day or two, and he'll incur travel costs because he doesn't have use
of his bike.

[Irina Voiculescu]

Point(s) taken - thank you all for the information and
suggestions.

For what it's worth -

What I meant to say by the "local fruiterer" bit was
that it wasn't just an unmarked white van - it had
their details painted on, I've seen them around, we saw
their faces today and we could always find them again
if necessary (e.g. if the bike doesn't turn up by
tonight). In this case I didn't (and still don't) feel
it was down to me personally to get the driver into
some trouble over this case - provided he is willing to
help repair the damage and inconvenience he has caused.

The foreigner had difficulty understanding why myself
and the other witness stopped and gave our details. I
did explain afterwards we were doing so in order for
him to report it to the police, but it really was down
to him whether to report it or not - not least because
I had no physical means of doing so at the time, short
of cycling to the police station myself.

OK, so I guess I wouldn't hand my own bike over in my
home city (country) where I know how to find a bike
shop. On the spot, though, I couldn't think of a better
way of getting the driver to assist the cyclist with
the finding of the bike shop, with the taking of the
bike there (otherwise the cyclist would have had to
walk to one rolling the bike on its front wheel), and
with the explanations of bike shop assistant as to when
the job might be done by, etc.

Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
realise that without the translation he may not have
had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I was not
sufficiently well-informed and couldn't think on my
feet fast enough.

[Toom Tabard]

On 24 Jul, 16:29, Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
> Point(s) taken - thank you all for the information and
> suggestions.
>
> For what it's worth -
>
> What I meant to say by the "local fruiterer" bit was
> that it wasn't just an unmarked white van - it had
> their details painted on, I've seen them around, we saw
> their faces today and we could always find them again
> if necessary (e.g. if the bike doesn't turn up by
> tonight). In this case I didn't (and still don't) feel
> it was down to me personally to get the driver into
> some trouble over this case - provided he is willing to
> help repair the damage and inconvenience he has caused.
>
> The foreigner had difficulty understanding why myself
> and the other witness stopped and gave our details. I
> did explain afterwards we were doing so in order for
> him to report it to the police, but it really was down
> to him whether to report it or not - not least because
> I had no physical means of doing so at the time, short
> of cycling to the police station myself.
>
> OK, so I guess I wouldn't hand my own bike over in my
> home city (country) where I know how to find a bike
> shop. On the spot, though, I couldn't think of a better
> way of getting the driver to assist the cyclist with
> the finding of the bike shop, with the taking of the
> bike there (otherwise the cyclist would have had to
> walk to one rolling the bike on its front wheel), and
> with the explanations of bike shop assistant as to when
> the job might be done by, etc.
>
> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I was not
> sufficiently well-informed and couldn't think on my
> feet fast enough.

You were kind enough to help him, and took effective action to the
best of your abilities in the circumstances. You should be happy with
that.

Toom

[[email protected]]

On 24 Jul, 17:11, Toom Tabard > wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 16:29, Irina Voiculescu > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Point(s) taken - thank you all for the information and
> > suggestions.
>
> > For what it's worth -
>
> > What I meant to say by the "local fruiterer" bit was
> > that it wasn't just an unmarked white van - it had
> > their details painted on, I've seen them around, we saw
> > their faces today and we could always find them again
> > if necessary (e.g. if the bike doesn't turn up by
> > tonight). In this case I didn't (and still don't) feel
> > it was down to me personally to get the driver into
> > some trouble over this case - provided he is willing to
> > help repair the damage and inconvenience he has caused.
>
> > The foreigner had difficulty understanding why myself
> > and the other witness stopped and gave our details. I
> > did explain afterwards we were doing so in order for
> > him to report it to the police, but it really was down
> > to him whether to report it or not - not least because
> > I had no physical means of doing so at the time, short
> > of cycling to the police station myself.
>
> > OK, so I guess I wouldn't hand my own bike over in my
> > home city (country) where I know how to find a bike
> > shop. On the spot, though, I couldn't think of a better
> > way of getting the driver to assist the cyclist with
> > the finding of the bike shop, with the taking of the
> > bike there (otherwise the cyclist would have had to
> > walk to one rolling the bike on its front wheel), and
> > with the explanations of bike shop assistant as to when
> > the job might be done by, etc.
>
> > Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> > realise that without the translation he may not have
> > had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I was not
> > sufficiently well-informed and couldn't think on my
> > feet fast enough.
>
> You were kind enough to help him, and took effective action to the
> best of your abilities in the circumstances. You should be happy with
> that.
>
> Toom

I agree, the action you took was what you felt at the time to be
appropriate to the circumstances. Hindsight is an exact science so I
wouldn't beat yourself up over it! As to thinking on your feet, well
it's something that you make up as you go along...I do it all the
time; you just get better at it with practice and then after a while
it looks like you actually know what your doing!

Sniper8052

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:29:50 +0100
Irina Voiculescu > wrote:

> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I was not
> sufficiently well-informed and couldn't think on my
> feet fast enough.

Indeed - I'm sure your intervention was a good thing in the
circumstances.

[Paul Rudin[_2_]]

Irina Voiculescu > writes:

[deploying weapons of mass snippage]

> Where can I read more about this?
>
> What would you have done?

If there's damage or injury doesn't the driver have a legal obligation
to report the incident to the police?

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 24 Jul, Paul Rudin > wrote:
> Irina Voiculescu > writes:
>
> [deploying weapons of mass snippage]
>
> > Where can I read more about this?
> >
> > What would you have done?
>
> If there's damage or injury doesn't the driver have a legal
> obligation to report the incident to the police?

Not necessarily.

If there is only damage to another vehicle you need only report it to
the police if you did not provide driver's name and address and
vehicle owner's name and address at the scene.

If there is injury to a person, you need only report it to the police
if you do not provide the above addresses and produce your insurance
certificate.

But, the police don't care if a driver doesn't bother, ime.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Pete Biggs]

Irina Voiculescu wrote:
.....
> Whilst I'm glad I was able to help the cyclist and
> realise that without the translation he may not have
> had any reimbursement at all, I'm annoyed I was not
> sufficiently well-informed and couldn't think on my
> feet fast enough.

I congratulate you on helping as best as you could with the knowledge you
had at the time. You were being a good citizen. A lot of other people
would have just walked away and not got involved at all.

It'll /probably/ work out OK for the cyclist in this case.

~PB

[JNugent[_4_]]

Paul Rudin wrote:
> Irina Voiculescu > writes:
>
> [deploying weapons of mass snippage]
>
>> Where can I read more about this?
>>
>> What would you have done?
>
> If there's damage or injury doesn't the driver have a legal obligation
> to report the incident to the police?

No.

Only if there in injury.

[JNugent[_4_]]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul, Paul Rudin > wrote:
>> Irina Voiculescu > writes:
>>
>> [deploying weapons of mass snippage]
>>
>>> Where can I read more about this?
>>>
>>> What would you have done?
>> If there's damage or injury doesn't the driver have a legal
>> obligation to report the incident to the police?
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> If there is only damage to another vehicle you need only report it to
> the police if you did not provide driver's name and address and
> vehicle owner's name and address at the scene.
>
> If there is injury to a person, you need only report it to the police
> if you do not provide the above addresses and produce your insurance
> certificate.
>
> But, the police don't care if a driver doesn't bother, ime.

Injury accidents must by law to be reported to the police, irrespective
of the wishes of anyone involved.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul, Paul Rudin > wrote:
> >>
> >> If there's damage or injury doesn't the driver have a legal
> >> obligation to report the incident to the police?
> >
> > Not necessarily.
> >
> > If there is only damage to another vehicle you need only report it to
> > the police if you did not provide driver's name and address and
> > vehicle owner's name and address at the scene.
> >
> > If there is injury to a person, you need only report it to the police
> > if you do not provide the above addresses and produce your insurance
> > certificate.
> >
> > But, the police don't care if a driver doesn't bother, ime.
>
> Injury accidents must by law to be reported to the police, irrespective
> of the wishes of anyone involved.

I believe you are wrong. The HC is quite explicit that you are wrong
(though, of course, the HC gets a worrying amount of the law wrong):

287 If another person is injured and you do not produce your
insurance certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or
to anyone having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST
* report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within
24 hours
* produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven
days


In this case, however, the HC does appear to be accurately reporting
the law:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_14#pt7-pb3-l1g170


170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or
documents

(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs by which

(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of
that motor vehicle, or

[snip]

(2) The driver of the motor vehicle 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.

[snip]

(5) If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection
(1)(a) above, the driver of the vehicle does not at the time of the
accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other
evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act

(a) to a constable, or

(b) to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has
required him to produce it,

the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or
other evidence.

[snip]


So, if you produce a certificate at the time of the accident, you need
not report it to the police.

Unless you know of other law that supersedes the above?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[David Thomas]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Peter Fox wrote:
>> Pete Biggs wrote:
>>> Irina Voiculescu wrote:
>>>> This morning, a van (belonging to a reputed local
>>>> fruiterer's) took a right turn too tightly, went onto
>>>> the wrong side of the road and drove over the back
>>>> wheel of a cyclist. The cyclist was fine, but the wheel
>>>> was bent.
>>>> What would you have done?
>>> Get the driver's details. Accept no money from the driver on the
>>> spot. Certainly do not give the bike to the driver. The cyclist
>>> should deal with any claim at a later date once the bike and
>>> themself has been examined properly. There may be hidden damage to
>>> the bike, and the rider may be injured even if they felt OK at the
>>> time.
>>
>> The OP pointed out the _reputation_ of the _local_ fruiterer
>
> So it's alright to drive over a cyclist if you are a local fruiterer of good
> repute? He might drive more carefully in future if he gets into some
> trouble over this case.
>

Or it might be something simply sorted and have some veg thrown in. I
am not an optomist about such things but not everyone is an arse :)

Dave