On 15/07/2014 10:39, Nick wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:07, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/07/2014 09:48, Nick wrote:
On 14/07/2014 18:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
The driver should have realised that the cyclist would have fridge
freezer insurance to cover the damage.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-9604177.html

Hopefully Mr Watkiss will be given a jail sentence to set an example.

The cyclist's home insurance may contain legal cover which will help him
to claim compensation for any injury caused.
A collision where a cyclist takes off a car wing mirror may seem minor
to the driver but could lead to many thousands of pounds compo for the
cyclist.

I don't think I would regard damage to a wing mirror as "minor". I know
from experience that a replacement of a modern wing mirror (complete
with electrical adjustment mechanism and heating elements) is likely to
cost several hundreds of pounds.

However, criminal damage, which the cyclist admitted could amount to a
few thousand plus a criminal record and even jail time, not good on a
solicitor's record, I also do not think that fridge freezer insurance
will pay out for deliberately inflicted damage.

You appear to be confused.
You may regard a cyclist who is hit by a dangerously driven car as
causing criminal damage, but most other people and the courts wouldn't.

The reported tale is short enough on detail to enable one to unravel it,
but did the "dangerous driving" occur before, during or after the
collision? The description of the driving just isn't there.

It might have been something the driver did in order to catch up with
the cyclist who had apparently damaged his car. That would make some
sort of sense, though it clearly isn't the only interpretation which
could make sense.

It is a bit like accusing someone of causing criminal damage for
scuffing your boots after you have kicked them in the teeth.

Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends.

Mind you... "Kal El"... wince I know where he got the name, but
still... where DO people get the ideas for adopting such names from?