How to pay for accident damage?

[Graham]

I doubt the government would actually have the cheek to put a child in jail over such a minor and uneccessary charge.

What would they put the child in jail for? Riding into the back of the car might be careless driving (which I assume includes careless cycling) or lack of due care and attention (if that's different), but I'm pretty sure that careless driving only carries the penalty of a fine and points. Given it is a child, the court is highly unlikely to impose a fine, and its difficult to think what else would be appropriate - a stern warning from a judge in court?

Not being able to pay civil damages (i.e. if someone successfully sues you) is not a criminal office therefore no jail term.

 

[Matthew_T]

What would they put the child in jail for? Riding into the back of the car might be careless driving (which I assume includes careless cycling) or lack of due care and attention (if that's different), but I'm pretty sure that careless driving only carries the penalty of a fine and points. Given it is a child, the court is highly unlikely to impose a fine, and its difficult to think what else would be appropriate - a stern warning from a judge in court?

Not being able to pay civil damages (i.e. if someone successfully sues you) is not a criminal office therefore no jail term.

I meant in terms of not having the funds to pay for the damage if he didnt have any source of funds (excluding his parents and relatives). Would he really go to jail just for not being able to pay? I seriously doubt it.

I think the taxi driver needs to get a grip. The only reason he is losing income is that he is so stuck up that he must pester a kid for money for a scratch which isnt going to affect his ability to perform his job.
I have a taxi which I see often in this area which only has one rear light and one brake light, does that affect his ability to drive? No. So this taxi driver is clearly being cruel and ignorant against this kid.

However, saying that, only the kid and the taxi driver were in the situation so I dont think any of us can say how bad the scratch actually is unless we see it.

 

[CopperBrompton]

To be fair to the cab driver, many licencing authorities have extremely strict rules on this. For example, London black cabs are not allowed to work with any damage at all to the cab, even a scratch. Some local authorities have similar rules for their cabs.

 

[Jmetz]

So when it suits its fine for motor vehicles to be in misrepair but on the otherhand if you spot one and it fits your circumstances and motives the driver should be shot for not fulfilling his duties of having a road worthy car.

Double standards much

 

[gambatte]

Sorry Matthew_T
I've been on 'your side' on quite a few of your vid posts, but on this you're way off base. We've the right to be on the road, but along with that comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is paying up for damage when you're liable.
Mines only a cheap car. Family means a lot of maintenance is done at home, keeping costs to a minimum. I would not be saying "oh well, stuff it. I'll live with metal deep scratches across multiple panels and detailing" just because it was a teenager on a bike.
My argument against forcing insurance on cyclists is that lack of insurance doesn't negate liability.
Or responsibility

 

[Matthew_T]

Sorry Matthew_T
I've been on 'your side' on quite a few of your vid posts, but on this you're way off base. We've the right to be on the road, but along with that comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is paying up for damage when you're liable.
Mines only a cheap car. Family means a lot of maintenance is done at home, keeping costs to a minimum. I would not be saying "oh well, stuff it. I'll live with metal deep scratches across multiple panels and detailing" just because it was a teenager on a bike.
My argument against forcing insurance on cyclists is that lack of insurance doesn't negate liability.
Or responsibility

Oh no. By no means was I saying that if a cyclist collides with a car and it is their fault that they shouldnt pay up, I just meant that there is a certain way to go about things. I was refering to the damage with regards to taxi ranks where I live. Clearly from the posts above, there are different standards in different parts of the country.
Of course we have the responsibility to pay up if it is our fault that damage is caused to a vehicle just like it is the drivers responsibility to pay up if the cause damage to the bike (in seperate incidents) but if the taxi driver is rude and demands money from a child then it wont get him anywhere.

Also, someone might have a responsibility to pay up, but does that mean they have to? Why can this taxi driver not just go through his insurance? He must be comprehensive.

 

[gambatte]

Oh no. By no means was I saying that if a cyclist collides with a car and it is their fault that they shouldnt pay up, I just meant that there is a certain way to go about things. I was refering to the damage with regards to taxi ranks where I live. Clearly from the posts above, there are different standards in different parts of the country.
Of course we have the responsibility to pay up if it is our fault that damage is caused to a vehicle just like it is the drivers responsibility to pay up if the cause damage to the bike (in seperate incidents) but if the taxi driver is rude and demands money from a child then it wont get him anywhere.

Also, someone might have a responsibility to pay up, but does that mean they have to? Why can this taxi driver not just go through his insurance? He must be comprehensive.

Why not go through his insurance!?!
One more claim on his insurance?
Increased premiums etc. which are affected for 5 years.
Someone else causes an accident so why shouldn't you fork out for 5 years?

I remember a few weeks back a thread started by Black Panther. Out on his recumbent and a kid shoots straight over the road on his bike, without looking. Main damage to the kids bike. In case of any to BPs machine, I wouldn't have criticised BP for pursuing a damages claim against the kids parents.

This case is a teenager, not a child. Old enough to be living 100 miles from home. (+1 for the OPs attitude by the way)

 

[mickle]

To say nothing of the fact that we dont actually know the specifics of the incident. Perhaps the taxi overtook the cyclist and pulled in too soon, and the cyclist, not 100% familiar with the rules of the road has naively accepted the taxi driver's version of events. We just dont know, but the fact that the taxi has scratches down the side seems odd doesn't it?

 

[gambatte]

I'm just taking the details from the original post at face value, rather than speculating about info we don't have.
Not sure about it seeming odd.
<Speculation - Mode on> hit the anchors with not enough space. Try to avoid with a last minute, nearside pass/filter. Gap isn't big enough - hit kerb or scratch car?<Speculation - Mode off>
Note: we don't know if it's near or offside damage.

 

[Jmetz]

Are you for real claim off his own insurance and suffer through increased premiums and pay what will likely be more than the damage is worth due to someone else's error.

Some people seem to think as a cyclist they are almighty and untouchable yet those same people are often those first to run to grab their stakes and stones when a car driver doesnt act in line with their hypocritical morals.

 

[Matthew_T]

Actually I think that is the main point that we are forgetting (well I am anyway). Only the cyclist involved really knows what happened and why he collided with the car. The OP has given his view from feedback from his son which could have been misunderstood or forgotten by the cyclist.
The majority of the comments in this thread are relating to speculative decisions which might not be accurate. Noone can really comment on the incident until we actually understand fully what happened.

 

[mickle]

Why are you suggesting the above when the OP has already stated that he knows that his son knows that he is at fault?

If there were any mitigating circumstances then I'm sure the OP would have mentioned them.

I think advising the OP rather then clouding the situation making suggestive comments is a better course of action imo.

Huh? I'm cautioning against simply accepting the the taxi driver's version of events. The OP knows that his son has accepted liability but does he know for sure that he is 100% responsible for the damage? I'm not convinced that he does. I suspect that his strong desire to do the right thing, admirable though it is, has left him open to being ripped off. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that all taxi drivers are dodgy but this whole thing has a faint wiff of rip-off about it.

He damaged the side of the vehicle. I'd want to every detail of the event before I forked out three hundred smackers.

 

[Graham]

One other thing - As a very general rule parent is not always legally responsible for any damage caused by their child.

 

[mickle]

....especially when said 'child' is a 20 yo man.

 

[gambatte]

Noone can really comment on the incident until we actually understand fully what happened.

OK
No comments till we've got witness statements and video evidence from 3 separate angles.....