Hit by cyclist with electric bike

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

ckember

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
836
Car
GLC 350d AMG Premium plus
Yesterday on the way home, I was hit on the rear quater panel by an elderly gentlemen riding a powabike electic bike. this has left a nice big dent above the wheel arch and right on the swage line. The bike was completely undamaged.

The guy was taken to hospital with hip pain and I called the old bill. After talking to a witness and myself the cyclist is liekly to be charged with either carless or reckless cycling which carries a fine only. This puts me completely in the clear. which I knew anyway as he came straight off the path without looking into me. The PC called me later to confirm his initials findings and to let me know the guy is OK.

Now this brings up a couple of things. under UK law he doesn't require insurance to ride an electric bike on UK roads, therefore I have to pay for the repair completely and then take him to the small claims, or go through my insurance, loose my protected NCD and have a premium hike next year. I can then goto the small claims court for my loss again, but as he is retired I am not sure I will get anything back.

Can I claim from the fund for unisured drivers? my legal insurance wont help in this instance as they are only there to reclaim losses from insured third parties

I have a quote from MB to replace the rear quarter panel at a total cost of £3600. parts £900 labour £1600 paint £390 and Vat.

I am waiting for another quote, from an ATA rated repairer that told me they can get the dents out without replacing the panel, but I am not sure if they will use the same proceedure when applying the paint as MB will.

Wouild it be better to go the MB route or the independant my Insurers want an MB approved body shop if they do the work?

Does anyone know a good body Shop in the Watford to Alyesbury Area?

Has anyone else been in a similar situation that can offer any advice?

many thanks in advance
 
I doubt the Uninsured Drivers scheme will want to know as insurance is not required for these vehicles.

Sue the bugger.
 
Make enquiries as to who his home contents policy is, some have a personal liability section that you can claim against in these cases. Mine does, and a friend of mine got hit by a car when crossing the road and was successfully claimed against on his.
 
On the same day Michael Jackson breathed his last, I had a rather odd encounter. I was sitting at a set of red traffic lights, minding my own business, when I sensed something out of the corner of my eye, followed by a dull thud. A motorcyclist, who was also stationary, had toppled over, and his handlebars had gouged a couple of scars into the driver's door of my car. However, the reason he'd toppled was because a cyclist had pulled up alongside him and promptly lost his balance, starting a minor domino effect. Quite hilarious, really, and thankfully nobody was hurt.

The cyclist was embarrassed and apologetic in equal measure. He immediately admitted liability and said he felt wholly responsible. He wanted to pay for the damage, but was also looking quite worried by the potential repair costs.

So, the motorcylclist was insured and it was his bike that had done the damage, but the cyclist wasn't and had clearly caused the accident. I was keen to ensure that the motorcyclist didn't have to take the hit, as he was in no way to blame. We all exchanged name/address details and I said I'd refer it to my insurers and see what they made of the situation.

You can imagine the phone call! I actually had a job keeping a straight face as I was describing it, and to be honest I'm smirking now even as I'm typing this. The matter was referred to their assessors, and I was told to get a quote for the damage. Took the car out to Hughes of Beaconsfield, and they said it would need a new door. Apparently they won't just re-skin the door as they don't consider it to be a proper repair. Not sure whether that's sound judgement or just a way of generating business, but I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The quote came to about £3200. A few days' later my insurers had decided that they would pay out under my own policy and would pursue the cyclist to recover their losses.

This was a rather bittersweet outcome: on the plus side, my car would be repaired by an MB dealership, my NCB is protected and my insurers have a policy of not increasing premiums just because you've claimed (or so they say). But I hated the idea of the cyclist being pursued for the full cost, and for what it's worth, I told my insurers I was uncomfortable about this; I'd had a few conversations with him by then, and was convinced he was genuinely not too well off. He was a fairly young academic, rather other-worldly, and seemed very honourable in his dealings with me. As soon as he knew this was being settled by my insurers, he insisted on reimbursing me for the excess I'd have to pay. Moreover, the incident had prompted him to take out cyclist's insurance, which I didn't even know was available.

By last August the repair had been completed and true to his word, the cyclist had indeed reimbursed me for the excess. (I got the impression he'd had to borrow this from his parents, though he didn't say as much.)

That was the last I heard of it until April just gone, when my insurers wrote to say they had sent a "first allegation letter to Third Party Insurer and Third Party", and that they'd update me as soon as they received a response. Not heard anything else since then, and I've no idea who the "third party insurer" would be, unless they've decided to go for the motorcyclist.

The moral of this story is that when an uniunsured cyclist damages your car, things can get messy. I think I was lucky in that both the other parties behaved very reasonably - for instance, nobody claimed that they had sufferred injuries in order to squeeze some compensation from the insurance company. But with the number of cyclists now roaming London's streets, I think it's high time there was some requirement for them to carry insurance. Doubt it will ever happen, though.
 
Last edited:
Forget the insurance for now that is his problem to sort out.
If you want to recover the cost from him then you need to take a firm and clear position from the outset. You need to send him a recorded delivery letter that sets out the facts and then hold him liable for the damage to your car and ask him to admit liability and that he will pay for the cost of the repairs (as per the attached quotation / estimate) and ask him to confirm this within 7 days in writing. If no reply then follow up with another letter giving him another 7 days or issue a summons in small claims track.

Sorry to appear harsh on the old man but if you mamby pamby around looking at this insurance or that one then it will weaken your claim potentially. Whether he is insured for his debt to you is his concern not yours.
And dont feel bad just because he is retired; he may have £££££££ in the bank for all you know.
 
You have to give people 28 days to reply.

If you go in screaming that you've got 7 days to sort someting out any court will through out the case as you are not being reasonable.
 
On the same day Michael Jackson breathed his last, I had a rather odd encounter. I was sitting at a set of red traffic lights, minding my own business, when I sensed something out of the corner of my eye, followed by a dull thud. A motorcyclist, who was also stationary, had toppled over, and his handlebars had gouged a couple of scars into the driver's door of my car. However, the reason he'd toppled was because a cyclist had pulled up alongside him and promptly lost his balance, starting a minor domino effect. Quite hilarious, really, and thankfully nobody was hurt.

The cyclist was embarrassed and apologetic in equal measure. He immediately admitted liability and said he felt wholly responsible. He wanted to pay for the damage, but was also looking quite worried by the potential repair costs.

So, the motorcylclist was insured and it was his bike that had done the damage, but the cyclist wasn't and had clearly caused the accident. I was keen to ensure that the motorcyclist didn't have to take the hit, as he was in no way to blame. We all exchanged name/address details and I said I'd refer it to my insurers and see what they made of the situation.

You can imagine the phone call! I actually had a job keeping a straight face as I was describing it, and to be honest I'm, smirking now even as I'm typing this. The matter was referred to their assessors, and I was told to get a quote for the damage. Took the car out to Hughes of Beaconsfield, and they said it would need a new door. Apparently they won't just re-skin the door as they don't consider it to be a proper repair. Not sure whether that's sound judgement or just a way of generating business, but I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The quote came to about £3200. A few days' later my insurers had decided that they would pay out under my own policy and would pursue the cyclist to recover their losses.

This was a rather bittersweet outcome: on the plus side, my car would be repaired by an MB dealership, my NCB is protected and my insurers have a policy of not increasing premiums just because you've claimed (or so they say). But I hated the idea of the cyclist being pursued for the full cost, and for what it's worth, I told my insurers I was uncomfortable about this; I'd had a few conversations with him by then, and was convinced he was genuinely not too well off. He was a fairly young academic, rather other-worldly, and seemed very honourable in his dealings with me. As soon as he knew this was being settled by my insurers, he insisted on reimbursing me for the excess I'd have to pay. Moreover, the incident had prompted him to take out cyclist's insurance, which I didn't even know was available.

By last August the repair had been completed and true to his word, the cyclist had indeed reimbursed me for the excess. (I got the impression he'd had to borrow this from his parents, though he didn't say as much.)

That was the last I heard of it until April just gone, when my insurers wrote to say they had sent a "first allegation letter to Third Party Insurer and Third Party", and that they'd update me as soon as they received a response. Not heard anything else since then, and I've no idea who the "third party insurer" would be, unless they've decided to go for the motorcyclist.

The moral of this story is that when an uniunsured cyclist damages your car, things get messy. I think I was lucky in that both the other parties behaved very reasonably - for instance, nobody claimed that they had sufferred injuries in order to squeeze some compensation from the insurance company. But with the number of cyclists now roaming London's streets, I think it's high time there was some requirement for them to carry insurance. Doubt it will ever happen, though.

I think the piece that you overlooked in this is that an insurer will ALWAYS see if they can recover their money from a third party if the payout is more than a few £££. In your case you made the claim for the expensive repair and then assumed that would be the end of it. BUT your insurers would immediately seek to recover their costs - and likely it would not just be the £3,200 that they had paid to Hughes but also their own admin costs. Thats what they meant when they said they were pursuing the third party - they went after the cyclist - probably quite heavily trying to extract any cash they could. Of course if he has no assets and is broke then they are unlikely to recover anything and will have to write it off. But they will not give up easily where there is a few £k at stake and would probably have sued him to get what they could. At the end of the day the insurer is a business and not a charity. If you had wanted to avoid this plight for the cyclist then you should have considered claiming as your fault and had the cyclist reimburse your excess - but this would have been dishonest on your part of course. Biggest lesson was for the cyclist - buy some insurance.
 
You have to give people 28 days to reply.

If you go in screaming that you've got 7 days to sort someting out any court will through out the case as you are not being reasonable.

I never said anything about screaming - it can be polite - maybe you are required to give 28 days I don't know - but on the other hand 7 days is long enough to agree liability - if he is liable - what good does another 21 days do for him?
 
I think the piece that you overlooked in this is that an insurer will ALWAYS see if they can recover their money from a third party if the payout is more than a few £££. In your case you made the claim for the expensive repair and then assumed that would be the end of it. BUT your insurers would immediately seek to recover their costs - and likely it would not just be the £3,200 that they had paid to Hughes but also their own admin costs. Thats what they meant when they said they were pursuing the third party - they went after the cyclist - probably quite heavily trying to extract any cash they could. Of course if he has no assets and is broke then they are unlikely to recover anything and will have to write it off. But they will not give up easily where there is a few £k at stake and would probably have sued him to get what they could. At the end of the day the insurer is a business and not a charity. If you had wanted to avoid this plight for the cyclist then you should have considered claiming as your fault and had the cyclist reimburse your excess - but this would have been dishonest on your part of course. Biggest lesson was for the cyclist - buy some insurance.

Yes, I must admit you could have knocked me down with a feather when they told me they were going to pursue the cyclist; to be honest, I wasn't even sure what they meant by "pursue" in this context, but I guessed they meant through the courts if necessary.

Perhaps I was naive in not realising this, but I knew I had an obligation to report the accident to my insurers even if I wasn't going to make a claim, and from that point on it was in their hands. This was actually the first time I'd made a claim involving another party, and only the second time in all the years I've been driving.

Quite frankly, I've always seen insurance as a necessary evil; a form of wealth redistribution, in fact. Left to my own devices, I'd rather pay my own way than claim from what is essentially a social fund, but I appreciate that in the real world this isn't practicable for road use, especially when you take into account consequential liability in the event of an accident.

In this case, while I felt sorry for the predicaments of both the cyclist and the motorcyclist, I also did not like the idea of having to fork out upwards of £3000 for something that clearly wasn't my fault either. Letting the insurance company sort it out seemed to be the obvious option, and it didn't even occur to me that they would try to recover their costs. I kinda thought that was what our premiums were for...:rolleyes:

I certainly wouldn't have submitted a falsified claim. Apart from anything else, it would have had to be a total fabrication for me to have stated that I had somehow caused the accident, bearing in mind that I wasn't even moving at the time. I would also have had to completely ignore the presence of the motorcyclist.
 
Yes, I must admit you could have knocked me down with a feather when they told me they were going to pursue the cyclist; to be honest, I wasn't even sure what they meant by "pursue" in this context, but I guessed they meant through the courts if necessary.

Perhaps I was naive in not realising this, but I knew I had an obligation to report the accident to my insurers even if I wasn't going to make a claim, and from that point on it was in their hands. This was actually the first time I'd made a claim involving another party, and only the second time in all the years I've been driving.

Quite frankly, I've always seen insurance as a necessary evil; a form of wealth redistribution, in fact. Left to my own devices, I'd rather pay my own way than claim from what is essentially a social fund, but I appreciate that in the real world this isn't practicable for road use, especially when you take into account consequential liability in the event of an accident.

In this case, while I felt sorry for the predicaments of both the cyclist and the motorcyclist, I also did not like the idea of having to fork out upwards of £3000 for something that clearly wasn't my fault either. Letting the insurance company sort it out seemed to be the obvious option, and it didn't even occur to me that they would try to recover their costs. I kinda thought that was what our premiums were for...:rolleyes:

I certainly wouldn't have submitted a falsified claim. Apart from anything else, it would have had to be a total fabrication for me to have stated that I had somehow caused the accident, bearing in mind that I wasn't even moving at the time. I would also have had to completely ignore the presence of the motorcyclist.

You did the right thing and it is what I would have done too.
The insurance company looks at the premiums as the revenue stream for the business - and the claims are the costs - one minus the other = profit. The revenue stream is limited by competition - the costs are controlled 1. by making sure that all claims are legitimate and valid and 2. by re-claiming them from 3rd parties where possible.
Quite a simple buisness model - and like most other businesses the name of the game is maximum profit. :)

People with substantial assets need to be careful about insurance - if you own a house and you cause a loss or injury to someone else for which you are not insured - then the injured party - or THEIR insurer is likely to pursue you - then you may be forced to sell the house to reimburse the insurer - pretty unusual because most people with assets are insured anyway. Your home insurance includes this cover - more valuable than most people realise.
 
Yesterday on the way home, I was hit on the rear quater panel by an elderly gentlemen riding a powabike electic bike. this has left a nice big dent above the wheel arch and right on the swage line. The bike was completely undamaged.

The guy was taken to hospital with hip pain and I called the old bill. After talking to a witness and myself the cyclist is liekly to be charged with either carless or reckless cycling which carries a fine only. This puts me completely in the clear. which I knew anyway as he came straight off the path without looking into me. The PC called me later to confirm his initials findings and to let me know the guy is OK.

Now this brings up a couple of things. under UK law he doesn't require insurance to ride an electric bike on UK roads, therefore I have to pay for the repair completely and then take him to the small claims, or go through my insurance, loose my protected NCD and have a premium hike next year. I can then goto the small claims court for my loss again, but as he is retired I am not sure I will get anything back.

Can I claim from the fund for unisured drivers? my legal insurance wont help in this instance as they are only there to reclaim losses from insured third parties

I have a quote from MB to replace the rear quarter panel at a total cost of £3600. parts £900 labour £1600 paint £390 and Vat.

I am waiting for another quote, from an ATA rated repairer that told me they can get the dents out without replacing the panel, but I am not sure if they will use the same proceedure when applying the paint as MB will.

Wouild it be better to go the MB route or the independant my Insurers want an MB approved body shop if they do the work?

Does anyone know a good body Shop in the Watford to Alyesbury Area?

Has anyone else been in a similar situation that can offer any advice?

many thanks in advance

Hmmmmm - are you quite certain he is not required to have insurance ?

I don't know for sure off the top of my head , but I seem to recall reading somewhere that as soon as you add any kind of powered propulsion to a bicycle ( such as these electric attachments ) it becomes a 'motorised vehicle' and therefore needs to be registered/insured .

If it was just based on the beat cop's opinion , I'd research this further .

Furthermore - if the old gent 'came off a path' and hit you - he was also breaking the law by cycling on the pavement ( unless it was a designated cycle path - even then , because it was a powered bike he may not have been entitled to use it ? ) - all the more ammunition to back up your case .

I'd look a bit further into this if I were you .

At least being hit with a large claim might persuade the old fellow to hang up his bicycle clips - best outcome if he is so unsafe on the roads (pavements) .
 
I have nothing to add on the legal side, but I do know that this rear quater panel was repaired when something rather larger than a bike reversed into it (a truck!) by a fully authorised Mercedes dealer for about a third of the quote you've got:eek:
I might just be seeking a second opinion on repair costs.
 
Last edited:
Your car got a big dent in the rear quarter panel- Was the paint broken? How deep was the dent?- Without seeing the damage its difficult to say but it sounds as if a paintless dent type repair might be much more appropriate in this case. As the car owner this may well be a much better long term repair option than the much more intrusive removal of a major section of body panelling breaking factory welds/alignment paint/rust protection seam seals etc You don't seem too concerned about any possible injury sustained by the elderly gent-a hip injury can be a serious injury for an older person. Sure he was in the wrong but you seem to be determined to extract all your rights out of this situation -no matter what? Explore the possibility of a cheaper repair option- it might be better for you as an owner too. Worst comes to the worst take the hit yourself or make your own claim on your insurance-- as the Americans say Sh*t Happens! :dk:
 
Last edited:
Agree with Grober. If the panel isn't actually a creased and the paint not broken someone like Dent Master might be able to do it for a few hundred quid.

If you are friendly at a local dealers which doesn't have a body shop call in and see who they use for their used cars because they will know who is good and who isn't.

m.
 
I would like to add my weight to the 'get another quote' case.

Don't forget that dealers are in the middle of a recession like the rest of us, and are not selling as many cars. Therefore they may well be adding a bit (or a lot) of fat to any other work to try to make up for this.

I found out this when my warranty work was done. I was quoted £240+VAT to repaint the slightly scratched rear bumper while they had the spray gun out. I refused, and it was lucky that I did because the rear bumper was blown in anyway as part of the work!

Then two of the rear parking sensors packed up and I was offered the chance to have them replaced, at £140+VAT, even though the cause of the problem was them not removing them from the bumper before repainting it, and there being great blobs of clear coat all over them!

If I were you, I would view a main dealer as you would a loan shark. :D Only kidding!
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmm - are you quite certain he is not required to have insurance ?

I don't know for sure off the top of my head , but I seem to recall reading somewhere that as soon as you add any kind of powered propulsion to a bicycle ( such as these electric attachments ) it becomes a 'motorised vehicle' and therefore needs to be registered/insured .

If it was just based on the beat cop's opinion , I'd research this further .

Furthermore - if the old gent 'came off a path' and hit you - he was also breaking the law by cycling on the pavement ( unless it was a designated cycle path - even then , because it was a powered bike he may not have been entitled to use it ? ) - all the more ammunition to back up your case .

I'd look a bit further into this if I were you .

At least being hit with a large claim might persuade the old fellow to hang up his bicycle clips - best outcome if he is so unsafe on the roads (pavements) .

I have checked with the dval he unfortuneatley doesn;t need insurance. Also it was a beat cop but a traffic cop that was sent has it was also an accident investiagtor. He said that the biker woulkd be charged with reckless or careless cycling.
 
I have nothing to add on the legal side, but I do know that this rear quater panel was repaired when something rather larger than a bike reversed into it (a truck!) by a fully authorised Mercedes dealer for about a third of the quote you've got:eek:
I might just be seeking a second opinion on repair costs.

Which dealer did you use?

I want to be fair in the repair costs. I got another quote from a reputable body shop for £1200 all in for repairing the panel and not replacing it. The MB quote includes scratch coatings not listed on the second one. The MB quiote does seem over the top to me, they are charging in 6minute blocks, apparently it takes them 12minutes to remove a battery cable and place it in storage, 18minutes for a machine to mix the paint.
 
Your car got a big dent in the rear quarter panel- Was the paint broken? How deep was the dent?- Without seeing the damage its difficult to say but it sounds as if a paintless dent type repair might be much more appropriate in this case. As the car owner this may well be a much better long term repair option than the much more intrusive removal of a major section of body panelling breaking factory welds/alignment paint/rust protection seam seals etc You don't seem too concerned about any possible injury sustained by the elderly gent-a hip injury can be a serious injury for an older person. Sure he was in the wrong but you seem to be determined to extract all your rights out of this situation -no matter what? Explore the possibility of a cheaper repair option- it might be better for you as an owner too. Worst comes to the worst take the hit yourself or make your own claim on your insurance-- as the Americans say Sh*t Happens! :dk:

the paint doesn't appear to have broken but there is quite a deep crease in the panel. I did think about the paintless dent removal people but have had no experience of them I am not sure they can remove the crease. there is a place near me I can drop it in to at the weekend and see what they say
 
An "MB" bodyshop rarely represents good value - a lot of dealers don't have facilities on site and subcontract out this work and seem to just add 0's to the final bill in the process.

Plus not sure I would want the record of body repair associated with the car on the MB computer when it comes to resale. I would be looking elsewhere for a better, more satisfactory and less costly repair.
 
I was just thinking that if I dont go through the insurance it wont show up on the many text and hpi check sites when I come to sell, so would this help with the valuations I could get? If I do go through the insurance could I claim the loss of value from the biker as well as out of pocket expenses in the small claims court. Ie if the value is reduced by £2k could I claim it back?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom