Bicycle Accident - How Much Should I Pay for a 10 Year Old Bicycle

High on 11/02/2019 - 17:21
Last edited 11/02/2019 - 22:44 by 1 other user

I had a car vs bicycle accident which was my fault. Compensation for injury, pain and suffering, loss of income etc would be covered by CTP.

The other party's bicycle was damaged and would cost $300 to repair. It was a 10 year old model which cost him around $500, the other party does not have purchase record. The other party wants me to pay $300 to go towards his new bike.

What would be my liability in legal aspect?

Note
- Sorry, the way I wrote it made it look like the other party already repaired his bike.
- CTP does not cover property damage and the excess would be more than the damage for comprehensive insurance.

Automotive Insurance

Comments

  • No on 11/02/2019 - 17:37
    +18

    $300 doesn't seem like a big expense if you are responsible for a car vs bicycle accident.

    I'd be paying what they ask.

    • EightImmortals on 11/02/2019 - 19:41
      +4

      BUT MAKE SURE THEY SIGN A WAIVER FOR ANY FURTHER DAMAGES CLAIMS.

    • High on 11/02/2019 - 22:50

      I do agree that this is the ethical way to go… I hate haggling over such amount but I have family to look after. I can't even afford to replace my wife's cracked phone screen at the moment.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/02/2019 - 07:42
        +1

        Consider yourself lucky,
        Bicycles have not really changed much in 10 years except the price. It goes up every year.
        My $300 bike the exact same model with same Shimano model kit is $650

        That $500 will likely be significantly more than that to get an equivalent replacement.

      • jacross on 12/02/2019 - 08:07
        +7

        Consider yourself lucky you aren't going to prison, and if you can't afford an iPhone screen then you can't afford fighting someone in small claims court over something you'll probably be found liable for.

        By all means get proper legal advice though.

        As for looking after your family, part of looking after yoir family is being a man and doing the right thing as an example. Pay the $300, improve your driving, fix your wife's iPhone screen (if you want, im not so interested in that), and no more ozbargains for you for the next few months.

  • original15 on 11/02/2019 - 17:39
    +1

    Probably $300?
    By description sounds like it has already been repaired, could have politely requested a second quote to check if it wasn’t too late

  • whooah1979 on 11/02/2019 - 17:43
    +1

    The other party wants me to pay $300.

    Ask them for a tax invoice.

    • DogGunn on 11/02/2019 - 18:41

      A tax invoice for what?

      • robbyjones on 11/02/2019 - 18:43
        +2

        For the repair, if they paid $300 they should have received a tax invoice (receipt)

        • DogGunn on 11/02/2019 - 18:53

          Ahh fair enough.

  • xuqi on 11/02/2019 - 17:52

    Either pay him the $300 or get your lawyer to research what the depreciation value on a 10 year old bike is, and write him a letter.

    Since you've established it was your fault, I suggest paying the $300 and be done with it. Don't forget to get a written, signed statement of the $300 payment for your records.

    • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 18:15
      +2

      or get your lawyer to research what the depreciation value on a 10 year old bike is, and write him a letter.

      Literally would already be >$330 for any semi-decent lawyer. OP should just pay the $300.

      • 973728 on 12/02/2019 - 20:33
        +2

        This.
        But also, depreciation doesn't apply. OP was at fault and needs to put rider back in the position they were.

        If you have a car crash and are at fault, your insurance will fully cover the third party to get them back to the position they were in prior to accident. No depreciation applies. Some rubbish insurers may depreciate what they pay the at fault party though.

    • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:37
      -2

      OP just needs to pay the guy out for the depreciated value of the bike (as if he sold it to OP) which would only be about $100.
      Then this would go towards an new bike.
      Paying more for repairs is not logical.
      The bike rider is ripping off OP.

      • nith265 on 18/02/2019 - 13:35
        +1

        I’ve just read back over this thread and it was this node that first introduced the use of the term “depreciation”

        “depreciation” as a strictly defined process is really only used in accounting – it isn’t used as a exacting method of valuing a 2nd hand product (though at times in an items life cycle the results may be similar)

        All the comments asserting that OP needs use a depreciation schedule to arrive at a reasonable figure are misguided and simplistic.

  • wordplay on 11/02/2019 - 17:53
    +3

    pay the $300, or buy them a new $500 bike.
    could get a uote for parts+ labour and then shop around for a few bike mechanics if you think you can get it done cheaper, but you can't really force them to get it repaired at a particular repairer.

    • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:40

      Just buy the old bike off him for what it was worth at the time - say $100

      • wordplay on 17/02/2019 - 20:15

        he is not compelled to sell the bike to the OP and why would he - then no bike and only $100 towards a new bike the cyclist will end up well out of pocket to get transport back.

  • BOGOF on 11/02/2019 - 17:57
    +3

    Pay it and move on.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2019 - 18:02
    +3

    Even if it's old, you deprived him of the use of it.

  • whooah1979 on 11/02/2019 - 18:08
    -6

    A $500 bicycle that has been used for 10 years isn't worth $300 at the current market price. Offer them $100 as a gesture of goodwill.

    • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 18:16
      +2

      Not how this works unfortunately - since this is OP's fault, he needs to pay replacement value, not market value. And that means unless OP can find that specific bike (even used), he has to pay new prices.

      • whooah1979 on 11/02/2019 - 18:36
        -4

        OP has the right to dispute the cost of a replacement good. OP may make an offer to settle or wait for a serve.

        • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 18:39

          Yeah but for $300 for any semi-decent bike… just not sure it's worth the effort. I'm not sure there's that many used bikes available, and even then if the other party has already incurred $300 to fix the bike and it's not an unreasonable amount, OP can't really dispute that. This isn't really a negotiation, OP has very limited room to move. (And again, for $300? Not worth it imo.)

          (didn't neg you by the way)

      • jhmtaylor on 11/02/2019 - 18:44
        -3

        What rubbish.
        If the victim wants to pursue the matter through a Court the compensation will be calculated at the original purchase price less depreciation. The issue is what depreciation rate to use. The ATO prescribes 20% PA but even if you halved that and called it 10% PA the bike is worth nothing.
        If the cost of repairs exceeds the depreciated value it is a constructive total loss and the settlement figure is the depreciated value Ie nothing. The Third party may argue ah but my bike was in better condition than average, so if you offered say $100 you should have little risk of being legally liable to pay more.

        • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 18:44
          +7

          If the victim wants to pursue the matter through a Court the compensation will be calculated at the original purchase price less depreciation.

          Nope. The victim is entitled to be restored to what their position would have been if not for the wrongful act. In this case, it means they're entitled to have a working bike (with similar features, etc), not just market or depreciated value of the bike.

          This is why, again, if OP can find a replacement bike available for sale (even used), that could form the basis of an argument to dispute the claimed amount. But OP cannot use a depreciated value argument.

          • jhmtaylor on 11/02/2019 - 18:52
            -3

            @HighAndDry: Be very wary of bush lawyers like HighAndDry. The law in Australia is based on the principle of Equity. The replacement concept promulgated by HighAndDry is routed in asian village custom.

            • HighAndDry on 11/02/2019 - 19:01

              @jhmtaylor: I actually had more written, but it's honestly not worth my time. In any case, you're wrong on so many points I think Googling "compensatory damages in torts QLD" would be more helpful than anything I can write.

            • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2019 - 19:27
              +4

              @jhmtaylor: Sorry, but you are speaking nonsense. If depreciation applies, the bike wouldn't be on the road working fine until the accident. The victim is entitled to damages. The ATO has NOTHING to do with this. If I wreck someone's Ford Model T, I cannot say it depreciated to nothing over the years. Market value would apply.

              • jhmtaylor on 11/02/2019 - 20:13
                -1

                @[Deactivated]: Frugal Rock. I i have not disputed that the TP is entitled to damages. The amount in dispute is the issue. How much is a 10 year old bicycle worth. In most cases jack s..t. According to a market place like Gumtree the market value for a 10 year old bicycle is about $50 so the proposed settlement is more than generous. If the TP wanted to pursue the matter through the courts they would be liable to compensating the OP on an indemnity basis.
                The TP is entitled to repair costs but not exceeding market value for a 10 year old bicycle.

                • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2019 - 20:29
                  +2

                  @jhmtaylor: You've just switched away from depreciation to market value.

                  • jhmtaylor on 11/02/2019 - 20:58

                    @[Deactivated]: Market value is quid pro quo the depreciated value. As I have advised the base line is depreciated value in the absence of other supporting information. It may be that that the Pope has been the previous owner the bicycle and the intrinsic value is substantially more than a bog standard 10 year old bike and under such circumstances repair cost maybe the appropriate way of settling the matter.

                    • [Deactivated] on 11/02/2019 - 21:54
                      +4

                      @jhmtaylor: If nothing else, you get the most out of place and misapplied latin award, Hannibal. :p

        • chumlee on 11/02/2019 - 18:48

          For $300 you don't go to court as you will be out of pocket a lit more than that

          • jhmtaylor on 11/02/2019 - 20:28

            @chumlee: Chumlee, it is not about going to court, but determining a fair value. If the TP wanted to pursue the matter beyond the process I have outlined they will be running a serious risk of losing and being responsible for compensating the OP for out of pocket expenses. So in short a reasonable settlement which is what the OP originally asked for advice on, but with the bonus of substance supporting the decision.

        • nith265 on 12/02/2019 - 12:54
          +2

          @ jhmtaylor

          If the cost of repairs exceeds the depreciated value it is a constructive total loss and the settlement figure is the depreciated value Ie nothing.

          lol - this is a genuinely unique angle I’ve never considered for road accident negligence and damages!

          “Your honour, my client fully admits fault when they crashed into a car purchased 10 years ago for $50,000 causing $10,000 in damages. However running the numbers through the official court damages depreciation calculator at 20% per annum the current value of the vehicle is $5,368 and we legally only have to pay that amount”

          Using your own depreciation calculations with the more generous 10% , over 10 years the $500 bike comes down to $174. The other party could fairly add to these transportation costs of getting bike to and from the bike shop – say $25 each way - and then possibly costs for a replacement bike/transport while they didn’t have one. We’re getting pretty close to the original $300

          Damages are assessed on reasonable costs to reinstate the other party to their original position – depends on the bike but if it was well maintained, $300 to repair or replace it sounds pretty reasonable

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:42

        Nope. Wrong.
        Market value applies.'
        This is not new for old.
        OP just need to compensate the bike rider for his loss being the amount he would have received if he sold the bike…..simple

    • terrys on 12/02/2019 - 08:54
      +2

      You seem to be leaving out the incidental costs of being without the said bike for transport until such repair/replacement has taken place.

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:43

        Not OPs problem.
        The bike rider can use other means of transport.
        Incidentals dont come into this

        • HighAndDry on 21/02/2019 - 16:22

          It's OP's problem when it was OP's fault that deprived the other side the use of their bike.

  • chumlee on 11/02/2019 - 18:46
    +3

    Tell him to make a claim for the bike against your insurance. That's why you have insurance

    • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 08:25
      +2

      $600 excess to pay $300 repair bill and ruin your “no claim” discount with an at fault claim. :D

    • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:43

      Then OP must make a claim.
      Would cost OP $700 for the excess
      BAD IDEA!

  • Euphemistic on 11/02/2019 - 21:57
    +1

    Bikes and other property age/depreciate a lot differently to motor vehicles. $300 to repair a bike seems reasonable, and despite being a significant portion of the value will make the bike as good as it bette than it was.

    You need to provide restitution on the property owner, and $300 is a very small amount in the scheme of things pay it and move on (and watch out for bicycles)

  • pegaxs on 11/02/2019 - 22:22
    +1

    Pay the $300 to repair/replace the bike… then lawyer up for the civil lawsuit that will be almost inevitable. “Argh, mah pain and sufferin’. Can’t hold down a job. Chronic pain every day. Was going to be a surgeon, now I have PTSD….”

    • High on 11/02/2019 - 23:01
      +1

      Luckily for me CTP insurance will cover these things. However he only wants compensation for his direct medical costs, not for his pain and suffering which would mean he's intention is not to rip anyone off but genuinely want compensation for his bike. Which makes me feel very guilty.

      • RyanMK on 12/02/2019 - 00:27
        +2

        Then just pay up? $300 isn't unreasonable for something that was your fault.

      • pegaxs on 12/02/2019 - 08:23
        +2

        Trust me, they can go you outside of the CTP. When I was hit off my motorcycle, I was swamped by lawyers who wanted to open civil cases and sue to other party outside what TAC/CTP would pay.

        And like Ryan says here, it’s $300 and you’re at fault. Just pay the $300 already. I don’t really get the point of this thread over such a small amount. You’re at fault, you broke his shit, he got it fixed for a reasonable price, now just pay the man.

        • Fudnut on 12/02/2019 - 08:31
          +1

          this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in spades

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:45

        CTP covers that

  • High on 12/02/2019 - 09:23

    Thank you guys for all the answers.
    The point of the thread is I wanted to learn what's the legal liability in this case, which I'm still confused - I guess the amount was too small so in this case don't bother just pay it - would be the answer.
    And in case of something more expensive - a car, for example - would be the market value of the car or the repair cost, would be the answer I guess? I wouldn't have to pay for a brand new car obviously, or pay $10k for repairs for a $2k car.
    Unless it has some special value, driven by Pope or something.
    Thank you again.

    • nith265 on 12/02/2019 - 11:48
      +1

      Basically If you’re 100% at fault as you say, you have to restore them to the financial position they were in before you became involved in their life.

      If the repair costs outweigh the market value of a similar car (plus some other associated costs related to arranging the replacement) then you pay the lesser amount to replace the car.

      Unless it has some special value, driven by Pope or something.

      … if you hit the Pope-mobile then it could be argued that that vehicle has particular inherent value unique to that specific vehicle can’t be replaced by simply buying a new one since it’s been touched and sat on by the Pope. If Pope-mobiles only cost $20k they could argue that $30k to repair it was reasonable and you'd nave to pay the higher amount

      Also keep in mind that if you’d hit a car you’d also have to pay for hire car costs while the other car was repaired. The other guy could possibly try and hit you up for bike hire fees too though it could depend on what other “reasonable” transport options they had.

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:46

        "If the repair costs outweigh the market value….then you pay the lesser amount to replace the car."

        Absolutely Correct!

    • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2019 - 19:57

      When you find a $2k car equal that is including on road costs, Seiler margins then you are a magician.

  • nith265 on 12/02/2019 - 13:05

    I absolutely detest it when anyone on OzB asks this on forum posts but:

    “What did they say when you asked them?”

    You could simply contact the other party and say that in your (made up) lawyer’s opinion a 10 year old $500 bike is reasonably only worth $100 to replace and that’s all you’re willing to pay.

    The rub is however if they then decide that things have just got real and on principle they engage a lawyer to deal with the guy who admitted fault when hitting them you could then have to pay their legal fees too.

  • HeWhoKnows on 12/02/2019 - 17:31
    -5

    10 year old bike like a 10 year old car.
    Allow 10% depreciation p.a.
    Doesnt leave much - maybe $50.
    Thats all I would offer on this basis.
    After all it is a 10 year old bike. NOT A NEW ONE!
    Dont waste you time on a lawyer. I can assure you the bike rider wont be.

    By the way, if you pay him out for the bike for $50 make sure you take it!
    Thats what insurance companies do

    • phocus on 14/02/2019 - 14:31
      +1

      by your logic 10% pa actually equates to $174.34

      also who would want to be associated with the same morals as an insurance company.

      • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 18:35

        Its no different to buying a 10 year old bike.
        Thats how it works

        • wordplay on 17/02/2019 - 20:19

          how do you know its not some rare now out of production bike that has actually gone up in value and the $300 is just to fix an issue - ie broken hndlebar, bent wheel etc…
          $50 is not a fair amount.

    • Euphemistic on 18/02/2019 - 07:23

      If you run into a 30yo fence that has a depreciation life of 20y you aren’t trying off Scott free because it is past its use by date, you are replacing the fence - with new, like for like.

      A bicycle is however, neither a car nor a fence.

      A decent bicycle in good working order will be worth $100-$200 almost regardless of age depending on overall condition.

  • bargaino on 18/02/2019 - 13:02

    The $300 repair cost is probably that same as it would cost to buy an equivalent bike second hand from a shop.
    If he wants to put that $300 toward a new bike, that is reasonable.

    Bicycles do not depreciate like cars. My ten year old bike is as good as a 2 year old bike because I replace parts with new as they wear out.
    Not many ten year old cars have had upholstery, transmission and headlamps replaced :-)
    If you have a 20 year old bike, there may be very little of the original bike left.

    I sort of sympathise with OP for asking an interesting academic question. But in this case, FFS, just pay him and apologise.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join