RTI, not subject to RIDDOR unless the work activity contributed to the incident which by your description is unlikely, unless you have designed the entrance to your site so badly that visibility is impaired.

What is RIDDOR about this incident? From your description this is an RTC on the public highway - there is no mention if hospital treatment was administered. Close to the boundary where the genmeral public have access is not the same as crossing the boundary in to the premises occupier controlled area e.g. being behind a car park barrier / fence line. If she received hospital treatment having been struck on your premises it is your duty to report (her work location is the canteen).

Agree

Ignoring the fact that it has allegedly taken place on the highway therefore exempt under RIDDOR... Back to the law : 3.—(1) In these Regulations, the “responsible person” is— (a) in relation to an injury, death or dangerous occurrence reportable under regulation 4, 5, 6 or 7 or recordable under regulation 12(1)(b) involving— (i) an employee, that employee’s employer; or (ii) a person not at work or a self-employed person, or in relation to any other dangerous occurrence, the person who by means of their carrying on any undertaking was in control of the premises where the reportable or recordable incident happened, at the time it happened; Its an either-or situation...not an 'and'. She cannot be both a member of the public AND an employee. So we must decide which she is to determine responsibility. Examine both: (i) She has an employer and is an employee. (ii) She is clearly not self-employed. Is she a member of the public? She is on an errand for work purposes and essentially at her place of work. There may be some meritorious argument arising from the specific details. But, on what we've been told rather than supposed, I believe she was undertaking a work activity as opposed to merely coming to work and was, regardless, entering her workplace. That's all rather closer to being an employee than not (only being at the site due to work etc.). One of these is way more obvious than the other. And anyway....sounds exempt because it was on the highway. RIDDOR is not about blame or specific laying of fault, so why the reluctance on the part of her employer? If reported, the HSE/LA are going to be finding out about it either way.

The injured party has a designated place of work within the occupiers premises - the canteen. From leaving home until arriving at her designated work location she is a member of the general public. The OP stated she was on her way to work rather than returning to work so we can eliminate any "errand" on behalf of the employer from discussion. So we are left with two basic questions: 1) As a member of the general public was she actually on the occupiers controlled premises? 2) As a result of the incident did she receive hospital treatment? If the answer to both questions are yes then RIDDOR by the premises occupier. Otherwise it is an unfortunate road traffic incident.

From the HSE link "Types of reportable incidents": Non fatal accidents to non-workers (eg members of the public) Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.

Only if it is a work related injury, i.e on the employers premises. As she was neither in the workplace (as an employee or member of the public) or at work carrying out her duties I fail to see how this could be considered a work related accident

We have had someone come off his bike on his way to work this morning after being hit with a car door opening. It doesn't look anything too serious but he has gone to hospital anyway on the advice of one of our First Aiders. He wasn't that close to work, so I guess we won't need to record anything? Can anyone confirm this is right please?