View Full Version : Hi Vis by defult
ok were all grown ups and can make up our minds if we want to wear hi vis/reflective clothing.
But not according to one insurance company http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274372/Churchill-insurance-appeals-1m-payout-girl-16-wasnt-wearing-high-visibility-jacket.html#axzz2JpPPD5Gl
allantheboss
06-02-13, 11:04 PM
Sick.
If I were with Churchill, I'd instantly cancel my insurance and write to them telling them this was why.
Someone should also tell their lawyers that just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
I hope this really blows up on Churchill and is devastating PR.*
* on the proviso that in the court case it was found she wasn't messing around in the middle of the road wearing black just the wrong side of the blind bend. I'm sure this would have been debated in court though.
C
Specialone
07-02-13, 06:36 AM
Compulsory spelling checks are being introduced too :rolleyes:
Specialone
07-02-13, 06:47 AM
Legally, it's churchills problem and they shouldnt appeal but it does show how little common /road sense we are teaching this generation.
Really, would you walk this road at night with earphones in your ears and no hi vis or aid for visibility? Cos I wouldn't.
I probably wouldn't wear a hi vis tbh but I wouldn't wear earphones so I can hear a vehicle approaching.
I'm still amazed at the amount of cyclists I see without lights or hi vis riding on the road in the dark, some responsibility from other road users has to be taken.
EssexDave
07-02-13, 07:12 AM
I agree it's in bad taste. However...
From a legal standpoint I can see where churchill are coming from. During the day, their driver would be completely at fault.
It sounds like she was walking down an unlit road, with no pavement. Sounds like a national speed limit road. How many of you slow down to sub 50mph in those condition?
Yes he hit her, and churchill have accepted the driver was partly at fault. They are saying that if the girl had been wearing a high viz, as she should have done, then the accident may not have happened and so she contributed to the accident.
I appreciate, it sounds farfetched, but you would surely think she would do something to make herself seen...
Fallout
07-02-13, 07:39 AM
So he was doing 50mph in a 60mph limit, and she was walking down an unlit country lane with low-vis clothing? I think Churchill have a point.
So do you wear hi vis on your motor cycle .
if not and someone collided with you. Your pay out maybe affected.
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 07:45 AM
I agree it's in bad taste. However...
From a legal standpoint I can see where churchill are coming from. During the day, their driver would be completely at fault.
It sounds like she was walking down an unlit road, with no pavement. Sounds like a national speed limit road. How many of you slow down to sub 50mph in those condition?
It depends what you can see.
That pedestrian could easily be a fallen tree or something and they'll do you a hell of a lot more damage than a squishy pedestrian!
Specialone
07-02-13, 07:50 AM
So do you wear hi vis on your motor cycle .
if not and someone collided with you. Your pay out maybe affected.
No, but my bike has lights, if I was riding a push bike at night I would defo wear one.
Fallout
07-02-13, 08:01 AM
No, but my bike has lights, if I was riding a push bike at night I would defo wear one.
Yeah, that was my answer. You have a responsibility to make yourself seen to motorists if there is no street lighting or pavement, either by lights on your vehicle/a torch, or hi vis clothing. It's a terrible accident and I think she should get compo to help her through her life, but I I do think Churchill have a point.
We used to walk home down dark roads from the pub in our yoooof. Whenever a car came we were so far into the hedgerow our faces were bleeding. Being ****ed helped of course, but it always felt like a bloody stupid thing to do.
Spank86
07-02-13, 08:18 AM
I always thought it was fine, but then I'm naturally stupider than fallout.
I always considered that it was our responsibility not to get run over if walking in the road. You cant expect a car to see you even if you're wearing white.
Dicky Ticker
07-02-13, 08:28 AM
I don't know about wearing HIGH VIZ but a brightish colour at least.I keep a mini torch in my pocket for such instances,admittedly so I don't fall over things but it is easy enough to just shine it behind you for a second or in the direction of the approaching vehicle.
Maybe I am wrong but as you get older you seem to become aware of all the dangers that surround you.
Do I ware highviz on the bike ? no,but the seam piping, the expansion slots and lettering on my bike gear are reflective so it goes partially towards that issue.
As Specialone says your bike has lights----but if you have had an off and the bike is in a ditch or field,you are lying on the road you may stand a chance.
dizzyblonde
07-02-13, 08:51 AM
Sad as it is, a 13 yr old who can be responsible for a horse at stables, should be mature enough to have responsibly walked down a country lane at night.
I'm not concerned she wasnt wearing more visible clothes. The earphones and lack of ability to hear her surroundings in the dark is more concerning. Teenagers listen to music very loud, assuming such would have meant she was as deaf as a post!
Not only that, but what if some bloke came up behind her and attacked her? Wouldn't have heard that either.
The fact the driver stopped and called emergency services, meant the driver was responsiblefor his actions. Some may not have seen her at all, and driven on without knowing what they hit.
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 08:54 AM
Listening to a f***ing ipod...
Sympathy significantly reduced.
Some may not have seen her at all, and driven on without knowing what they hit.
You'd have to be fairly stupid to manage that.
dizzyblonde
07-02-13, 08:57 AM
Have you never seen appeals for witnesses, in hit and run accidents involving pedestrians?
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 08:57 AM
Around here? Yes, generally because some uninsured abdab does a runner.
A bit different to being too retarded, or having such impaired eyesight you a) can't avoid hitting a slow moving target and b) can't decided whether it was a 12 stone lump or a pigeon.
SuzukiNess
07-02-13, 09:28 AM
cars don't belong on the verge, that's what the road is for.. if she was in the middle of the road and blatantly putting herself at risk I get it, but walking on the verge day or night i'd think as a 13y/o she would have felt safe enough. its easy to judge as we all know the risks of riding, cycling, motoring.. she is 13, not sure how she can be expected to accept some responsibility.. she's never driven before - and she hadn't even experience of riding her horse on the roads.. what was the driver doing on the verge in the 1st place? and if its such a narrow/potentially lethal road why a speed limit of 60? should possibly be lower and the driver should have taken that into account and gone considerably slower than 50..
insurance companies need to stop trying to find loopholes to stop paying out legitimate claims.
Fallout
07-02-13, 09:49 AM
There aren't enough details to make a clear call. All we can do is make assumptions. It could've been a scenario like she is facing oncoming traffic, she's right up on a grass verge, the guy is haring round a bend only suitable for 30mph, and he's right in the ditch. Or it could be a road suitable for 50, the road is narrow so he's naturally close to the side, she has one foot in the road and on a slight bend he doesn't see her until the last second due to the hedgerow. Anything is possible.
The problem I have with it is I cannot identify with her. Walking down a dark country road with my ipod in, in dark clothing is not something I would've done at 13. I grew up in that kind of environment and I remember always being very wary of the road. I can't imagine any 13 year old believing that's safe. Yeah, I can imagine them doing it anyway, as I would've done, but I'd have known it was risky and I'd have known cars would not see me.
However I can identify with someone doing 50 down a country lane. I drive down country lanes quite regularly and obviously slow down for narrow bits and blind corners, but in general people don't drive like they're going through a neighbourhood. It's national down those roads because pedestrians aren't expected to be there.
Dicky Ticker
07-02-13, 10:44 AM
I must admit to driving down unlit country lanes faster at night as you can see the other approaching vehicles headlights before you see them.Where I grew up it was all country single track roads so driving on single or narrow roads was the norm.
On roads I know
WeegieBlue
07-02-13, 11:04 AM
The way I read of it, the driver moved to the left due to an oncoming car, and it is here he has hit the girl, so I am presuming she was on the verge and not in the middle of the road or they both would have stopped/hit her. The guy was doing 50mph when he hit her, on a dark road with oncoming traffic. Probably blinded a bit by the other car, and doing 50 as he moves left. It also says he's clipped her so not full on rolled ove the bonnet collison. It is this scenario on which I base my rant...
For me, he is 100% at fault. How can you blame someone for walking on a verge at night who is then hit by a car from behind? And so what if she had headphones on? What kind of difference would that make if a car hurtles up onto a verge at 50mph and hits you? There is no law that says we have to wear hi vis clothing, but there is a law that says you have to drive with due care and attention. Doing 50mph (as he struck her by the way - could well have slowed down before then due to the oncoming car) on a dark narrow country lane when you have oncoming traffic for me is not taking account of the road conditions. The fact that he had to use the verge in the first place would indicate to me that he was not driving correctly. Sometimes you may need to use the verge if there are wide vehicles on the road, or it is very narrow, in which case slow down and use them. And make sure there aren't any pedestrians minding their own business as you do so.
How can you blame someone for walking on a verge at night who is then hit by a car from behind? And so what if she had headphones on? What kind of difference would that make if a car hurtles up onto a verge at 50mph and hits you? There is no law that says we have to wear hi vis clothing, but there is a law that says you have to drive with due care and attention. Doing 50mph (as he struck her by the way - could well have slowed down before then due to the oncoming car) on a dark narrow country lane when you have oncoming traffic for me is not taking account of the road conditions. The fact that he had to use the verge in the first place would indicate to me that he was not driving correctly. Sometimes you may need to use the verge if there are wide vehicles on the road, or it is very narrow, in which case slow down and use them. And make sure there aren't any pedestrians minding their own business as you do so.
THIS:thumleft:
PAY UP Chirchill and stop putting this family through more than they have allready endured.
SuzukiNess
07-02-13, 11:15 AM
here's a scenario for you - I was riding out of my estate - at the T-junction I indicated to turn left, just after the T-junction there is a (semi) blind bend and between negotiating the turn from the junction, turning into the semi blind corner and keeping the bike upright, I have yet to turn my indicator off (all this is in about 5 - 8 seconds) - but it usually doesn't worry me as there IS NO WHERE to turn left into - a teenager - probably the same age as the girl we discussing here - saw me - I know she saw me, we made eye contact - and as she was on the side of the pavement I assumed she was waiting to cross - and she did - right in front of me - all I can think is she saw the indicator thought I was turning - she thought it was safe, but a person with road sense, who has had experience of the road would know I couldn't turn or wait to see if I was turning - 10/10 to her for registering the indicator - 0/10 for not reading the rest of the signs/surroundings.
had I hit her, who would have been responsible? I cannot see how the law or an insurance company could expect a teenager to have that amount of road sense to foresee a scenario like that or as per the OP without having had some training and experience?
Dicky Ticker
07-02-13, 11:49 AM
1]Regarding indicators,I was taut to make sure that this IS the vehicles intention,either by them slowing for the turn or seeing mirror checks or steering movement.
I do not take an indicator as gospel as it is more than possible it has been left on by mistake.
if a kid,teenager,anybody in fact has not got pedestrian road sense they should not be allowed out unaccompanied.
The onus always seems to be placed on the driver or rider which is nor necessarily the case
here's a scenario for you -
had I hit her, who would have been responsible? I cannot see how the law or an insurance company could expect a teenager to have that amount of road sense to foresee a scenario like that or as per the OP without having had some training and experience?
Not The same:mad:
If you had gone on to the pavment and struck her ,Thats a diffrent matter and yes that would have been your fult
SuzukiNess
07-02-13, 12:02 PM
Not The same:mad:
If you had gone on to the pavment and struck her ,Thats a diffrent matter and yes that would have been your fult
i'm on the mom/teenagers side... imho, 100% drivers fault. the point I was trying to make with my post has gone over the top of ya head me thinks.
Sir Trev
07-02-13, 12:16 PM
We had a similar case near me recently where the driver was held to be free of blame. The pedestrian in this case had no bright or hi-viz clothing and was at the side of the road (no verge) with no street lighting on a rural road. The driver had no chance to avoid a collision was the decision of the coroner's court.
I echo the sentiments above about people (not just teenagers) who block out the world with their headphones. They are a blinking nuisance. OK she probably could not hear the approaching car but it was at night, it will have had it's lights on, why didn't she take notice of those and make sure she was well out of harms way? OK due to her age she is perhaps not road aware but you don't stay close to the road in that situation.
On balance though I believe Churchill should shut up and pay up.
i'm on the mom/teenagers side... imho, 100% drivers fault. the point I was trying to make with my post has gone over the top of ya head me thinks.
Ask it in another thread .
Were not debating iddiots who step out in the road (yes there is allot of them)
.Go sit in the naughty corner;)
Spank86
07-02-13, 12:22 PM
For me, he is 100% at fault. How can you blame someone for walking on a verge at night who is then hit by a car from behind?
For a start you're walking on the wrong side of the road if you're hit from behind.
SuzukiNess
07-02-13, 12:30 PM
it was a rhetorical question off YOU go to the corner :)
For a start you're walking on the wrong side of the road if you're hit from behind.
2
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/gov.uk_logotype-2x-cb26100d1f941ab07d1881cd55c8a39d.png (https://www.gov.uk/) Search
Home (https://www.gov.uk/)
Driving, transport and travel (https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving)
The Highway Code (https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code)
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and
be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.
Surely the driver is at fault if he had to stick his car up a verge? If it had of been a very narrow unlit footpath rather than a verge there would be no doubt of his guilt. If his car left the road, regardless of being a grass verge or footpath or someone’s front garden and struck her it MUST be the driver’s actions of leaving the road that caused the collision.
On the point of the girl. People today will not take any responsibility for anything, always everyone’s fault but theirs. This girl is an example of this,who in their right mind walks down an unlit country lane without at least a torch? Would anyone here wear headphones or would you rather listen out for approaching vehicles?
I cycle to work quite a lot and I see it as my responsibility to make myself visible to keep myself safe. I wear a helmet, hi vis clothing, reflectors,flashing lights front and back and I don’t wear headphones so I can hear what is going on around me. Obviously drivers have a massive responsibility also but that is something I have no control of.
Is it her fault she was struck by a car, no.
Could she have done more for her own safety, hell yes.
WeegieBlue
07-02-13, 01:01 PM
For a start you're walking on the wrong side of the road if you're hit from behind.
I agree, but the law doesn't say you HAVE to walk facing oncoming traffic. I always walk facing oncoming traffic but when I was 13 I'm not sure I would have.
We had a similar case near me recently where the driver was held to be free of blame. The pedestrian in this case had no bright or hi-viz clothing and was at the side of the road (no verge) with no street lighting on a rural road. The driver had no chance to avoid a collision was the decision of the coroner's court.
I guess this is slightly different as the driver mounted the verge. Would everyone have different opinions on this id the girl was walking along one of those tiny pavements you see sometimes and the driver had clipped her? There is a defining line between what is the road and what isn't - normally it's a kerb but in this case I feel it is where the tarmac ends and where the scrub begins.
I echo the sentiments above about people (not just teenagers) who block out the world with their headphones. They are a blinking nuisance. OK she probably could not hear the approaching car but it was at night, it will have had it's lights on, why didn't she take notice of those and make sure she was well out of harms way? OK due to her age she is perhaps not road aware but you don't stay close to the road in that situation.
On balance though I believe Churchill should shut up and pay up.
We would need to see the road layout but if she is on the verge and there is a hedge to her left, she may well not have had anywhere to go. I don't think the headphones were a contributing factor here. Would she have been able to dive out of the way of a car driving at 50pmh if she had heard it coming? Would the oncoming car have blinded her to the fact that there was a car coming from behind her, as well as potentially masking the noise from it? I would say there's a chance.
The driver is the one in the 1 ton chunk of metal travelling at 50 and I think he is solely responsible here. We all know pedestrians do some stupid things and we are trained to expect the unexpected. It is part of the test these days. There is no test for walking, so the onus is on the driver to make sure they do everything in their power to reduce the chance of an accident. This includes not chaning direction without making sure it is clear, and not leaving the road when carrying out a manoeuvre (the swerve to the left) unless you are sure the way is clear.
Will I be insuring with Chirchill?
"Oh No No No"
Name and Shame
Fallout
07-02-13, 01:09 PM
here's a scenario for you - I was riding out of my estate - at the T-junction I indicated to turn left, just after the T-junction there is a (semi) blind bend and between negotiating the turn from the junction, turning into the semi blind corner and keeping the bike upright, I have yet to turn my indicator off (all this is in about 5 - 8 seconds) - but it usually doesn't worry me as there IS NO WHERE to turn left into - a teenager - probably the same age as the girl we discussing here - saw me - I know she saw me, we made eye contact - and as she was on the side of the pavement I assumed she was waiting to cross - and she did - right in front of me - all I can think is she saw the indicator thought I was turning - she thought it was safe, but a person with road sense, who has had experience of the road would know I couldn't turn or wait to see if I was turning - 10/10 to her for registering the indicator - 0/10 for not reading the rest of the signs/surroundings.
had I hit her, who would have been responsible? I cannot see how the law or an insurance company could expect a teenager to have that amount of road sense to foresee a scenario like that or as per the OP without having had some training and experience?
What I was taught at school and on TV from the age of about 5 was look left, look right, and cross when no traffic is coming. In your scenario she has zero excuse for stepping into the road, indicator or not.
However, I appreciate the scenario in the OP is completely different. I'm not saying Churchill shouldn't pay, btw, I'm just saying they have the right to ask the question. The fact in their favour: it was dark, there were no footpaths, she was on the wrong side of the road, she wasn't easy to see. If she's not experienced enough to get these things right, her legal guardian shouldn't be allowing her into to be there. I know easy to say and not practical, but legally it makes sense to me, hence the appeal makes sense to me.
Fallout you have no soul :(
dizzyblonde
07-02-13, 01:22 PM
Narrow country lanes come in many guises. For instance, a grass verge could literally be only a few inches wide, or a loose description of pavement be a cobbles width at the hedge.
Many NSL lanes are like this. They aren't meant for pedestrians they're meant for farm vehicles, and teenagers aren't expected to be waddling about in them, listening to gangnam style oblivious to their dangers.
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 01:30 PM
They are arguing she was partly at fault.
-Dark clothing
-Deliberately reduced awareness of surroundings
-Wrong side of road
-Owning a horse
All these factors may be small but with enough of them they are certainly contributory.
As for churchill, well I'd say given the chance of reduction in compo payout plus the public relations disaster... they should have spent their time in Bradford avoiding the fraudulent claims of 20 people in one datsun getting whiplash in a 2mph bump. Idiots. But not because they're wrong.
Many NSL lanes are like this. They aren't meant for pedestrians they're meant for farm vehicles,
So too small for a car and a lemming but fine for 20 tonnes of tractor and trailer?
Sir Trev
07-02-13, 01:36 PM
What I was taught at school and on TV from the age of about 5 was look left, look right, and cross when no traffic is coming.
There is a very real argument here for bringing back a modern equivalent of The Tufty Club and the Green Cross Giant. Google these if you're not old enough to remember them. Taught me a lot about keeping myself safe on the roads and pavements.
Si makes a good point about the parents allowing the girl to be in that situation which should be part of the final decision but I'd go further and suggest that the stables should be too. If they are in loco parentis of the girl while on their premises how come they let her walk off? Don't know enough to conclude here of course.
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 01:39 PM
At 13 we were old enough for camping, shooting, smoking and drinking heavily. Watching you don't get f***ing run over is not exactly hard even after 3 litres of white lighting.
I think people and the law seriously underestimates young people. I found it patronising and annoying at that age and still do!
don't mollycoddle, educate.
Fallout
07-02-13, 01:51 PM
Fallout you have no soul :(
That's besides the point! :rolleyes: But I think they should pay out mate, I'm just arguing they also have a case for appeal.
If it helps I definitely won't insure with Churchill now.
(There premiums will be much higher after this)
Spank86
07-02-13, 02:01 PM
I agree, but the law doesn't say you HAVE to walk facing oncoming traffic. I always walk facing oncoming traffic but when I was 13 I'm not sure I would have.
Doesnt say you cant sleep in the middle of the road either but if you do you've got to accept some responsiblity for getting hurt.
The law also says NSL road max speed is 60mph and theres nothing saying you cant go on verges. Nobodys saying the drivers not at fault, it's just this girl and her parents definitely have contributory negligence (IMHO, currently legally they don't).
In fact her parents have been MASSIVELY negligent.
EssexDave
07-02-13, 02:04 PM
To prove contributory negligence...
"The defendant must prove that the claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety and that this failure was a cause of their damage"
One of the over arching principles in tort law is foreseeability. E.g. Is it reasonable to foresee that harm may have come to the girl walking on a NSL road, in the dark,headphones in etc...
Lord Denning said "A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless".
This was taken to the extent that a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet is guilty of contributory negligence if they suffer head injuries in an accident. They should foresee harm to themselves.
It's not, I don't think, surprising that Churchill are appealing. Yes it's not good for PR, but I wouldn't be surprised if they rule at 25% (if they find she did contribute) which generally means a 25% less payout.
The interesting legal point here is her age and there are previous cases where a child has been held to NOT have contributed but an adult would have been.
a_monkey_hint
07-02-13, 02:20 PM
Doesnt say you cant sleep in the middle of the road either but if you do you've got to accept some responsiblity for getting hurt.
The law also says NSL road max speed is 60mph and theres nothing saying you cant go on verges. Nobodys saying the drivers not at fault, it's just this girl and her parents definitely have contributory negligence (IMHO, currently legally they don't).
In fact her parents have been MASSIVELY negligent.
Agreed.
Obviously we don't know full details regarding the actual incident. Although the girl was walking on the grass verge, she could have been waving her arms around or simply overhanging into the road, in which the car could have clipped her with a wing mirror.
Instead of waiting for her mother to collect her, she decided to walk home down the narrow, bending, unlit lane. She was listening to music on earphones.
If this was my daughter, there is no way in hell I would let her walk home down a dark NSL road with no footpath at 13! What about an adult at the stables - surely they should have some sense and have stopped her from putting herself in a dangerous position.
I've been in similar positions in the past - when hiking or camping and going to the pub, even after a few beers, when you see headlights and have no reflective gear, you throw yourself as deep into the hedgerow as you can!
Walking down a road, in non reflective gear, earphones, and against the flow of traffic - screams out she's partially to blame!
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 02:33 PM
I've been clipped with a wing mirror before, it bloody hurts but it doesn't turn you into a vegetable.
Fallout
07-02-13, 03:06 PM
I've been clipped with a wing mirror before, it bloody hurts but it doesn't turn you into a vegetable.
*wipes the dribble off Chris's chin*
Oh no. You're just fine. *sobs*
yorkie_chris
07-02-13, 03:14 PM
That's probably more to do with the 3l of white lightning.
Despicable. Literally can't believe this, don't they have a PR department who screamed WOOOOOOOOOAH when the big wigs suggested this?!
How to burn customer relations: 101.
Lord Denning said "A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless".
Yeah, but "he" is a young girl and "he" is pretty much a baby in the eyes of the big bad world, so "he" shouldn't be held one bit accountable for some prats inability to control his car.
Churchill will never get my business now. Hmmph.
As I understand it;
- the girl was walking in the road alongside a hedgerow
- she crossed over the road as she was coming up to a tight RH bend, so she would be more visible to traffic walking round the outside of the bend. The court thought this was reasonable.
- she was wearing headphones but, as cars were coming from both directions, the court decided she wouldn't have been able to discern the vehicle coming from the rear.
- it was 5:30 in December so dark but not quite pitch black. Other motorists had seen and avoided her.
- When the chap hit her, a car was coming towards him on a narrow road so he moved over to the far left of his lane but was still on the road. However, he didn't slow down
- With oncoming lights, and concentrating on avoiding the other car, he didn't see the girl (who was wearing dark clothing) and hit her pretty square - she hit her head on the windscreen.
- he stopped and searched for what he had hit, finding the girl in the hedgerow, which probably saved her life.
The driver is at fault but is he 100% at fault?
The two parties can't agree so the courts have to decide. Churchill have been granted leave to appeal because they may well have a point. Her age will be taken into account but the law doesn't see her as a feeble minded twit just because she was 13. It's also not sentimental.
She'll still get millions whatever the outcome.
Not great PR for Churchill though.
Spank86
07-02-13, 04:28 PM
Yeah, but "he" is a young girl and "he" is pretty much a baby in the eyes of the big bad world, so "he" shouldn't be held one bit accountable for some prats inability to control his car.
Sounds like the guys control of his car wasn't the issue. From reading the article the car went exactly where he meant it to, unfortunately there was a girl in the way.
And I was in a very similar position on a country road in my van at the start of january. I was driving along and literally couldn't see the guy who decided to wander into the road wearing nothing but dark grey and black clothing. I didn't hit him, but I would have done if he hadn't moved and I hadn't done a last minute swerve. Even then I was responding more to movement than actually seeing what I was trying to miss.
Whenever I'm walking in the dark (and at 5:30 in december it is dark enough at that time, won't get much darker most places) I'm hyper aware of lights in both directions, especially near corners.
Fallout
07-02-13, 04:36 PM
From all our mission walks back from the pub in our yooof, I can still remember us plodding up from Flowerdown to the roundabout; a long straight road, wide, good visibility, but dark. Even with the only guy wearing a white t-shirt in front, people would still suddenly swerve out after getting really quite close. We'd be there thinking ... "Have they seen us?".
Peds on country roads at night are not something you expect to see. You can't drive with ped caution everywhere you go. It doesn't work that way. A large part of driving is auto-pilot and instinct, no matter how hard you concentrate. Things out of the ordinary will always take time to process.
Also, it's just occurred to me if a car was coming the other way, it's possible he could never have seen her, no matter how slowly he was going due to being dazzled by headlights. In those conditions a person against a line of bushes would be invisible.
Spank86
07-02-13, 04:44 PM
Yup.
Sometimes we'd be a foot onto the verge and people would still swerve suddenly as they'd pick us out when their lights swept past.
It's very difficult to see exactly whats in front of you when you're suddenly presented with bright lights from another car and hammering the brakes is not the answer if you get it when on a corner. I did that once when I first learnt to drive and wound up slammed against a tree up a bank.
as stated previously the gov site does suggest crossing the road.
Spank86
07-02-13, 05:42 PM
Yeah, I prefer to look for lights at night. I'd imagine she saw the oncoming lights but didn't check behind her.
I have brighter, flashing lights on my bicycle purely because I ride a lot at night (less traffic) and I ride a lot of unlit lanes. When I see or hear there is a car anywhere near me I make sure I can be seen because I know from being a road user how dangerous it could be to not be seen on these fast blind roads. I think she is pretty stupid for using an iPod in such conditions, it's a key sense in these circumstances. He could have been more alert too, but it's a tough call.
Bluefish
07-02-13, 08:12 PM
surely as a pedestrian walking down an unlit country road at night it is your job to get out of the way of vehicles as much as it is theirs, common sence really, and wearing headphones is pure stupidity, so 50/50
EssexDave
07-02-13, 08:44 PM
Yeah, but "he" is a young girl and "he" is pretty much a baby in the eyes of the big bad world, so "he" shouldn't be held one bit accountable for some prats inability to control his car.
Churchill will never get my business now. Hmmph.
The law very rarely says "she" in legal principles. It is generally accepted that he refers to a male or a female unless specific mention is made of gender.
There is no problem with listening to music at sensible levels.
She was up on the verge.
How much more can be reasonably expected.
Some kind of leviation?
Having been reading about this for the last few days since it came out, my feelings on it are:
1) She may have been partially negligent. I would say that an adult in that situation would almost certainly be found to have been at least partially negligent, but her age is the factor that will swing it one way or the other.
2) Churchill, as TamSV stated, has the right to appeal. Vilifying them for using their legal rights is really quite unfair. Yes, it's also really unfair that the lives of so many people have been ruined as a result of this incident. However, this is not Churchill's fault. They have agreed to pay out - the issue at this point is how much they're going to pay out.
3) Their legal team clearly feels that the case has not been fully considered. I imagine that this particular circumstance (or one like it) hasn't been put through the courts yet, else their legal team wouldn't have bothered with the appeal. One thing that will come out of the appeal is a precedent, which will simplify any future cases that are similar.
4) With all the above in mind, I personally don't feel that the negative PR would be worth it in this case, and on this basis, I can't agree with them appealing. However, that opinion is based on reasoning, rather than visceral reaction to journalism which is biased in favour of the human element of the story.
Lord Denning said...
You have just become my forum hero for quoting one of my legal heroes in a place where I never expected to see him come up.
Fordward
07-02-13, 09:57 PM
tragic story all round
has the news article got it right - are they really appealing because she didn't wear hi-viz, or is it actually because she was wearing earphones and therefore negligent of her surroundings?
i wouldn't expect her to wear hi-viz, but when walking on a road with no pavement, awareness of your surroundings I would expect
on the flip side of the coin, would the driver be 100% liable if the girl had been a deaf person?
EssexDave
07-02-13, 10:18 PM
You have just become my forum hero for quoting one of my legal heroes in a place where I never expected to see him come up.
Denning is your legal hero :confused::confused: C'mon out of everyone...
Don't you hate his funky judgements? I quite like Denning, even if he did make company law crazy. Most people I know hate him.
EssexDave
07-02-13, 10:21 PM
tragic story all round
has the news article got it right - are they really appealing because she didn't wear hi-viz, or is it actually because she was wearing earphones and therefore negligent of her surroundings?
i wouldn't expect her to wear hi-viz, but when walking on a road with no pavement, awareness of your surroundings I would expect
on the flip side of the coin, would the driver be 100% liable if the girl had been a deaf person?
They're saying her actions contributed to the accident/extent of the damage.
The best defense the girl can have is, she was 13 and should not be expected to act like an adult (which has worked before with a 13 year old and truck case).
Put yourself in the driver's shoes. You come round a bend on a dark, NSL road. You see a girl and try to swerve but it's too late and you hit her.
She has no lights, is on the 'wrong side of the road', listening to music not really paying attention to you.
Churchill should pay out, for sure, as people have said, they have agreed to. But, it seems to me that they are doing nothing wrong.
It is, regardless of all the above, a tragic case.
there is no law that states pedestrians have to wear hi-viz clothing while walking in the dark on unlit roads so Churchill can go take their noddy dog for a walk. any judge even contemplating letting churchill use that as an excuse should be taken out and shot.
poor wee lass. her life is now ruined.
Spank86
08-02-13, 10:02 AM
there is no law that states pedestrians have to wear hi-viz clothing while walking in the dark on unlit roads so Churchill can go take their noddy dog for a walk. any judge even contemplating letting churchill use that as an excuse should be taken out and shot.
poor wee lass. her life is now ruined.
But this isn't about the specific laws. There's no law that says you can't do 50mph in a 60mph limit. However the judge decided that that it was too fast for the conditions hence why the driver was responsible (according to the article). This is about where responsibility for the accident lies and Churchill are merely saying that they don't think that it's 100% with the driver.
With a long experience of walking, driving, and working down country lanes I tend to agree.
Fallout
08-02-13, 10:05 AM
After all this debate I feel the responsibility lies with her guardians and the driver, not her. I don't even let my Mrs walk 5 minutes down the road at night by herself. Couldn't imagine letting my 13 year old daughter do that trek. I would've made it absolutely clear she was not to do that. And that's not with the benefit of hindsight. I know for a fact I would've said that before the possibility of her doing that had even arisen in conversation.
Spank86
08-02-13, 10:08 AM
I would have got away with doing it once at that age.
Then my mum would have gone mental at me and it wouldn't have happened again.
The NSL doesn't mean you have to do that speed.
The road between our two villages is nsl .
push bikes use it and people on foot .
Its pot hole ally . trees on parts are up to road edges.
If you draft enough or have no choice to go along it your taking a big risk.
If you went 60 mph you can't see your stopping distance 40% of the time.
add in night time dark cars headless bouncing and this likely daxzzels you as they approach. Even a push bike with flashing lets hi vis be hard to spot .
That's why you have to slow down ...
Spank86
08-02-13, 10:48 AM
I'm aware of that, I'm just countering bibs assertion that there's no law about wearing hi-viz.
This isn't a case about what is required in the specifics of any law.
Fordward
08-02-13, 11:54 AM
i walked down country lanes at all times of day and night at the age of 13 and also cycled up to 25 miles away from home, we have gotten much more protective of our kids, not sure the dangers have changed a lot just we've gotten more aware of them
think most people seem to agree she shouldn't be held partially liable for not wearing hi-viz, but to wear earphones was silly (though not surprising that a 13yr old would do a silly thing)
nobody commented on what i asked though - if you think the girl was partially at fault because of the earphones, would that opinion change if the driver had hit a deaf person? would he then be 100% liable?
Fallout
08-02-13, 12:19 PM
nobody commented on what i asked though - if you think the girl was partially at fault because of the earphones, would that opinion change if the driver had hit a deaf person? would he then be 100% liable?
Not in my opinion. If you have a disability you have the responsibility to take that into account, unless it's a mental disability and you're incapable of doing so. A person in a wheelchair on a country lane should have the sense to realise they can't get onto the verge and therefore are in a lot of danger. Similarly a deaf person should have the sense to realise they can't hear danger so need to be more vigilant.
Being incapable of something doesn't mean you shirk the responsibility for the difficulties it causes you imo.
Replace "wheelchair" with "bicycle" or "horse" or even "Family on bicycles" in your statement are then look how crazy that statement is.
It is up to the driver to drive within the limits of his vision and to be alert enough to respond to road hazards should they arise.
Fallout
08-02-13, 03:02 PM
I'm not absolving the driver of responsibility, I'm saying the other party has to take responsibility for their own safety too. The idea that, if you were deaf, you just forget about the added dangers because it's the driver's responsibility to look out for you is just crazy.
When I ride the bike I consider it my responsibility to avoid plebs on the road, especially if I'm doing something out of the ordinary like filtering. If you think you can just wing down a back country lane in a wheelchair and expect drivers to anticipate this, then you're smoking something funny imo.
I don't really get how people can believe this ideal world exists where all drivers can possibly have impeccable judgement and patience all the time, perfectly estimating their stopping distance on every bend based on weather condition and view distance; always stopping dead whenever slightly dazzled by headlights, just in case someone is on the verge and they can't see them etc. It's just not possible, and because its not possible to get it right all the time, it's up to the other party to accept that danger and take the right precautions to keep themselves safe.
Replace "wheelchair" with "bicycle" or "horse" or even "Family on bicycles" in your statement are then look how crazy that statement is.
It is up to the driver to drive within the limits of his vision and to be alert enough to respond to road hazards should they arise.
I'd say Fallout's comment still stands.
All road users, including pedestrians, have a responsibility for their own safety and that of others. They should all be aware of the risks and act reasonably. It's not just up to drivers to avoid them.
Fordward
08-02-13, 03:09 PM
of course there are requirements on both driver and pedestrian to be alert
anyone can find themselves in a situation where they have to walk down a dark country lane, for instance if their car breaks down, i just wondered if danger through necessity, rather than danger through stupidity, would change peoples perspective on the pedestrian
from the drivers perspective of course, it makes no difference, does it say anywhere whether he was prosecuted?
does it say anywhere whether he was prosecuted?
He wasn't.
I can still hear a car when im listeming to music on me phone.
Who says she could not hear the car?
fizzwheel
08-02-13, 04:37 PM
All road users, including pedestrians, have a responsibility for their own safety and that of others. They should all be aware of the risks and act reasonably. It's not just up to drivers to avoid them.
That would be my take on it if we were talking about an Adult. But we arent expecting a 13 year old child to be aware of this kinda stuff, is to much
If I have understood the article correctly, she was told to wait where she was by her parents and decided not to and walk home. I dont really think theres anybody to blame here, it was an accident plain and simple.
I see adults all the time around here on pushbikes with no lights in dark clothing, and pedestrians / dog walkers in dark clothing on a shared use cycle path that are impossible to spot until you are almost about to crash into them and thats when I'm travelling at 10 - 15mph...
I dont cycle with headphones on. Even at low level I cant hear the traffic around me and its surprising how much you use your hearing to increase your awareness of whats around you...
That would be my take on it if we were talking about an Adult. But we arent expecting a 13 year old child to be aware of this kinda stuff, is to much
I think that's what the case hinges on.
If it was an adult there would almost certainly be contributory negligence. If it was a very small child there certainly wouldn't be.
At 13 she's somewhere in the middle. We don't expect the average 13 year old to have the same road sense as a 25 year old, but probably more than the average 6 year old.
Spank86
08-02-13, 04:54 PM
i
nobody commented on what i asked though - if you think the girl was partially at fault because of the earphones, would that opinion change if the driver had hit a deaf person? would he then be 100% liable?
If the deaf person was hit from behind seemingly unaware of the car I'd say they would still be partly responsible.
Assuming they knew they were deaf of course.
yorkie_chris
08-02-13, 10:55 PM
If he'd hit a fallen tree or something we'd have all gone "kn*bhead"...
Fordward
09-02-13, 03:06 PM
He wasn't.
doesnt that say something about his liability? if he wasn't prosecuted surely the police or CPS dont think he has any case to answer? i always wonder with news articles whether we have all the facts, or just a lot of spin
Fallout
09-02-13, 03:25 PM
doesnt that say something about his liability? if he wasn't prosecuted surely the police or CPS dont think he has any case to answer? i always wonder with news articles whether we have all the facts, or just a lot of spin
Do you really wonder that, especially when the news article is on the dailymail website? :D
dizzyblonde
09-02-13, 04:44 PM
At 13 she's somewhere in the middle. We don't expect the average 13 year old to have the same road sense as a 25 year old, but probably more than the average 6 year old.
At 11 years old, my eldest is about to begin high school in September. For the last year he has been walking to school on his own. This involves him crossing a busy road, and using his noddle to get to school and back safely. In September he is expected to walk across several roads on his quest to get too and from school safely, some far far busier than the one he currently uses.
The point is, at 13 kids are usually pretty road safe, some go miles away to high school. Granted they aren't as savvy as a 25 yr old, but given the level of responsibility getting to school, I'd give most more credit for being road safe.
You could almost assume horsey girl got chauffeured everywhere, so was possibly a bit dim to her surroundings.
MisterTommyH
09-02-13, 07:29 PM
This may be a bit picky, but I don't think we should be comparing her to a 25 years old.....
We allow 16/17 year olds to operate vehicles on the road - she was 3 years away from being able to do this. This isn't me making any comment on the allocation of fault in this case, but please let's not talk as if this girl was unaware of danger.
13 years olds should have a good appreciation of danger / common sense. Even much younger children I know are taught to stay away from roads unless there is an adult there.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.