how not to filter and make friends with pedestrians

[NTECUK]

Er bit lucky he didn't get his butt in the claims court
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FydJucnb2Rk

FydJucnb2Rk

[SvNewbie]

Bit surprised he didn't see her, I'm assuming the camera is above his eye line though.

But I'm not sure why you would expect him to end up in claims court, she clearly ran into the road. Any 3 year old will tell you, stop look and listen. She failed on all 3 counts.

[Sid Squid]

Why? He's not doing anything illegal, and she ran into traffic without looking. They're in the road, not on the pavement.

It's quite true to say that his obs should have been good enough to have seen that coming, she's quite clearly looking in the other direction and is hurrying, but that doesn't absolve her of her responsibility to pay attention when walking into the road, and in traffic too!
Note also the hopelessly predictable and lazy accusation of his speeding - she hadn't even seen him, how could she have been able to judge how fast he was going? If he had been travelling at any speed she wouldn't just have got up and hurried away.

[Bibio]

biker needs to wake up. no wonder more and more bikers end up in hospital or dead. atrocious awareness skills.

[NTECUK]

The police may not consider it 100% there fault. As you are supposed to be scanning widely for pedestrians and all other hazards. In areas where you "can't" see, you are supposed to slow down enough that you can stop for any sudden change. Imagine if it had been a small child.

[SvNewbie]

Had it have been a small child they would have got hit, knocked down, got up, cried and learned an important life lesson. I'd guess his speed was about 15mph which is hardly irresponsible.

Edit: he reckons 20mph when he first stops. Still.

[yokohama]

I would have been slowing down 20 yards earlier at the junction on the right...just in case white van man tried to pull out in front of me...... or maybe I'm too soft and careful for filtering.

[Mr Speirs]

Oops I just walked into the road with out looking like a proper turnip, better turn this around quickly to put blame onto him then to a runner

'Could you go any faster?'

Nailed it

[21QUEST]

The lady was at fault imo. I'd be pretty annoyed if I was injured and/or my bike got damaged as a result a pedestrian being stupid.

On the other hand , the rider hasn't go much of a clue.
He's in good company though as 99.9% of riders I see on the road, ride in a similar fashion.

If you are going to filter at 20 mph, then use your brain and eyes.

[DJFridge]

50/50 in my humble opinion. She should have been looking where she was going, but the rider really should have seen her heading behind the Focus and at least slowed a bit in case she kept going. Fair play to him for trying to catch up and make sure she was alright though.

[Bibio]

i hate to say this but a pedestrian is NEVER at fault, full stop end of. it's up to motorist to be alert and aware of what is around them at ALL times. its not the USA we live in there is no such law as jaywalking in the UK.

head up, eyes open and brain on. that biker was clearly head down, tunnel vision and brain off.

[Luckypants]

While I will agree that the rider should have been more alert and seen what was happening, I will not agree that it is his fault. The pedestrian stepped into a roadway where there was traffic (the bike) which had right of way and caused an accident - she is 'at fault' IMO.

[NTECUK]

Well regards another SV members experience re collisions with pedestrians
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=202107&highlight=ACCIDENT

lesson to learn here. If your going to hit someone due to their ignorance do it in a car and do it properly. So if your going to loss your no claims bonus make the most of it. Darwin's evolution applies. We all know well that I could have easily broken bones and got bad injuries and got F*** all for it as i am third party and people would still have no sympathy for a young 24 male biker.

But happily feel sorry for a young 25 blonde bimbo of a mother. But there you go its reality. None the less NCB gone.

But in all seriousness other countries are much worse of accidents so I tend to feel happy I dont have a missing leg .

"The pedestrian stepped into a roadway where there was traffic (the bike) which had right of way and caused an accident - she is 'at fault' IMO.

The Highway code disagrees (https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158)
1. Overview

This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

[Ch00]

12 seconds in you can see her if your really looking

14 seconds if your looking about

16 seconds You should have seen her

17 seconds too late

18 seconds Boom

[NTECUK]

Its not about right or wrong
Its about your NCD and license the heart ache and hassles

[DJFridge]

i hate to say this but a pedestrian is NEVER at fault, full stop end of. it's up to motorist to be alert and aware of what is around them at ALL times. its not the USA we live in there is no such law as jaywalking in the UK.

head up, eyes open and brain on. that biker was clearly head down, tunnel vision and brain off.

I have to disagree with the word NEVER. If you walk out into traffic without looking, you have contributed toward the accident. Little children are taught never to walk out from between parked cars for good reason. Had he been driving, and without the height and visibility advantage of a bike, it would have looked entirely her fault because she would have literally appeared without warning. As it was, the rider bears some responsibility because he should have seen her. It doesn't make the walking out any less stupid though.

[Luckypants]

I realise the Highway code does not give me right of way. The LAW however does and if you are in a roadway you have right of way over traffic entering it and that includes pedestrians. You point out the Highway code section for vehicles, I'll point out the section for pedestrians https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 and rule one specifically states to look both ways before stepping into the road. I understand why drivers of vehicles should be more vigilant BUT all road users have a responsibility to check it is safe to make a manoeuvre. As soon as she stepped into the road she is a road user.

Feel free to point out the law / case law that makes me a liar here, but in the absence of that she is in the wrong. She knows she is in the wrong too as she does one after jumping up.

[The Idle Biker]

Not a bad looking bird that.

[dkid]

The woman's reaction after the collision speaks volumes IMO. She can't wait to get the hell outta there, likely through feeling very embarrassed. I bet that getting hit by that bike bloody hurt but she was up and gone pretty darn quick.

Most pedestrians who had just been struck by a vehicle would likely want to remonstrate with the rider and probably get his details as well as those of the witness' to file a compo claim for injuries sustained (real or not).

[Biker Biggles]

i hate to say this but a pedestrian is NEVER at fault, full stop end of. it's up to motorist to be alert and aware of what is around them at ALL times. its not the USA we live in there is no such law as jaywalking in the UK.

head up, eyes open and brain on. that biker was clearly head down, tunnel vision and brain off.

Not just,fair or right but I fear Bibio may be correct.Somewhere in the depths of my befuddled brain I seem to recall that the law now makes an insured motor vehicle automatically liable for paying out to a pedestrian or cyclist injured in an RTA.This because otherwise no one would be liable for their injuries,so the state would have to support them.Or did I make that up?
As for the OP,there was definitely poor obs there,but the incident was caused by the dozy pedestrian.If another motor vehicle had pulled out without looking there would be no doubt,but as it was a meandering old woman I think the verdict might go the other way.

[NTECUK]

I realise the Highway code does not give me right of way. The LAW however does and if you are in a roadway you have right of way over traffic.

Feel free to point out the law / case law that makes me a liar here, but in the absence of that she is in the wrong. She knows she is in the wrong too as she does one after jumping up.
Not saying you lie.
What I'm saying is that if you try to exercise your right of way and be fall a loss.the other party are not wholly responsible.

The origin of it comes from the days of hoarse draw carriages.
We did it as part of the operators license qualifications studies.back in the 80 's
And before you ask I was'nt there...

[Balky001]

If you filter you pay attention. Just because pedestrians are soft doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of them. Most accidents aren't just 1 persons fault though and both contributed to the collision.
i
The pedestrian got up in shock and walked off IMO, not because she felt guilty. She'll be sore tomorrow though

[Mrs DJ Fridge]

They are both at fault, he should have seen her because she was definitely visible, therefore she should have seen him for the same reason. I do agree with the comment that she may have felt some embarrassment or fault because she did not stop, he did at least try to see if she was ok.

[Dipper]

Not just,fair or right but I fear Bibio may be correct.Somewhere in the depths of my befuddled brain I seem to recall that the law now makes an insured motor vehicle automatically liable for paying out to a pedestrian or cyclist injured in an RTA.This because otherwise no one would be liable for their injuries,so the state would have to support them.Or did I make that up?

AFAIK not law in the UK or likely to be apparently, however it has been considered as I believe this is the case now in some other European states.

[cb1000rsteve]

I commute on that road quite often and it is a nice wide road with plenty of space for filtering and gives great vision. I would suggest this guy is a new rider as he is riding a cbf125. The accident was totally avoidable and the lady was wearing bright clothing. Both in the wrong really, she should of looked before passing stationary cars especially as York is over run with stupid cyclists who filter at stupid speeds in stupid places. (There r good cyclists too). Motorcyclists should of had better obs, and should of slowed for the van pulling up to junction and been a bit more vigilant.
Ps tough old bird. Bounced off bike hit floor n car then walked off! Boss

[ophic]

Everyone watches out for people doing stupid things, but you shouldn't be held responsible for someone else doing something stupid.

The old lady was stupid. Walked into road without looking. Her fault, simple. If she wasn't stupid, the situation would not have arisen.

Whilst we do try our best, if there's several people doing stupid things on the road at the same time, it's impossible to watch them all. Therefore the onus has to be on people not to do stupid things! And for all we try to avoid them, someone will come along doing something so stupid that there's nothing you can do.

For all we know the biker was momentarily distracted by something stupid happening somewhere outside the field of view of the camera. Even if his observations suck, this accident was not his fault in any way.

I actually thought he did a pretty good job of braking down to a slow enough speed that the old lady only got knocked over, whilst staying upright.

[Luckypants]

Not saying you lie.

I was using a figure of speech, meaning if you prove me wrong it makes me 'a liar' - no offence was taken or intended.

So far everyone saying the pedestrian always has right of way has not backed that up with evidence to back that up. If a pedestrian steps out into traffic without looking, they are at fault as far as I'm concerned until proven otherwise. :p

[NTECUK]

So far everyone saying the pedestrian always has right of way has not backed that up with evidence to back that up. If a pedestrian steps out into traffic without looking, they are at fault as far as I'm concerned until proven otherwise. :p

It's not so much a right of way issue.
It's exerting your rights of way, and how it's treatment is received.
Remember . The incident with the girl who stepped in the road one of our forum hit.
Clearly had a right of way. But still got a claim from the girl.
You can say that the woman din't look, but she may have looked and expected the bike to be moving slower. And miss judges the dash cross the road.

[ophic]

And miss judges the dash cross the road.
Misjudges, ie makes a mistake. And that makes it her fault.

[Bibio]

if this was in the hazard perception test then the biker would have failed, why? due to being able to see the hazard unfold. if the camera seen it then the biker should have seen it and failure to see it makes the biker at fault due to not paying 'due care and attention'. it makes no odds that it was a pedestrian as it still contributes as a hazard.

the pedestrian is not a road user as they have not had to pass a test to be able to walk along the street or cross the road no matter what the green x code states as the green x code is not a law it's advice and pedestrians are not required to read the highway code. being in control of a vehicle requires you to have a licence and with that licence comes rules and laws regarding its use which are set out in the highway code but not limited to.

the traffic was stationary so the pedestrian decided using their own judgement to cross the road. the biker was filtering so should have been paying extra care to how they were driving/riding due to increased hazards, knocking the pedestrian down shows that the biker was not paying attention.

the only time that a pedestrian does not have right of way is on a motorway and some dual carriageways as there are signs stating that no pedestrians, horse drawn carriages, cyclists or motor vehicles under 50cc are permitted.

[NTECUK]

Also he needs a loud pipe.

He's also quite trusting going at that pase.
Trust no one

[TamSV]

In any accident between a vehicle and a pedestrian, the driver of the vehicle will be assumed to be primarily at fault. As the operator of the "lethal weapon" drivers have to exercise a higher degree of care and should be on the lookout for pedestrians in the road (Eagle v Chambers)

This doesn't absolve the pedestrian of all blame and in appropriate cases they'll only receive a proportion of damages after contributory negligence is taken into account. See Wells v Trinder (some similarities to this case) and Lightfoot v Go-Ahead (p1ssed bloke v bus). It's certainly possible that a grossly negligent pedestrian could be found entirely at fault but legal precedent is weighted in their favour.

"Right of Way" surely just suggests the priority of traffic. It doesn't give you the right to barrel through all obstacles in your path, even when some of those obstacles are stupid.

[Amadeus]

I started cringing as soon as I saw the speed he was filtering at.

It's cases like this where I think obesity could be a good thing - softer landings for all.

[ophic]

"Right of Way" surely just suggests the priority of traffic. It doesn't give you the right to barrel through all obstacles in your path, even when some of those obstacles are stupid.
I wasn't suggesting this. I was merely pointing out that stupid people do stupid things and you can't be expected to make allowances for all of them.

The fact that no test is required to be a pedestrian isn't really relevant. You also don't need to pass a test to be a cyclist yet you can still be at fault in a collision. You don't need to pass a test to step outside your own front door or to wield power tools and yet some folks can't do either safely.

I agree his observation could have been better. I still don't think he should be blamed for running into a pedestrian who stepped out without looking.

[ophic]

if this was in the hazard perception test then the biker would have failed
I've not done a real hazard perception test as I passed my test before they were introduced, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you only had to spot a certain percentage of the hazards to pass? So you can completely miss certain hazards and still gain a valid drivers licence.

[Luckypants]

See Wells v Trinder (some similarities to this case) and Lightfoot v Go-Ahead (p1ssed bloke v bus). It's certainly possible that a grossly negligent pedestrian could be found entirely at fault but legal precedent is weighted in their favour.

Thank you TamSV this is the evidence I was looking for, a quick Google shows up that even if the pedestrian is drunk, not looking or just plain stupid the driver of a motor vehicle is likely to be held responsible for damages by way of case law. Thank you. This seems contrary to natural justice to me, but so many things in the UK are! In the case of the video I think it would show contributory negligence by the pedestrian but rider at fault because he failed to spot her by this case law. Not what I consider fair or just but there you go.

[TamSV]

I think the courts have tried to be fair here but have maybe gone too far in the pedestrians favour. In terms of driving a vehicle versus being a pedestrian I can appreciate a higher standard is expected when it comes to the safety of others, but pedestrians still need to have some responsibility for their own safety when walking on the road. Some of this case law seems to treat them like children.


Still, as you say, lots of things aren't fair. I got a lad in the office to look up that case law and he's really busy while I'm swinging the lead on here. Where's the fairness in that? :)

[Neeja]

Still, as you say, lots of things aren't fair. I got a lad in the office to look up that case law and he's really busy while I'm swinging the lead on here. Where's the fairness in that? :)

Cor blimey. I'd do that job for you all day...
(says the guy waiting on PO5 results...)

[socommk23]

A lot of you are talking about right n wrong and whos to blame. Its simple.....the pedestrian put herself in the way if moving traffic! Its her fault. Plain and simple. Case closed!

How ever the law...rights of way...whos insured....this may all be written differently for individual legal reasons. But thats what clouds every incident that can have a claim against an individual.

Regardless......if law was not involved and people agreed that roads were for traffuc....footpaths are for pedestrians......then when one interact with the other they are responcible for doing so without bringing risk to the other.


You dont see schools getti g sued for a child tripping up on the play groud? The school put the playground there. But the child chose to play on it.

[Neeja]

A lot of you are talking about right n wrong and whos to blame. Its simple.....the pedestrian put herself in the way if moving traffic! Its her fault. Plain and simple. Case closed!

No it isn't case closed - see Tam's above quoted legal cases which show otherwise. The pedestrian contributed to the situation, so any damages that she managed to claim for injury would be reduced due to contributory negligence, but this does not absolve the rider of blame in the eyes of the law. Incidentally, as many people have pointed out, the rider clearly wasn't observing properly. Yes, she dashed out, but watching out for pedestrians stepping between cars is something that everyone should do while filtering.

You dont see schools getti g sued for a child tripping up on the play groud? The school put the playground there. But the child chose to play on it.

You do when the school has been negligent which caused the trip. Saying that the school put the playground there but the child chose to play on it and therefore can't sue for any trips at all is completely false; it ignores the law of tort completely.

By that logic, the highways agency put the roads in place and the council maintains it, cars choose to drive on it, so they can't sue when the road surface is defective causing damage to the cars. This is completely untrue; people sue for damage caused by potholes all the time (with varying degrees of success).

When you're looking at claims for these types of incidents, you're looking at claims under the tort of nuisance. For a claim to be valid, the claimant must prove that a duty of care was owed towards them, that the duty was breached, and that they have suffered injury/damage as a result.

On the road, ALL drivers have a duty to behave as a competent driver should. A competent motorcyclist, while filtering, should be actively looking for pedestrians who may cross between cars. It seems fairly obvious from the video that the pedestrian could be seen - though the camera could be as much as 20cm higher than the eyeline of the rider, so it's difficult to tell.

Therefore, you have a situation where the rider owes a duty (to behave competently, including watching for pedestrians while filtering), this duty was breached (he clearly didn't observe correctly), and injury resulted (he hit her, presumably causing minor injuries). Therefore, there would probably be a successful claim.

However, as the pedestrian did not perform proper checks, it is likely that damages would be very severely reduced, as she would be found to be contributorily negligent. This does NOT mean that the initial claim would fail; just that her payout would be massively reduced.

However, the rider COULD rely on Sam v Atkins, which is a relatively recent case, where a van driver was held to owe no duty of care to a pedestrian who stepped out in front of him without looking. However, in this case it was proven that there was absolutely zero chance of the van driver seeing the pedestrian due to the surrounding traffic which was all much taller than the van, and the van driver taking the sensible precaution of travelling at an appropriate speed. It seems that this case wouldn't apply here, as the rider should have been able to see the pedestrian based on the video.

[steady2wheels]

'a pedestrian is NEVER at fault, full stop end of'. That is a dumb and lazy black and white way of looking at things. The woman completely failed at even attempting to look at whether it was safe to cross. Personally If it was me filtering yes i would have been travelling slower and more cautiously but at the same time people need to respect that roads are full of heavy pieces of fast moving metal. It is common sense

[flymo]

ha ha, daft cow

[kiggles]

Stupid pedestrians!

always getting in the way

[socommk23]

No it isn't case closed - see Tam's above quoted legal cases which show otherwise. The pedestrian contributed to the situation, so any damages that she managed to claim for injury would be reduced due to contributory negligence, but this does not absolve the rider of blame in the eyes of the law. Incidentally, as many people have pointed out, the rider clearly wasn't observing properly. Yes, she dashed out, but watching out for pedestrians stepping between cars is something that everyone should do while filtering.



You do when the school has been negligent which caused the trip. Saying that the school put the playground there but the child chose to play on it and therefore can't sue for any trips at all is completely false; it ignores the law of tort completely.

By that logic, the highways agency put the roads in place and the council maintains it, cars choose to drive on it, so they can't sue when the road surface is defective causing damage to the cars. This is completely untrue; people sue for damage caused by potholes all the time (with varying degrees of success).

When you're looking at claims for these types of incidents, you're looking at claims under the tort of nuisance. For a claim to be valid, the claimant must prove that a duty of care was owed towards them, that the duty was breached, and that they have suffered injury/damage as a result.

On the road, ALL drivers have a duty to behave as a competent driver should. A competent motorcyclist, while filtering, should be actively looking for pedestrians who may cross between cars. It seems fairly obvious from the video that the pedestrian could be seen - though the camera could be as much as 20cm higher than the eyeline of the rider, so it's difficult to tell.

Therefore, you have a situation where the rider owes a duty (to behave competently, including watching for pedestrians while filtering), this duty was breached (he clearly didn't observe correctly), and injury resulted (he hit her, presumably causing minor injuries). Therefore, there would probably be a successful claim.

However, as the pedestrian did not perform proper checks, it is likely that damages would be very severely reduced, as she would be found to be contributorily negligent. This does NOT mean that the initial claim would fail; just that her payout would be massively reduced.

However, the rider COULD rely on Sam v Atkins, which is a relatively recent case, where a van driver was held to owe no duty of care to a pedestrian who stepped out in front of him without looking. However, in this case it was proven that there was absolutely zero chance of the van driver seeing the pedestrian due to the surrounding traffic which was all much taller than the van, and the van driver taking the sensible precaution of travelling at an appropriate speed. It seems that this case wouldn't apply here, as the rider should have been able to see the pedestrian based on the video.

You completely missed my point.

Regardless of "legality" or how its written.....common sense tells you the old tart jumped into moving traffic without looking. Her fault!

But I guess there is nothing less common than common sense nowadays when people want to shift blame any way they can.

[Neeja]

You completely missed my point.

Regardless of "legality" or how its written.....common sense tells you the old tart jumped into moving traffic without looking. Her fault!

But I guess there is nothing less common than common sense nowadays when people want to shift blame any way they can.

So to be clear: You think that riders while filtering only have an obligation to look for people who also look for riders?

The video seems fairly clear: Proper observation would have avoided the accident. Yes, she didn't look; neither did the rider. But common sense says we should shift all of the blame to the pedestrian, no?

Incidentally, why are you directing a gender-based insult at her? What did she ever do to you that gives you the right to call her an "old tart"?

[socommk23]

So to be clear: You think that riders while filtering only have an obligation to look for people who also look for riders?

The video seems fairly clear: Proper observation would have avoided the accident. Yes, she didn't look; neither did the rider. But common sense says we should shift all of the blame to the pedestrian, no?

Incidentally, why are you directing a gender-based insult at her? What did she ever do to you that gives you the right to call her an "old tart"?

Yes the biker should be looking out better. But you forget that the camera is mounted ontop of his helmet and has a better view ahead than the rider himself. He managed to stop in enough time to actually stop at point of impact rather than going through her! And conciderig she "ran" out rather than slowly ponder out into his path....I think he done pretty well concidering.
Why you have to shift the argument to my gender based reference to the "old tart" (though I believe a man can be called a tart just as well....so moot point really) makes me think your argument is weak and you know it.

[Neeja]

Yes the biker should be looking out better. But you forget that the camera is mounted ontop of his helmet and has a better view ahead than the rider himself. He managed to stop in enough time to actually stop at point of impact rather than going through her! And conciderig she "ran" out rather than slowly ponder out into his path....I think he done pretty well concidering.

In no way did I neglect this point:
It seems fairly obvious from the video that the pedestrian could be seen - though the camera could be as much as 20cm higher than the eyeline of the rider, so it's difficult to tell.
Even considering this, I still think that the rider could have done more. However, thank you for conceding that the rider should be looking out better.

Why you have to shift the argument to my gender based reference to the "old tart" (though I believe a man can be called a tart just as well....so moot point really) makes me think your argument is weak and you know it.
If my argument is weak, why are you now agreeing with it? My entire argument was that the pedestrian didn't take reasonable care, but the rider could have done more and could have avoided the accident. Incidentally, if you're going to play this line, your argument was so weak that you had to resort to reducing an injured woman to an "old tart" to depersonalize her so that it's easier to agree with your point of view. It's easy to sling back and forth instead of looking at what's actually being said, isn't it?

As the rider is the one who is going to plough several hundreds of kilos of metal into someone, he surely has more of a duty to pay attention. Consider an incident where both a pedestrian crossing the road and a driver travelling along a road were both staring at the sky. The pedestrian is now dead. Are you telling me that the pedestrian is at fault (case closed, as you put it), for stepping into the road?

[yorkie_chris]

Incidentally, why are you directing a gender-based insult at her? What did she ever do to you that gives you the right to call her an "old tart"?

I once called someone a "dopey ****ing slag" for walking out in front of me in her own world sending a text.

The fact that she put my safety at risk from nothing more than laziness and stupidity. The fact that she was wearing a tracksuit and those stupid furry boots? The fact that she was mind warpingly ugly? I mean a proper 15 pinter and then some ugly.

I think she got off lightly being nearly run over and called a slag, in a righteous world people like that would be sterilised with the sharp end of a spade.



I bloody hate this pedestrian compo bollox, if you get run over by being an idiot you should get 3/5ths of bugger all. It's not like these muppets have insurance to pay to let them get to work is it...

Where is "the line" for buggering off and not leaving details? My take on it is they have one chance for it if they look at all shifty or in any way like something off shameless then I'm off like a greased weasel with the barest plausible deniability of them not asking for details.

[21QUEST]

In no way did I neglect this point:

Even considering this, I still think that the rider could have done more. However, thank you for conceding that the rider should be looking out better.


If my argument is weak, why are you now agreeing with it? My entire argument was that the pedestrian didn't take reasonable care, but the rider could have done more and could have avoided the accident. Incidentally, if you're going to play this line, your argument was so weak that you had to resort to reducing an injured woman to an "old tart" to depersonalize her so that it's easier to agree with your point of view. It's easy to sling back and forth instead of looking at what's actually being said, isn't it?

As the rider is the one who is going to plough several hundreds of kilos of metal into someone, he surely has more of a duty to pay attention. Consider an incident where both a pedestrian crossing the road and a driver travelling along a road were both staring at the sky. The pedestrian is now dead. Are you telling me that the pedestrian is at fault (case closed, as you put it), for stepping into the road?
Hi Neeja,

I'd love to come back to thread when and if I have a bit of time on my hands but if I may....could I ask "how do you know the dozy daft cow ;) was injured in the incident?"

I so agree with the thrust of socommk23's take.

[ophic]

As the rider is the one who is going to plough several hundreds of kilos of metal into someone, he surely has more of a duty to pay attention.
This is where duty and incentive part company. Surely if the pedestrian is prepared to effectively commit suicide by stepping into the path of several hundred kilos of oncoming metal, who else should give 2 hoots?

[21QUEST]

I once called someone a "dopey ****ing slag" for walking out in front of me in her own world sending a text.

The fact that she put my safety at risk from nothing more than laziness and stupidity. The fact that she was wearing a tracksuit and those stupid furry boots? The fact that she was mind warpingly ugly? I mean a proper 15 pinter and then some ugly.

I think she got off lightly being nearly run over and called a slag, in a righteous world people like that would be sterilised with the sharp end of a spade.



I bloody hate this pedestrian compo bollox, if you get run over by being an idiot you should get 3/5ths of bugger all. It's not like these muppets have insurance to pay to let them get to work is it...

Where is "the line" for buggering off and not leaving details? My take on it is they have one chance for it if they look at all shifty or in any way like something off shameless then I'm off like a greased weasel with the barest plausible deniability of them not asking for details.
...like a Boss :D

I think you just said what a lot of folks actually think but are too scared/worried/too PC to say .

[NTECUK]

Sometimes filtering in a town slowly can also save you money.
Either right or wrong there is always a injury claims company looking to make money.
And a fact is your going to be spending money, either from you or your NCD .
Mark's experience of going along a 30mph with a long que on his righ shows how painful it can be.

[ophic]

Sometimes filtering in a town slowly can also save you money.
Either right or wrong there is always a injury claims company looking to make money.
And a fact is your going to be spending money, either from you or your NCD .
Mark's experience of going along a 30mph with a long que on his righ shows how painful it can be.
This I agree with. My observations are to spot what might be a risk to me. Now I would say that any obstacle jumping out in front of me, including a dopey pedestrian, is definitely in this category. However this is entirely self preservation and not out of some misplaced duty to halfwits who step into roads without looking!

[NTECUK]

This I agree with. My observations are to spot what might be a risk to me. Now I would say that any obstacle jumping out in front of me, including a dopey pedestrian, is definitely in this category. However this is entirely self preservation and not out of some misplaced duty to halfwits who step into roads without looking!

This is the way it unfortunately has to be.
Only the school of hard knocks can tech you why its important

[Neeja]

could I ask "how do you know the dozy daft cow ;) was injured in the incident?"

The same way that socommk23 knew she was an old tart. The difference is that I was putting a human spin on her while socomm was depersonalizing her.

I once called someone a "dopey ****ing slag" for walking out in front of me in her own world sending a text.

The fact that she put my safety at risk from nothing more than laziness and stupidity. The fact that she was wearing a tracksuit and those stupid furry boots? The fact that she was mind warpingly ugly? I mean a proper 15 pinter and then some ugly.

I think she got off lightly being nearly run over and called a slag, in a righteous world people like that would be sterilised with the sharp end of a spade.

I bloody hate this pedestrian compo bollox, if you get run over by being an idiot you should get 3/5ths of bugger all. It's not like these muppets have insurance to pay to let them get to work is it...

Where is "the line" for buggering off and not leaving details? My take on it is they have one chance for it if they look at all shifty or in any way like something off shameless then I'm off like a greased weasel with the barest plausible deniability of them not asking for details.

I think the key bit there is "nearly run over". I imagine that you stopped due to proper observations (i.e., noticing the idiot stepping out)? If so, you've ensured that you've met your duty to drive competently, while she has failed to meet her duty to not endanger herself and others. Go ahead and insult her all you want!

To be clear, I'm NOT taking the line that drivers are automatically at fault in any collision with pedestrians. Pedestrians MUST take reasonable care to protect their own safety and the safety of others. However, as stated above, the person in charge of several hundred kilos of metal will always have the higher duty of care, and that's how it should be. A lapse of attention of a pedestrian will more often result in their own injury (or death); a lapse in attention of a car driver/motorbike rider/HGV trucker etc. is far, far more likely to kill other people (with or without their own injury or death).

[socommk23]

In no way did I neglect this point:

Even considering this, I still think that the rider could have done more. However, thank you for conceding that the rider should be looking out better.


If my argument is weak, why are you now agreeing with it? My entire argument was that the pedestrian didn't take reasonable care, but the rider could have done more and could have avoided the accident. Incidentally, if you're going to play this line, your argument was so weak that you had to resort to reducing an injured woman to an "old tart" to depersonalize her so that it's easier to agree with your point of view. It's easy to sling back and forth instead of looking at what's actually being said, isn't it?

As the rider is the one who is going to plough several hundreds of kilos of metal into someone, he surely has more of a duty to pay attention. Consider an incident where both a pedestrian crossing the road and a driver travelling along a road were both staring at the sky. The pedestrian is now dead. Are you telling me that the pedestrian is at fault (case closed, as you put it), for stepping into the road?

Are you telling me that if the pedestrian that threw themselves infront of a large heavy object. .......is automatically not at fault if they die doing so?

Absolutely no reasoning with such a statement.

Mind boglin!!! Seriously!!!!

[Bibio]

depends on the inquest. it would go to court for sure.

no it's not right and 'common sense' should prevail but thats the UK for you whether you like it or not. jeeezzz shops are being taken to court for trip hazards, the councils are being taken to court for pot holes in the pavements. so what chance does the motorist have.. fekin none, but thats the way it is.

like it or not the motorist is at fault till the Judge says otherwise.

[Neeja]

Are you telling me that if the pedestrian that threw themselves infront of a large heavy object. .......is automatically not at fault if they die doing so?

Absolutely no reasoning with such a statement.

Mind boglin!!! Seriously!!!!

Are you saying that someone controlling a large, heavy object is automatically not at fault......................if they kill a pedestrian while not looking where they're going?

Absolutely no reasoning with such a statement.

Mind boglin[sic]!!! Seriously!!!!

Would you like to set up another straw-man argument now?

[Sid Squid]

like it or not the motorist is at fault till the Judge says otherwise.
Wronger than wrong.

[ophic]

Wronger than wrong.
Does that mean the statement is wrong? as in incorrect

or the statement is right but the situation is morally wrong? as is head shaking, wringing hands

or something else? :confused:

[socommk23]

Are you saying that someone controlling a large, heavy object is automatically not at fault......................if they kill a pedestrian while not looking where they're going?

Absolutely no reasoning with such a statement.

Mind boglin[sic]!!! Seriously!!!!

Would you like to set up another straw-man argument now?

If the motorist does everything they can do to avoid an accident but fails due to the circumstances of a pedestrian throwing themselves infront of said vehicle then no the motorist is not at fault.
In your opinion then;
Motorist:
"Oh hi there.....I just hit a old tart commiting suicide, done all I could within my power to avoid the accident but she just appeared quickly and with no warning"

Police;
"You should have stayed in bed mate and not gone to work. You now up for murder!"

But if a pedestrian get hit on a motorway and dies.....im pretty sure no motorist can be at fault then. Pedestrians are not supposed to be there. But the drivers (in your opinion) are still at fault?

[socommk23]

Thousands every year is spent on pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures to make it safer for pedestrians to cross roads. From a child people are taught to "stop look listen".
If at the age of this dinosaur you still cant get it right....then maybe its her time!

The genepool is getting shallower by the day. Health and safety and silly laws allow people to live longer when natural selection would have killed them off ages ago.
Helmets should be optional. Seat belts should be optional. Looking before crossing the road is clearly optional as in your opinion its still the motorist fault.
Lets do away with laws that comon sense cover. And see how well our economy does in a few years time.

[NTECUK]

In most motoring situations it's guilty until proven otherwise.

[ophic]

In most motoring situations it's guilty until proven otherwise.
Damages cases aren't criminal cases, they're covered by civil law, so in this case you're not "guilty" as such, but you can be found "at fault", and it doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt either, just on balance of probabilities.

It does sometimes seem like you're better off making sure you kill whoever you hit, and then getting criminally charged and getting off through lack of evidence, than ending up in a civil court where you'll be at least partially blamed for something, and you have to pay for your legal counsel as well.

[NTECUK]

It does sometimes seem like you're better off making sure you kill whoever you hit, and then getting criminally charged and getting off through lack of evidence, than ending up in a civil court where you'll be at least partially blamed for something, and you have to pay for your legal counsel as well.
HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?

[ophic]

HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?
Of course not. I'd never get away with it. My exhaust is too loud :smt077

[NTECUK]

Well that collision may have been avoided if the guy had a louder exhaust

[ophic]

It doesn't work in London :(

[NTECUK]

No but they are a different lot in "The Smoke ".

[ClunkintheUK]

HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?

This does actually happen, or sometimes the reverse. For example a lot of fraud cases and the cases against the big financial institutions, as the evidence is so complicated.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same actions/evidence, so they can on pursue a criminal OR a civil case.

[Neeja]

If the motorist does everything they can do to avoid an accident but fails due to the circumstances of a pedestrian throwing themselves infront of said vehicle then no the motorist is not at fault.
In your opinion then;
Motorist:
"Oh hi there.....I just hit a old tart commiting suicide, done all I could within my power to avoid the accident but she just appeared quickly and with no warning"

Police;
"You should have stayed in bed mate and not gone to work. You now up for murder!"

But if a pedestrian get hit on a motorway and dies.....im pretty sure no motorist can be at fault then. Pedestrians are not supposed to be there. But the drivers (in your opinion) are still at fault?

I see that, in response to my earlier post, yes you did want to set up another straw-man argument.

You have (for some reason) tried (and failed) to stealthily change the topic of discussion from pedestrian stepping out without looking to pedestrian deliberately throwing themselves into traffic. They are two separate issues. For the record, the legal position on a pedestrian throwing themselves deliberately into traffic would likely be that no claim would be successful, so long as the driver took reasonable action. If a driver failed to take any action at all where action would prevent the pedestrian from being hit, then the driver could be sued for negligence for not driving as a competent driver should. However, if a claim was successful, any payout would be massively reduced (by up to 90%, looking at the case law).

You are also deliberately misconstruing just about everything I have posted in order to make it appear that you are presenting a reasonable response to my argument. You aren't. I am going to highlight something to you now which shows that if you stop your knee-jerk, goggly-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth posting and look at what I'm actually saying, you'll see that you've been agreeing with me all along:

If the motorist does everything they can do to avoid an accident...

This is the key bit. You have a duty as a motorist to do everything you can to avoid an accident. The rider in the video does NOT do everything he can, in my opinion, and the opinion of many other people responding to the thread. He should have slowed for the junction where the white van is sat waiting to pull out, and he should have been watching for pedestrians. She's clearly visible for a large part of the video (even if you take the camera angle into account she WOULD be visible in the gaps between the cars), and is visible through the windows of the cars for most of the rest. Hence, in my opinion, he's partly to blame for the incident.

You will note that it was me who brought up the case law of Sam v Atkins, in which it was held that a van driver who did everything possible to avoid an accident in a situation where a pedestrian did not take reasonable care in stepping out into the road was found to owe no duty of care to the pedestrian, so the pedestrian's claim for damages failed. This is (almost) the exact circumstances of the first part of your response above - though the pedestrian didn't casually throw himself into the road.

In Birch v Paulson, a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car when the car was a few metres away with no warning and no indication that he was going to cross the road. The claim against the driver failed.

In Smith v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, a 16 year old girl was crossing a road after a night out. She'd crossed through 2 lanes of traffic and suddenly stepped out into the third lane...into an oncoming police car. The police driver was not paying sufficient attention and driving at 45-50mph (was was held to be excessive for the location and visibility). The court of appeal decided that the girl was 33.3% liable for the accident and the police driver 66.6% liable.

In Belka v Prosperini, Belka was crossing a dual-carriageway and had reached the middle. He would have been clearly visible to Prosperini who was driving towards him. Belka stepped suddenly out in front of Prosperini, who hit him. The judge decided that Prosperini could have taken action to avoid hitting Belka, but did not take said action, meaning he was liable. However, he found Belka 66.6% responsible for the incident.

It is my opinion that the outcomes of these cases are correct and just. Is that enough to clarify my position?

Your comments about the motorway are also absurd. You're correct in stating that pedestrians shouldn't be on the motorway, but you are suggesting that if a pedestrian is there, you think it's fine for drivers to deliberately drive into them at 70mph. Tough luck; their own fault for being there. Is that correct, or are you going to state that drivers must take reasonable action if a pedestrian is on the motorway? If so, once again you're agreeing with my argument.

As a final pedantic point,


Police;
"You should have stayed in bed mate and not gone to work. You now up for murder!"


Murder requires intent; he'd be charged with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving if anything.

This does actually happen, or sometimes the reverse. For example a lot of fraud cases and the cases against the big financial institutions, as the evidence is so complicated.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same actions/evidence, so they can on pursue a criminal OR a civil case.

This is mostly incorrect.

Criminal cases (except private criminal prosecutions, which are very rare) are brought as Crown v Defendant (or R v Defendant, as it would mostly be listed). Regardless of the outcome of this case, a civil case can be brought against the defendant by the injured party.
The key difference is that the criminal case may go to trial, but a civil case is not a trial at all; the defendant is being sued, and only judges (or occasionally magistrates) will be present and making decisions as to guilt and reparations.

If someone hits you, the Crown can issue proceedings for a conviction for assault and you can sue them for trespass against the person to try to get compensation from them.

[socommk23]

I see that, in response to my earlier post, yes you did want to set up another straw-man argument.

You have (for some reason) tried (and failed) to stealthily change the topic of discussion from pedestrian stepping out without looking to pedestrian deliberately throwing themselves into traffic. They are two separate issues. For the record, the legal position on a pedestrian throwing themselves deliberately into traffic would likely be that no claim would be successful, so long as the driver took reasonable action. If a driver failed to take any action at all where action would prevent the pedestrian from being hit, then the driver could be sued for negligence for not driving as a competent driver should. However, if a claim was successful, any payout would be massively reduced (by up to 90%, looking at the case law).

You are also deliberately misconstruing just about everything I have posted in order to make it appear that you are presenting a reasonable response to my argument. You aren't. I am going to highlight something to you now which shows that if you stop your knee-jerk, goggly-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth posting and look at what I'm actually saying, you'll see that you've been agreeing with me all along:



This is the key bit. You have a duty as a motorist to do everything you can to avoid an accident. The rider in the video does NOT do everything he can, in my opinion, and the opinion of many other people responding to the thread. He should have slowed for the junction where the white van is sat waiting to pull out, and he should have been watching for pedestrians. She's clearly visible for a large part of the video (even if you take the camera angle into account she WOULD be visible in the gaps between the cars), and is visible through the windows of the cars for most of the rest. Hence, in my opinion, he's partly to blame for the incident.

You will note that it was me who brought up the case law of Sam v Atkins, in which it was held that a van driver who did everything possible to avoid an accident in a situation where a pedestrian did not take reasonable care in stepping out into the road was found to owe no duty of care to the pedestrian, so the pedestrian's claim for damages failed. This is (almost) the exact circumstances of the first part of your response above - though the pedestrian didn't casually throw himself into the road.

In Birch v Paulson, a pedestrian stepped out in front of a car when the car was a few metres away with no warning and no indication that he was going to cross the road. The claim against the driver failed.

In Smith v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire, a 16 year old girl was crossing a road after a night out. She'd crossed through 2 lanes of traffic and suddenly stepped out into the third lane...into an oncoming police car. The police driver was not paying sufficient attention and driving at 45-50mph (was was held to be excessive for the location and visibility). The court of appeal decided that the girl was 33.3% liable for the accident and the police driver 66.6% liable.

In Belka v Prosperini, Belka was crossing a dual-carriageway and had reached the middle. He would have been clearly visible to Prosperini who was driving towards him. Belka stepped suddenly out in front of Prosperini, who hit him. The judge decided that Prosperini could have taken action to avoid hitting Belka, but did not take said action, meaning he was liable. However, he found Belka 66.6% responsible for the incident.

It is my opinion that the outcomes of these cases are correct and just. Is that enough to clarify my position?

Your comments about the motorway are also absurd. You're correct in stating that pedestrians shouldn't be on the motorway, but you are suggesting that if a pedestrian is there, you think it's fine for drivers to deliberately drive into them at 70mph. Tough luck; their own fault for being there. Is that correct, or are you going to state that drivers must take reasonable action if a pedestrian is on the motorway? If so, once again you're agreeing with my argument.

As a final pedantic point,



Murder requires intent; he'd be charged with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving if anything.



This is mostly incorrect.

Criminal cases (except private criminal prosecutions, which are very rare) are brought as Crown v Defendant (or R v Defendant, as it would mostly be listed). Regardless of the outcome of this case, a civil case can be brought against the defendant by the injured party.
The key difference is that the criminal case may go to trial, but a civil case is not a trial at all; the defendant is being sued, and only judges (or occasionally magistrates) will be present and making decisions as to guilt and reparations.

If someone hits you, the Crown can issue proceedings for a conviction for assault and you can sue them for trespass against the person to try to get compensation from them.


YAWWWWNNNN!

lets leave it there shall we. thats your OPINION!

and mine is the old tart is to blame.

happy days!:rolleyes:

[ClunkintheUK]

I wasn't talking specifically about RTA law, I am luckily not very experienced with that. And yes completely see the point that sueing is not a trial. I was thinking about a lot of the cases brought during the fallout of the financial crisis ended in civil penalties, even though on the face of it some of them should/could have resulted in criminal convictions as the burden of proof is lower. I think there have now been a couple of market manipulation or insider trading criminal cases brought successfully. Some of this, of course, may have been corruption.

[Neeja]

I wasn't talking specifically about RTA law, I am luckily not very experienced with that. And yes completely see the point that sueing is not a trial. I was thinking about a lot of the cases brought during the fallout of the financial crisis ended in civil penalties, even though on the face of it some of them should/could have resulted in criminal convictions as the burden of proof is lower. I think there have now been a couple of market manipulation or insider trading criminal cases brought successfully. Some of this, of course, may have been corruption.

Ah! I see what you mean. One of the major issues with trials by jury is that if the subject matter is massively complex, there's no way that the defendant can ever get a fair trial - which is how (if I remember rightly) a lot of the trials collapsed. Sad state of affairs...

[NTECUK]

Hears a little nugget of info for the new guys
http://www.drivingcasualtiesdown.org/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/hugger/ESSEX-Hugger-Filtering-Guide.pdf