how not to filter and make friends with pedestrians

'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

Stupid pedestrians!

always getting in the way

Originally Posted by Neeja

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.

Originally Posted by socommk23

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"?

Originally Posted by Neeja

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.

Originally Posted by socommk23

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:

Originally Posted by Neeja

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.

Originally Posted by socommk23

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]

Originally Posted by Neeja

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]

Originally Posted by Neeja

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]

Originally Posted by Neeja

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?