how not to filter and make friends with pedestrians

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by TamSV

"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]

Originally Posted by Bibio

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]

Originally Posted by TamSV

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?

Originally Posted by TamSV

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...)

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.

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

Originally Posted by socommk23

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.