Hitting a pedestrian

bryanb

Why not check out highway code rule 152, it applies in this case.

mattymoo

gaz06 wrote: »

iamana1ias do you blame me for the accident???

Nobody can say on the facts as presented. However, a good solicitor will be able to throw enough mud / accusations at you until something sticks.

The things the investigation will need to establish are:-

- Nature of the road, e.g. town centre, residential side street, rural road.
- location of any crossings that could have been used.
- presence of any warning signs, e.g. school.
- sight lines down the road. Could you for instance see the child crossing the pavement towards the road. If so, you should have slowed to anticipate she might attempt to cross.
- what you were doing immediately prior to the impact - mobile phone, txting, changing radio station etc.
- street lighting / vehicle lighting / day light conditions.
- whether you saw the child prior to impact.

The critical ones here are sight lines and whether you saw the child. Nobody materialises out of nowhere. Unless they were hiding between the parked vehicles they must have been visible prior to then. This is the aspect a solicitor, acting for the girl, will hang their case on.

gaz06

bryanb wrote: »

Why not check out highway code rule 152, it applies in this case.

Rule 152---You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars. In some areas a 20 mph (32 km/h) maximum speed limit may be in force.

The green cross code states to children they must not cross behind or between parked vechiles.

If you read op you will see this,

I was travelling down a 30mph residental street had to slow down and pull into the centre of the road to over take two parked vans the first being a white one the second being a red high top one,I could have only been doing 15-20mph

gaz06

matty as stated the girl was behind a parked van which in turn was behind another van so from the point of moving out to overtake the parked vans i could not even see the pavement fortunatly the vans where still in place and plenty of pics where taken

mattymoo

gaz06 wrote: »

matty as stated the girl was behind a parked van which in turn was behind another van so from the point of moving out to overtake the parked vans i could not even see the pavement fortunatly the vans where still in place and plenty of pics where taken

Don't tell us, tell it to the investigator from your insurer. They are there to protect your back in case a claim is made against you in the next 15 years.

moderngirl

I too have been involved with hitting a pedestrian, whose father dropped her off on the wrong side of a busy road, in rush hour.
The incident is still in my mind, 6 years on, unfortunately the girl had a bump to her head, as she hit the windscreen.
The girl didn't want the ambulance, she rang her dad back up to come and get her. I was traumatised and insisted her Dad take her to A&E.
I contacted the Police and they said I had to go and take a statement the following morning.
At my interview I cannot believe how the policeman spoke to me, trying to tie me up with questions, "how fast was i going, at what point did i see the girl" just to state a few. I felt like a criminal.
Someone from the road traffic accident investigation, came and took a statement, aswell as visiting the site to take pictures.
The insurance company put my premiums up for months, because as mentioned in earlier posts the girl can still claim up until she is 21, and at the moment ( touch wood ) no claim has been made.
I just thank my lucky stars that this accident wasnt a fatal accident, cos increased premiums would have been the least of my worries.

Gaz06 take it on the chin, cos it couldve been alot worse.

p.s. sorry for dribbling on.

pedro123456

Gaz, I’m having trouble grasping this. You pay insurance to cover you for accidents, and when you have an accident, you inform the IC but don’t claim?, furthermore you accept that its ok for the third party not to claim as a result of the accident. Strange.

It appears you have concerns for the child/family (quite rightly) but as opposed to supporting them not to claim of the Insurance IMO you should be encouraging them to claim, I also think you should claim for yourself trauma etc. That’s what you pay insurance for aint it?

The IC will support you to reduce their costs, but my guess is that your premiums will still go up, in fact I would suggest that your premiums would have gone up in any case, even a straight renewal.

What are you paying for, a piece of paper to show the law?...crazy

no wonder IC's p#ss up our backs, when we p#ss up each others backs !!!!

iamana1ias

pedro123456 wrote: »

It appears you have concerns for the child/family (quite rightly) but as opposed to supporting them not to claim of the Insurance IMO you should be encouraging them to claim, I also think you should claim for yourself trauma etc. That’s what you pay insurance for aint it?

He can't claim for himself though!

pedro123456

He can't claim for himself though!

Well aint that a shame, what is that another T&C imposed by the IC?

moderngirl

Also i would just like to add, but i'm not 100 % certain, ( 6 years ago is a long time ) the insurance company reimbursed me for the extra i had to pay, due to no claim been made during that years policy.

Please don't slate me, but in the back of my head something tells me i got some money back!