We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Hitting a pedestrian
Comments
-
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.
Why have you omitted the part that mentions children running out between parked cars? Did you decide that was not relevant?This is an open forum, anyone can post and I just did !0 -
No - but I don't think you seem to give 2 hoots either. Your previous posts are more concerned with preserving your NCD and getting on with your car upgrade, while at the same time asking a family to sign away all their legal rights (without success I might add).
The OP came on here to ask questions about what you have pointed above...not how to deal with a traumatic experience!
Maybe you missed the bit in the OPs email said:Later on a i dropped a get well soon card in to her house but i decided to knock and see if they we're back0 -
thanks smk77,
I have not decided to omit that but perhaps if you read the OP and the post where said details where"omitted" i was travelling down a street at 20 mph max 10 less than is allowed, where a child has which as you have missed is actually stated in the childrens green cross code which at 10 years old the child would have already been made aware of (this has been confirmed by the father) has ran from behind a parked van correct me if i am wrong but i assume you drive, do you get out and check behind parked vechiles before progressing?as thats the only way i could have prevented hitting her.0 -
pedro123456 wrote: »He can't claim for himself though!
Well aint that a shame, what is that another T&C imposed by the IC?
No pedro.
It's a choice the OP made when he took out third part cover and not comprehensive.
There is no way the insurer can be balmed for the OPs choice of product.0 -
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.
This does not indicate the OP is at fault.
If a suicidal person throws themself at your car or jumps from a bridge right in front of your car, then there is nothing you can do.
Do you think train drivers are to blame when someone jumps on the track?0 -
pedro123456 wrote: »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.
Pedro is a well known troll around here but I'll answer his points for general consumption.
A motorist will have very little joy claiming against a pedestrian.
Any insurer will advise agaisnt this course of action as it could incurr a much bigger counter claim.
Any comprehensive insurer would probably deal with it a fault claim.
Obviously if there is compelling evidence to the contrary then it can be done, but you need a suicide victim jumping off a bridge for that.
Otherwise the legal system strongly favours pedestrians over nasty motorists driving large lumps of nasty metal around. That's jsut the way it is.
We don't have a decision on liability, but IMO the third party should not claim because it was the parents who were negligent not the driver.
I don't know if the child can claim against the parents (home insurance) for their own negligence.
Why, he wasn't ngeligent?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 claimI also think you should claim for yourself trauma etc. That’s what you pay insurance for aint it?
No, you do not pay car insurance to cover your own personal injury or trauma.
He could try to claim off the parents (and their house insurance), but the legal system with favour an innocent child over a motorist and his case will not elicit sympathy.
They will not support him in his claim. He did not b uy comprehensive cover.The IC will support you
Possibly, depending on whether this get closed or not.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.
He's paid for third party liabililty.What are you paying for, a piece of paper to show the law?...crazy
He has not paid to cover himself or his car.
This is fairly basic stuff pedro.
Sorry but you're completely wrong on a number of points.no wonder IC's p#ss up our backs, when we p#ss up each others backs !!!!
Don't use other's tragedy for your own campaign - troll.0 -
Pedro is a well known troll around here but I'll answer his points for general consumption.
A motorist will have very little joy claiming against a pedestrian.
Any insurer will advise agaisnt this course of action as it could incurr a much bigger counter claim.
Any comprehensive insurer would probably deal with it a fault claim.
Obviously if there is compelling evidence to the contrary then it can be done, but you need a suicide victim jumping off a bridge for that.
Otherwise the legal system strongly favours pedestrians over nasty motorists driving large lumps of nasty metal around. That's jsut the way it is.
We don't have a decision on liability, but IMO the third party should not claim because it was the parents who were negligent not the driver.
I don't know if the child can claim against the parents (home insurance) for their own negligence.
Why, he wasn't ngeligent?
No, you do not pay car insurance to cover your own personal injury or trauma.
He could try to claim off the parents (and their house insurance), but the legal system with favour an innocent child over a motorist and his case will not elicit sympathy.
They will not support him in his claim. He did not b uy comprehensive cover.
Possibly, depending on whether this get closed or not.
He's paid for third party liabililty.
He has not paid to cover himself or his car.
This is fairly basic stuff pedro.
Sorry but you're completely wrong on a number of points.
Don't use other's tragedy for your own campaign - troll.
Comprehensive cover does not cover your own trauma in any event. Damage to car, yes. Non-serious damage to driver, no.I was born too late, into a world that doesn't care
Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair0 -
Yes I agree.Comprehensive cover does not cover your own trauma in any event.
The optional legal cover would cover the legal costs for pursuing this, but to be honest they probably would not pusue a pedestrian.
When my FIL has his accident (man running across road, FIL doing 30 in a 60), the insurance company would not pursue the pedestrian.
You are driving tons of metal around the streets and therefore you have a responsibility/liability that goes with that.
I don't think it's fair but pedestrians cyclist do not always have insurance, so insurers have a reluctant to go after tham.
Also a motorist going after a little girl is not going to illict sympathy.
Legal insurance companies are withing their rights not to take on cases they don't think are winnable.
So even if you have the insurance, it doesn't mean you can claim.0 -
Right just this second got off the phone to the company "sims claims" who work on behalf of swift, i have a agent coming round on the 29th at 7 o clock which i must say to work around myself is bloody bonus. They are going to take a statement from myself and take pictures of the location where it happened he will then speak to the witness and get her story and finally the parents/child to confirm no further action will take place...
With any look a legal resolution is in sight0 -
Right just this second got off the phone to the company "sims claims" who work on behalf of swift, i have a agent coming round on the 29th at 7 o clock which i must say to work around myself is bloody bonus. They are going to take a statement from myself and take pictures of the location where it happened he will then speak to the witness and get her story and finally the parents/child to confirm no further action will take place...
With any look a legal resolution is in sight
You won't have resolution until the child reaches 21 (sigh)I was born too late, into a world that doesn't care
Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards