Hitting a pedestrian

Rolandtheroadie

bryanb wrote: »

Do you have another possible explanation? She must have been in sight for at least 3-4 seconds

From behind a parked van to moving the 8 to 10 feet needed to clear the car 3-4 seconds? Was she crawling? Walking backwards?

shellsuit

bryanb wrote: »

It's actually fairly simple to read the highway code, even if you don't have a paper copy it's available on line.

However leaving that aside, the Op stated that the child ran from behind a parked vehicle. Then said hit her trailing leg, this means the child ran right accross the front of his vehicle and was nearly clear before the impact. The time necessary for her to be almost clear indicates one of two things.

!. Travelling too fast in the circumstances.
2. Reaction times performing the emergency stop too long

Do you have another possible explanation? She must have been in sight for at least 3-4 seconds

How so? Do you know the width of the road and don't forget, whatever that was parked either side would have blocked the OP's view, meaning that his view of the street at that part would have been even narrower.

For a kid to run across a normal sized street would probably only take a second ~ have you seen how fast kids run?

bryanb

OK my time estimate is wrong, however for the OP to see her run from behind the van and get accross in front of him I would still say there was time for an emergency stop, especially at the speed he quotes.

Rolandtheroadie

Yes, there was. Thats how he was able to get enough speed down to just clip her and for her to be happily watching TV soon after.

Well done OP, at 15-20 she'd probably have survived anyway but I have no doubt your actions prevented a much more serious injury.

bryanb

Sorry but things here still don't ring quite true to me. The Op states he "Slammed on the brakes" If I do that, my car stops within a few feet (At 15-20mph) Not as he says "safely further up the road." Or perhaps we are to believe that he pulled away again? This with an injured child laying in the road?

bryanb

wrangler5 wrote: »

And you know this because you were there i suppose? The only person who truly knows if he did or did not have time under the circumstances to perform an emergency stop is the person who was behind the wheel - and that wasn't you was it? All you have done so far is speculate what you think is the case. You have no possible way of knowing if the OP had time to perform an emergency stop or how fast the child was running accross the road.

I was not there, but if the child ran at 15-20 mph simple trigonometry will give a good idea how fast the Op was driving, !5-20 mph seems unlikely unless he failed to brake when he saw her. There is of course the possibility he was travelling faster.
There are ways to calculate these factors in spite of your denials.

Edit Sorry Geometry not trig.

Rolandtheroadie

So the childs now doing 15 MPH? Thats fast for a kid is it not?
1.46 feet per second times 15 is 22 feet. So she could have crossed the road twice and STILL not be hit.

Your making assumptions that the OP didnt react as soon as he saw the child. Your assuming he was quite a distance away from the child when she bacame visible.

bryanb

No, just a random example of speed. the slower she was the more time must have elapsed.

If Op saw child run out and then child had time to almost clear his car, how far would you assume? My assumption is actually excess speed which does equate to more distance.

Keep the arguments coming, it may help the Op to know what to expect if he should come up against an expert witness if a claim materialises in the future.
Thanks for demonstrating that you can make such calculations with limited data.

mattymoo

Discussions about speed of the child are a bit immaterial.

As I stated in an earlier post, the crucial aspect is the OPs line of sight down the road and down the pavement as well.

The investigators will want to try and work out where the child came from. If the road had houses with front gardens, then a pavement, then parked cars it should be possible to see the child cross the garden, pavement and then be obscured by a parked van before emerging the other side.

If the houses are hard against the pavement with a narrow pavement then you would have less opportunity to spot the child moving into danger.

Next the investigator will look at the positions of parked vehicles on the road. In some residential streets the cars are clumped together in little laybys. In others, the road is crammed end to end with parked cars. The latter would deprive the OP of sight lines to spot the child.

The OP did state that they moved out to pass some parked vehicles suggesting it was perhaps just a small group of vehicles.

Glad to hear you've got the meeting set up with the investigator OP. They will listen to what you have to say and prepare a witness statement for you to sign. This will form the basis of your testimony if the matter ever proceeds to court.

lisyloo

It's actually fairly simple to read the highway code, even if you don't have a paper copy it's available on line.

Yes I do have a copy of the highway code and I can read.
Just didn't understand the specific point you were making, that's what needed to be clarified.
Thanks for doing that.