Hitting a pedestrian

muskoka

If the OP was travelling at a slow speed and being careful, etc, etc and appears to be having nightmares and is feeling guilty, why is he so adamant that he is buying a super duper 'fast car' that Swift are refusing to insure? Even if a deposit was paid on the car, I'd be reconsidering that purchase - having hit a child.

I have a child who was hit by a car 15 years ago and he had head and back injuries. It is the most traumatic thing. Thank god my child is ok, though has been left with permenant back injury (though he survives day to day with little problem - i.e. works. etc. And the police confirmed it was the driver who hit my child - reversing out of her driveway with music blaring, etc (driver was 17) and damn right we sued the driver!

Err, child is now 30. Grown up I guess

Rolandtheroadie

bryanb wrote: »

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.

The limited datas supplied by you, we're just discrediting it. Carry on, it's better than soduko.

bryanb

wrangler5 wrote: »

That's the whole point Bryan, we wouldn't assume anything because we were not there and know very little about the exact circumstances. All we have is a vague discription of positions, distances etc from a shaken up driver who might not at the time be able to reliably recall the exacts of the incident - everything else is just speculation.

You are right of course, but the Op may glean some insight from our ramblings.

When you don't have hard facts, it's difficult to discuss things without a few qualified assumptions.

lisyloo

Lisyloo, what does 'careful driving beyond the legal liabilities' mean?

Hi Gordikin,

Let me try to explain what I mean, probably best done with example.
I've done IAM and ROSPA advanced training (on bike).
This is not obligatory but you can take advanced/extra training if you wish.
Bear in mind I ride a motorbike, so I speaking from that perspective but some of it is transfereable.

Let's say I was going along a main road and there was a car at a junction on the left (minor road waiting to pull out).
If I was riding my bike, I would position myself as a far away as possible from the hazard.
If the junction was on the left, then I'd be moving towards the white line but obviously not so far that I'd be in danger from on-coming traffic.
I have right of way and if the car at the junction pulls out on me it's THEIR fault, however if you ride a motorbike or cycle then fault and who's right becomes lower priority than avoiding an accident because you're vulnerable.
Hence it's not my legal liability to avoid the wrongdoing of others but because I'm vulnerable I choose to do so.

I would
a) move towards middle of road, to increase my distance (and hence reaction time) if they pull out and increasing my chances of avoidance by swerving
b) slow down before the hazard so I increase my chances of braking
c) I would possibly change down a gear so my bike is very responsive to acceleration
d) Once I got to a point where braking was futile the I'd accelerate past the hazard to increase my chance of avoidance by acceleration.

I am not legally liable to take extra training and put a plan of action into place to avoid their mistake.
I choose to do so because I consider being killed or maimed if higher up my priority list than being RIGHT (having right of way).

This is just one example and obviously the opportunity to position on a bike is far greater than in a car, but you can still position in a car on some roads.

Another example is that I would put my bike into neutral at traffic lights.
If someone rear ends me, if means the bike won't go off on it's own.
It's not my legal liability to do this, reduce accidents that are someone else's fault or reduce the consequence, but I chose to do it.

Does that explain it?

I am in no way saying I am perfect, I'm jsut trying to answer your question.

Some people choose to do this type of training and reduce their chances of having an accident by approx 66%.
Now I'm a little suspicious of the published figures because I believe the people that apply are the "risk averse" types anyway, but I know I've learnt important stuff on it and it's not all blatantly obvious. I probably would have naturally done the first example before the training because it would have been somewhat obvious to me to avoid cars pulling out, but I would not have done the second example of putting the bike in neutral and when I was told about it I had to ask why, so it's certainly it not all obvious/natural.

So there certianly are courses you can go on to learn different techniques to make yourself a better driver/rides, beyond your legal obligations.

BTW - You do get discounts on your insurance if you pass an advanced test and we all know that insurers do not giev money away for nothing, so that's evidence that insurers believe you are lower risk if you've had further training.
The two organisations I mention are both charities and do it at reasonable rates which for some people can be recouped with insurance discounts.

gaz06

Hi unfortunatly i mis-typed the op the car did come to a complete stop however i had to move it to one side of the road due to oncoming traffic and possibly causing more issues...unfortunatly this was still not good enough as to allow traffic to move smoothly i had to move it yet again to a near-by drive way. Orginally it was left in behind the red van at an angle due to my haste at getting to the young girl. This was in the orginal police statement however.

The time in which i had to react was miniscule, after the incident whilst dropping the card of we inspected the area where the vans where still parked and you could see skid marks however the police from what i recall did not inspect these, its doubtful they would still be there however i may go look. In regards to the child running from behind the van the space between me seeing her and the time she hit the car was half a second if that as stated my actions in breaking as advised by the responding officer prevented further damage to the child! The eye witness from what i was tld said the girl ran from her front door to behind the van then straight out again, i am doubtful anyone would have been able to see her, my personal thought is that if the first parked van (white) had not been parked there i would possibly have seen her run to behind the red van however this seems to be the obstructing vechile in terms of preventing the collision. I do however understand if parked legally (which as far as i can see they were) then they cannot be held responsible reardless of the numerous near misses both the child had escaped in the past and also the mother whikst reversing from the drive.

gaz06

Oh and in regards to the coments about a new car, my car is alot newer and imo nicer at present....purley fuel consumption is too much and therfore a diesel is required unfortunatly they dont make a 1.25 diesel otherwise i would be happy with that!!!!! Its not about speed and at 20 years old its a sensible decision rather than racing up and down the streets in modified "fast" cars...not once has the been a mention of it being a "super dooper" new car

calebdylan

you need to inform your insurance agency to avoid problems soon they may claim the you will be in real problem even though you haven't made a mistake

iamana1ias

calebdylan wrote: »

you need to inform your insurance agency to avoid problems soon they may claim the you will be in real problem even though you haven't made a mistake

You need to read the thread before posting

lisyloo

You need to read the thread before posting

There are LOADS of points on the thread.
You need to be specific about the point you are trying to make, otherwise people will either ignore you or try to guess. I'm bored of guessing when people make really vague statements.
If you have something to say then SAY it.

iamana1ias

lisyloo wrote: »

There are LOADS of points on the thread.
You need to be specific about the point you are trying to make, otherwise people will either ignore you or try to guess. I'm bored of guessing when people make really vague statements.
If you have something to say then SAY it.

The OP confirms in the FIRST LINE of the FIRST POST that he's spoken to his insurers.

How is telling them that they need to contact their insurers 80 posts later helpful? Even if they hadn't read anything else, the OP had already done what they advised!