Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

rob7475

Sorry but the lights are different now to when the street view car came round 3 years ago.

The right lane is now a right turn lane with a seperate traffic light on the central island.

The left lane is a straight ahead lane with a seperate light above the pedestrians head on the kerb.

There was stationary traffic in the right lane and she saw the red light, checked the first lane was clear and proceeded to cross.

She is nearly 7 month pregnant so not moving particularly fast at the moment. However, she was halfway across the first lane before the bike hit her in her side. If she had only just stepped out, I would agree that she was to blame. But, to make it halfway across - why didn't the biker see her and either stop or ride around her? The fact that he jumped up apologising and claiming he didn't see her seems a bit strange if he was entirely blame free??

mildred1978

rob7475 wrote: »

Sorry but the lights are different now to when the street view car came round 3 years ago.

The right lane is now a right turn lane with a seperate traffic light on the central island.

The left lane is a straight ahead lane with a seperate light above the pedestrians head on the kerb.

There was stationary traffic in the right lane and she saw the red light, checked the first lane was clear and proceeded to cross.

She is nearly 7 month pregnant so not moving particularly fast at the moment. However, she was halfway across the first lane before the bike hit her in her side. If she had only just stepped out, I would agree that she was to blame. But, to make it halfway across - why didn't the biker see her and either stop or ride around her? The fact that he jumped up apologising and claiming he didn't see her seems a bit strange if he was entirely blame free??

Assuming she isn't deaf, how on earth did she not hear a motorbike a couple/few feet away?!

peter_the_piper

mildred1978 wrote: »

Assuming she isn't deaf, how on earth did she not hear a motorbike a couple/few feet away?!

Could it be that the light was thought to be red so would expect a noisy engine near, by the time she saw it was not going to stop its too late.

sj999

A pedestrian can cross on a green or a red light, I'm sure that no court in the land will rule in favor of a motorbike who hit a pregnant woman. Ignore the letter.

Sgt_Pepper_2

sj999 wrote: »

A pedestrian can cross on a green or a red light, I'm sure that no court in the land will rule in favor of a motorbike who hit a pregnant woman. Ignore the letter.

Why is the fact she's pregnant relevant?

Wongsky

The whole "right of way" thing is like one of those trendy things that officials like to reinvent from time-to-time, much like the whole RTA no longer being used in favour of RTC.

Often the new terms are often steeped in new-age dogma just as much as the older terms were steeped in tradition.

There are some salient factors, though. Pedestrians have absolute rights to use public roads (not motorways, though) - and rights are somewhat constitutional (yes, I get the whole unwritten thing) and unassailable. People driving / riding vehicles have merely a conditional privilege to use them on the road.

A pedestrian crossing the road has priority once crossing, and a green traffic signal merely means it's ok to proceed if it's clear and safe.

All of that can be complicated by race conditions, ie who gets there first - clearly somebody just dashing into a normal road, right in front of a vehicle, can't really lay claim to priority as they were not clearly and normally crossing before the vehicle arrived.

What I would say, though, is that it's unlikely that a pedestrian will be judged to be mostly negligent crossing at traffic lights, even if they were on green for traffic, unless he / she suddenly dashed out in front of traffic - green only means go if it's safe / clear, it's not absolute, and if he / she is clearly already crossing he / she has priority. Vehicles are expected to approach traffic signals with some additional degree of caution and be ready to slow down / stop, if necessary - the signal may change, and after all, it's not absolute - green only means proceed if it's safe to do so, many signal controlled junctions may have layouts such that it's not really possible to fully perceive that until actually at, or very near, the signal, which is why green isn't an absolute "GO" it's merely a: proceed if it's safe and clear to do so.

All that said, the laws of physics do not abide with the concept of priority, common sense dictates a certain degree of pragmatism.

As to comments made earlier in the thread that the motorcyclist in this case should be able to claim if he's not to blame, that's not strictly true - although tends to be the rhetoric and mantra of many claim "companies", these days. In order to pursue a claim for compensation you'd normally have to prove all the conditions for the legal definition of negligence which is not quite the same as the normal perception of blame.

Tilt

Full marks to Wongsky. Its basically what i've been trying to say through the whole thread.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

The whole "right of way" thing is like one of those trendy things that officials like to reinvent from time-to-time, much like the whole RTA no longer being used in favour of RTC.

Often the new terms are often steeped in new-age dogma just as much as the older terms were steeped in tradition.

There are some salient factors, though. Pedestrians have absolute rights to use public roads (not motorways, though) - and rights are somewhat constitutional (yes, I get the whole unwritten thing) and unassailable. People driving / riding vehicles have merely a conditional privilege to use them on the road.

A pedestrian crossing the road has priority once crossing, and a green traffic signal merely means it's ok to proceed if it's clear and safe.

All of that can be complicated by race conditions, ie who gets there first - clearly somebody just dashing into a normal road, right in front of a vehicle, can't really lay claim to priority as they were not clearly and normally crossing before the vehicle arrived.

What I would say, though, is that it's unlikely that a pedestrian will be judged to be mostly negligent crossing at traffic lights, even if they were on green for traffic, unless he / she suddenly dashed out in front of traffic - green only means go if it's safe / clear, it's not absolute, and if he / she is clearly already crossing he / she has priority. Vehicles are expected to approach traffic signals with some additional degree of caution and be ready to slow down / stop, if necessary - the signal may change, and after all, it's not absolute - green only means proceed if it's safe to do so, many signal controlled junctions may have layouts such that it's not really possible to fully perceive that until actually at, or very near, the signal, which is why green isn't an absolute "GO" it's merely a: proceed if it's safe and clear to do so.

All that said, the laws of physics do not abide with the concept of priority, common sense dictates a certain degree of pragmatism.

As to comments made earlier in the thread that the motorcyclist in this case should be able to claim if he's not to blame, that's not strictly true - although tends to be the rhetoric and mantra of many claim "companies", these days. In order to pursue a claim for compensation you'd normally have to prove all the conditions for the legal definition of negligence which is not quite the same as the normal perception of blame.

Underlined is only at a designated crossing point, or the highway code is wrong (which it isn't ).

So you are mistaken on that point.

rob7475

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Underlined is only at a designated crossing point, or the highway code is wrong (which it isn't ).

So you are mistaken on that point.

It is a designated crossing point where the accident happened

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Underlined is only at a designated crossing point, or the highway code is wrong (which it isn't ).

So you are mistaken on that point.

Where do you get that from?

Pedestrians have absolute rights - not just conditional privilege, based on qualifying license, roadworthy vehicle, with appropriate VED paid, and vehicle insured for the driver to use on the road with a minium of 3rd party cover (or bond held with a mag / court) - so once crossing, regardless of whether it's designated crossing point, the pedestrian has priority.

The Highway Code is merely a best practice document that has some "rules" or guidelines actually based in law.

Once a pedestrian is crossing and on the carriageway (assuming it's not a motorway) they have priority. That doesn't just mean somebody can run straight out in front of a vehicle, and then in incoherent cries, as they are carted away, attempt to assert they had priority.