Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

rob7475

Tilt wrote: »

No, you are wrong. try reading rule 170

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

It does specify 'at a junction' though. But i'm sure if they have started to cross a road anywhere else, then you are not supposed to run them over.

I've said it quite a few time now, the only mileage in a potential claim from the biker would be if the OPs wife was totally negligent (i.e. she ran out into the road in front of the bike) and that there is evidence to support this.

Unlikely to see her running in her condition

I emailed the contact from the claims management company on Wednesday advising him that she is not named on my home insurance policy and there is no public liability insurance on there. Also gave him details of exactly what happened. Haven't heard anything back from them yet so will see what comes of it, if anything.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

It doesn't matter.

Pedestrians having priority once crossing, isn't just limited to junctions, "designated" crossings - the advice probably mentions junctions, because it's the typical scenario that many car drivers like to blast their horn and assume they are king of the road - ie turned into a road where somebody is already crossing and in THEIR way - how verrrry darre they.

Once a pedestrian is crossing the road, they have priority - and in fairness, they're one of a very small number of road users, that actually have a RIGHT to be doing so. Vehicle drivers merely have limited, conditional, privilege.

We seem to have a right to drive a motor vehicle http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/088.htm
so another thing you are on shakey ground with.

Tilt

rob7475 wrote: »

[/B]

Unlikely to see her running in her condition

I emailed the contact from the claims management company on Wednesday advising him that she is not named on my home insurance policy and there is no public liability insurance on there. Also gave him details of exactly what happened. Haven't heard anything back from them yet so will see what comes of it, if anything.

But have you spoken to a solicitor? Personally I think they are chancing their arm but I would advise not to communicate with them without taking proper face to face legal advice. Most solicitors will give you a free initial consultation but source one that specializes in motor insurance claims.

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

I said that in #16. This is going round In circles. The op needs some proper legal advice before any summons arrive.

Why should any summons arrive? Does anybody suggest the pregnant girlfriend has broken some law they could be prosecuted for?

I see no harm in legal advice - perhaps no-win, no-fee on their behalf, with potential claim for them against the motorcyclist - after all, she had to be treated at hospital. That may well clarify things for the motorcyclist / his claim.

This will likely all be civil law, so burden of proof not as exacting as criminal law. Given she's heavily pregnant, I find it unlikely she just rushed out in front of something - and it occurred at traffic lights (it being on green, isn't really going to help the motorcyclist - that only means he could proceed if it was clear).

With that in mind - ie it's unlikely a heavily pregnant woman dashed out in front of something, I have to say, I suspect any civil claim heard in a court won't necessarily favour the motorcyclist.

But never trust the opinion of keyboard warriors in internet forums. If there's any doubt or worry, use one good bit of internet forum advice, obtain legal counsel, and consider whether you may actually have grounds for a claim - that may, if nothing else, clarify the situation for the current claim and put it in context. Not wanting to pursue anything, could be sending a subtle message to them that you'll just play patsy to their claim.

adouglasmhor

Tilt wrote: »

No, you are wrong. try reading rule 170

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332

It does specify 'at a junction' though. But i'm sure if they have started to cross a road anywhere else, then you are not supposed to run them over.

I've said it quite a few time now, the only mileage in a potential claim from the biker would be if the OPs wife was totally negligent (i.e. she ran out into the road in front of the bike) and that there is evidence to support this.

It actualy tells them to go back if nescesary elsewhere in the code.
They only have right of way at designated crossing points including junctions.

So not one of you can back up their statements and you apply the rules for one set of circumstances to totaly diferent sets to suit your argument. Very poor.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Why should any summons arrive? Does anybody suggest the pregnant girlfriend has broken some law they could be prosecuted for?
Now we see how unqualified to post on the subject you are, civil cases are about tort not crime, and no one is prosecuted, but you can still be sumonsed. You daftie
I see no harm in legal advice - perhaps no-win, no-fee on their behalf, with potential claim for them against the motorcyclist - after all, she had to be treated at hospital. That may well clarify things for the motorcyclist / his claim.

This will likely all be civil law, so burden of proof not as exacting as criminal law. Given she's heavily pregnant, I find it unlikely she just rushed out in front of something - and it occurred at traffic lights (it being on green, isn't really going to help the motorcyclist - that only means he could proceed if it was clear).

With that in mind - ie it's unlikely a heavily pregnant woman dashed out in front of something, I have to say, I suspect any civil claim heard in a court won't necessarily favour the motorcyclist.

But never trust the opinion of keyboard warriors in internet forums= anyone who does not agree with my made up and recieved wisdom no nothing posts. If there's any doubt or worry, use one good bit of internet forum advice, obtain legal counsel, Only sensible thing you saidand consider whether you may actually have grounds for a claim - that may, if nothing else, clarify the situation for the current claim and put it in context. Not wanting to pursue anything, could be sending a subtle message to them that you'll just play patsy to their claim.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

custardy

adouglasmhor wrote: »

We seem to have a right to drive a motor vehicle http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/088.htm
so another thing you are on shakey ground with.

A 'right' that requires you to pay,be tested and licenced accordingly

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

We seem to have a right to drive a motor vehicle http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/088.htm
so another thing you are on shakey ground with.

How so?

We have no current written constitution, and even less so of a European one.

There is no current legal right to be able to drive a motor vehicle on a public road in England. There is merely conditional privilege based on some qualifiying criteria.

Pedestrians DO have rights to use the roads, they need not jump through any hoops to do so, nor qualify by means of any licence, insurance or any other constraint.

By all means, search, furiously, via google to do me wrong, and prove me wrong, but it won't change how things currently are.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

How so?

We have no current written constitution, and even less so of a European one.

There is no current legal right to be able to drive a motor vehicle on a public road in England. There is merely conditional privilege based on some qualifiying criteria.

Pedestrians DO have rights to use the roads, they need not jump through any hoops to do so, nor qualify by means of any licence, insurance or any other constraint.

By all means, search, furiously, via google to do me wrong, and prove me wrong, but it won't change how things currently are.

It's all in the link, but you wont read it as you are too much of a "big man" to risk having to admit you are wrong, and possibly incapable of understnding it too.

Tilt

adouglasmhor wrote: »

We seem to have a right to drive a motor vehicle http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/088.htm
so another thing you are on shakey ground with.

With respect, why are you going to so much trouble just to prove a point. Your claim that 'priority is only at designated crossing points' was totally wrong so why not leave it at that?

Even if you do find some written 'rule' that a vehicle has right of way over a pedestrian (which i very much doubt you will), are you seriously suggesting then that said vehicle is allowed to run a pedestrian over if already crossing a road?

!!!!!! lets have some common sense here! This bickering is achieving nothing apart from lengthening the thread unnecessarily which is becoming very boring.