Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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

<guffaw>

Did you actually read the OP, sunshine?

They've received a letter from a claims management company, asking for their insurance details?

1. Do you really think they'd evaluate it as something likely to succeed in a civil case, unless the OP and his girlfriend were totally passive and willing to play patsy?

2. What do you think they might do, if the OP and his girlfriend submit their own claim?

You really think they are going to summons somebody, who was heavily pregnant at the time, to court, because that's really going to look a persuasive case, isn't it.

Just think for a second, heavily pregnant women, don't tend to be dashing around anywhere, and he was on a motorbike, knocked her down, she had to go to hospital, and has been fortunate, so far, in that there appears to be no threat to her or her baby. Yet he launched to his feet straight away, to say he was sorry, and didn't see her?

Unless they're entirely !!!!less, it's never going to get to court, and if they do pursue it based on the OP and his girlfriend not contesting it, it's still never likely to get to court.

You just didn't think it through, did you - you were just determined to wibble with something, anything I wrote...

Tilt

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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.

Yes, your English is getting very difficult to understand. I think you need to take a break and calm down a little. Coffee time maybe? :coffee:

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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.

Rubbish.

Some document on European constitution does not automatically overrule, or apply over our country's currernt constitution (whether largely unwritten, or not).

Before you can legally drive a vehicle on a public road, in this country, you need a qualifying license, the vehicle must comply with roadworthy rules (ie over 3 years old, must have a current MOT), the vehicle may well require VED, and it must be insured to be used on the road, as well as you driving it.

That's a big whole difference to a "right".

Compare and contrast with the regulations that dictate who in the general public are specifically allowed to use the roads as pedestrians.

adouglasmhor

Tilt wrote: »

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? Because it's not wrong - you are

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? No and Isaid allready I do stop and even wave pedestrians on if safe to do so

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

Well to be honest instead of debating about non existant or implied rights maybe people sould use a bit of common sense, Great Britain is probably the only place in Europe without Jay Walking laws - they have them in Northern Ireland, but they will end up coming in unless all road users start to get a bit more tolerant and a bit less agressive in how they use the roads, to be honest our accident rates are shocking.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Rubbish.

Some document on European constitution does not automatically overrule, or apply over our country's currernt constitution (whether largely unwritten, or not).

Before you can legally drive a vehicle on a public road, in this country, you need a qualifying license, the vehicle must comply with roadworthy rules (ie over 3 years old, must have a current MOT), the vehicle may well require VED, and it must be insured to be used on the road, as well as you driving it.

That's a big whole difference to a "right".

Compare and contrast with the regulations that dictate who in the general public are specifically allowed to use the roads as pedestrians.

It was not about any European constitution but about the European conventions which we have been signatories to for many years. I knew you were not up to reading it. :rotfl:

Tilt

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Well to be honest instead of debating about non existant or implied rights maybe people sould use a bit of common sense, Great Britain is probably the only place in Europe without Jay Walking laws - they have them in Northern Ireland, but they will end up coming in unless all road users start to get a bit more tolerant and a bit less agressive in how they use the roads, to be honest our accident rates are shocking.

OK, please post a link to any piece of legislation or highway code rule that states pedestrians only have priority or right of way at 'designated crossing points'.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

<guffaw>

Did you actually read the OP, sunshine?Yes

They've received a letter from a claims management company, asking for their insurance details?So

1. Do you really think they'd evaluate it as something likely to succeed in a civil case, unless the OP and his girlfriend were totally passive and willing to play patsy?probably not

2. What do you think they might do, if the OP and his girlfriend submit their own claim?couldn't care less

You really think they are going to summons somebody, who was heavily pregnant at the time, to court, because that's really going to look a persuasive case, isn't it.see answer 1

Just think for a second, heavily pregnant women, don't tend to be dashing around anywhere, and he was on a motorbike, knocked her down, she had to go to hospital, and has been fortunate, so far, in that there appears to be no threat to her or her baby. Yet he launched to his feet straight away, to say he was sorry, and didn't see her? witnesses, not that it matters

Unless they're entirely !!!!less, it's never going to get to court, and if they do pursue it based on the OP and his girlfriend not contesting it, it's still never likely to get to court.so

You just didn't think it through, did you - you were just determined to wibble with something, anything I wrotewell you shouldn't post such tripe so often...

So where does it say anywhere official that pedestrians have right of way, anywhere on the road they like? That was the main spouting of yours I took issue with; if it's true it must surely be written down somewhere?

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It was not about any European constitution but about the European conventions which we have been signatories to for many years. I knew you were not up to reading it. :rotfl:

It's largely irrelevant - because NONE of it - that's right, zip, nada, bubcas, currently overrules our current constitution.

Should that ever be pursued, I can assure you, it will be one of the biggest pro / anti Euro arguments. And given we already seem to be getting itchy feet, I very much suspect central rule, and comprehensive uptake of any euro constituion is quite a long way off.

adouglasmhor

Tilt wrote: »

OK, please post a link to any piece of legislation or highway code rule that states pedestrians only have priority or right of way at 'designated crossing points'.

I have posted links to the bits where it states they do have right of way, therefore there is nowhere else there is any ruling saying they have right of way. So where does it say they do?

Tilt

It's the 'Only at designated crossing points' bit I want to see please as per your claim in post 119.