Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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

Have you the recollection of a goldfish? All of that was because I questioned why anybody would be receiving a summons, which you wibbled with, because - yes, technically, they could be summonsed - but my entire point was, that it's so unlikely as to be quite a remote chance.

Yet you still wibbled, then folded when questioned further.

Nice going, there, Francis.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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?

Do you see any legislation, or rules, whatsoever, on qualifying criteria, before a member of the public can use a public road (excepting motorways) as a pedestrian?

Anything, anything at all... Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...

Do you see any legislation not only restricting, but detailing requirements, for the public to use vehicles on public roads?

That telling you anything? Anything at all?

rob7475

jesus - think everyone is getting a bit worked up over this. starting to wish i'd never bothered posting.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

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.

Conventions not constitution, we are already bound by the conventions.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Conventions not constitution, we are already bound by the conventions.

Rights are constitutional - not by "convention".

Tilt

rob7475 wrote: »

jesus - think everyone is getting a bit worked up over this. starting to wish i'd never bothered posting.

My sentiments as per post 141!

Have you noted my advice about seeing a solicitor and not corresponding withe the 'management co' further?

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Have you the recollection of a goldfish? All of that was because I questioned why anybody would be receiving a summons, which you wibbled with, because - yes, technically, they could be summonsed - but my entire point was, that it's so unlikely as to be quite a remote chance.

Yet you still wibbled, then folded when questioned further.

Nice going, there, Francis.

Do you see any legislation, or rules, whatsoever, on qualifying criteria, before a member of the public can use a public road (excepting motorways) as a pedestrian?

Anything, anything at all... Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...

Do you see any legislation not only restricting, but detailing requirements, for the public to use vehicles on public roads?

That telling you anything? Anything at all?That you excersise your right to jump to conclusions to an Olympian standard

So you honestly believe that you become a lesser being by virtue of being in a properly operated motor vehicle and you have less right? Really, what about a pedestrian and an equestrian? a pedestrian and a cyclist? a pedestrian and an ox-cart drover? Come on now stop passing the buck back to me, where does it state in an official document or act of parliament that the pedestrian has right of way over other road users except in the specific incidents detailed above? And if they have this right anyway - why oh why would they specifically mention it in the circumstances linked to above?

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Rights are constitutional - not by "convention".

But we do not have a convention according to you. But we are signatories to the European Conventions.

rob7475

Tilt wrote: »

My sentiments as per post 141!

Have you noted my advice about seeing a solicitor and not corresponding withe the 'management co' further?

I have thank you and I think this is what we will do.

Tilt

rob7475 wrote: »

I have thank you and I think this is what we will do.

Good, please keep us posted... if you dare!:D

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So you honestly believe that you become a lesser being by virtue of being in a properly operated motor vehicle and you have less right?

No - merely that to operate a vehicle on a public road, in this country, is a privilege, based on several qualifying criteria.

THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS.

Is even a little bit of that sinking in, yet?

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Come on now stop passing the buck back to me, where does it state in an official document or act of parliament that the pedestrian has right of way over other road users except in the specific incidents detailed above? And if they have this right anyway - why oh why would they specifically mention it in the circumstances linked to above?

So that vehicle drivers have some clarity.

Rights aren't enshrined in laws, nor acts. They may be protected, enhanced, clarified, but not defined.

That's why a member of the public, does not need to qualify, in any way, to be pedestrian, or use the road. No piece of legislation grants that.

The exception to it all, is roads provided specifically for vehicles - ie motorways.