Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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

Where did I dispute that there wasn't a European convention, or us being signatories to it?

What relevance does that have, with respect to our constitution?

Mrs_Arcanum

For drivers taken from Direct Gove Rule 170

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

For pedestrians from Direct Gov Green Cross Code

A. First find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. It is safer to cross using a subway, a footbridge, an island, a zebra, pelican, toucan or puffin crossing, or where there is a crossing point controlled by a police officer, a school crossing patrol or a traffic warden. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions. Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly. Do not cross the road diagonally.

8
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).

adouglasmhor

We have had rule 170 several times now, some people think that means they always have priority everywhere except designated roads.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Where did I dispute that there wasn't a European convention, or us being signatories to it?

What relevance does that have, with respect to our constitution?

Sorry the first one should read constitution.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

We have had rule 170 several times now, some people think that means they always have priority everywhere except designated roads.

And some people don't, and therefore dispute it - so presumably believe that vehicles then have priority.

So for those that dispute that pedestrians have priority when crossing, regardless of whether they're doing so at a junction, "designated" crossing, or any other place on a road - presumably they believe that vehicles do.

And given that people don't (currently) have actual rights to use their cars on the roads, they are merely permitted to, if all the qualifying criteria is met, which is all enshrined in law - presumably, then, those that believe that vehicles have this greater priority, will be able to cite the relevant law(s) - given that using a vehicle on the road is already controlled by various laws (and given that being a pedestrian on a public road - 'cept motorways - ISN'T).

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

And some people don't, and therefore dispute it - so presumably believe that vehicles then have priority.

So for those that dispute that pedestrians have priority when crossing, regardless of whether they're doing so at a junction, "designated" crossing, or any other place on a road - presumably they believe that vehicles do.

And given that people don't (currently) have actual rights to use their cars on the roads, they are merely permitted to, if all the qualifying criteria is met, which is all enshrined in law - presumably, then, those that believe that vehicles have this greater priority, will be able to cite the relevant law(s) - given that using a vehicle on the road is already controlled by various laws (and given that being a pedestrian on a public road - 'cept motorways - ISN'T).

I have never said that vehicles have priority though, only that pedestrians do not have a right of way (you see things in a sort of either or, black or white way, aww bless). So if neither have a legal right of way, maybe common sense and common courtesy should be applied, that might even work.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have never said that vehicles have priority though, only that pedestrians do not have a right of way (you see things in a sort of either or, black or white way, aww bless).

You do like to resort to ad hominem quite a bit, don't you... personally, didn't go with the "aww bless" thought it was too absurdly twee and patronising. Besides, I don't need to try and convince anybody that I can do insincere.

And the whole "right of way" old-school term has been discussed already, as deprecated.

The situation is quite simple. Pedestrian on the pavement, car on the road, car has priority. Pedestrian crossing the road (assuming the pedestrian hasn't just run out in front of a car) has priority.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

So if neither have a legal right of way, maybe common sense and common courtesy should be applied, that might even work.

Rights are being discussed, because pedestrians have rights to use the road - therefore their access and use, isn't merely permitted as part of the RTA.

In all other respects, driving bodies, the police, and seemingly everybody else, these days, wants to talk about priority - because that helps them apportion blame.

The problem with the whole common-sense approach, being that it seems that the majority of drivers seemingly forget the true reality, in favour of might-is-right, so when barrelling around a corner and somebody is already crossing, or up to a set of lights, on green for them, but where somebody is already crossing, many have the mistaken belief that they have priority (or "right of way" as you put it...), and rant, blast their horn and remonstrate.

In fact that's the general problem with many motorists running to conclusions about things - which has made roads a harsher place for other non-motorised road users, like pedestrians, like cyclists, like horse riders, in recent times.

But you see, that's what happens, when "common sense" runs amok.

Which brings us right back to why this argument may always rage on - because some don't want to believe. Which is fine - for people who believe that I'm / it's not correct, it should be very easy to find sections of law supporting a point on where cars have priority, in law, since practically all other regulation of cars and vehicles is defined in law.

And yes, I get, that some people don't like the vagueries of pedestrian rights on public roads, and desperately and furious demand quotes from law that state such - but once you get around the idea that people don't actually need to have any specific conditions or privilege in law to be a pedestrian on public roads, it should (hopefully!) start to make more sense to them.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

but once you get around the idea that people don't actually need to have any specific conditions or privilege in law to be a pedestrian on public roads

Or a horsewoman, or a cyclist or a skateboarder or an inline skater, or even dare I say it a car user as long as you meet the conditions in law, and even then how exactly does that give any one priority where none is laid out?

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Or a horsewoman, or a cyclist or a skateboarder or an inline skater

By-laws may have some bearing on the last 2.

As to the first 2, quite correct - they also have rights to use the road, and don't need any legal provision to do so. They tend to be actual traffic, though, as opposed to situations where they're crossing traffic.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

or even dare I say it a car user as long as you meet the conditions in law

You may dare say it, but don't let it trouble you being actually right. These aren't the droids you're looking for...

READ the paragraph you're replying to - they and the driver do actually need to meet several conditions in law. What you were replying to was specifically stating that pedestrians DON'T need to, in contrast to motorists that DO.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

and even then how exactly does that give any one priority where none is laid out?

Just because it's not laid out in one place, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Pedestrians have rights to use the roads. Drivers and vehicles, merely permission, if they meet criteria in law.

Pedestrians aren't denied access to public roads if they've got sufficient bad taste to walk around with the collars of their polo shirts turned up, or excessive gold jewelry, optionally including sovereign rings. There's no mandatory tests they have to pass, nor license they need to apply for, nor insurance they must be covered by. Because people can use the public roads, on foot, simply because they have a right to.

So when you read something from the highway code, about when drivers turn into a road, and there's a pedestrian already crossing, why, do you imagine, it declares they have priority?

Something magical that means it just applies within x feet of a corner?

Or do you imagine there's perhaps a little more to it?

johnfarquhar74

rob7475 wrote: »

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.

re the bits in bold, you don't need to be named, most household insurance policies cover all those within the household. In my case I am named but the policy covers my wife and daughter as well.
As for public liability insurance, I know mines has it, as I read the policy, but I recall a heated discussion(argument) I had with a cousin regarding this and cyclists that ride the road "unlicensed and uninsured". I stated that most home insurance policies have this, he argued he categorically did not, I asked who his insurance was, Halifax, I checked the key facts online, lo and behold, he did indeed have it.
Not that it really matters now if you're seeking 'proper' legal advice, hope it all works out and all is still well with your girlfriend/baby!