Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Lum

Isn't the law worded that an offence is commuted if you drive a mechanically propelled vehicle without [mot/tax/insurance/licence]. I.e. the wording is such that there are certain conditions that prevent you from being able to do so, against a default condition of being allowed. This is crucially different from driving a mechanically propelled vehicle being generally prohibited and certain conditions being created that allow it.

Removing the cars from the equation, because the argument gets much more emotive once cars are involved. Cyclists are prohibited from riding on the road at night without lights. So are we to interpret this as meaning that cyclists are generally prohibited from using the road unless they meet certain conditions (i.e. it being daylight or they have lights on) or that they are generally allowed to use the road with one specific prohibition (not allowed at night without lights).

The common law concept of "exception that proves the rule" comes into play here, so the specific wording becomes very important.

Some examples

RTA_S34 wrote:

Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle— (a)on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b)on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.

Here the presumption is that you can drive a vehicle anywhere, and this section explicitly removes the permission to drive in places other than a road.


Section 87 is worded similarly, and removes the right to drive without a licence, a right that people actually had 100 years ago.


Section 143 removes the right to drive without insurance.


So to me it looks like you are generally allowed to drive anywhere, same as a pedestrian is generally allowed to walk anywhere, but over the years restrictions have been added. Exactly the same as the restrictions added to pedestrians (no motorways and certain other roads, no private property etc.) and cyclists (same as pedestrians, and also without lights at night)




So I don't beleive Wongsky's argument has any merit. So long as a motorist does not fall foul of one of the (admittedly large number of) restrictions placed on them they have the exact same rights and responsibilities as any other road user.


I emphasise the responsibilities bit because that includes the responsibility to not injure people through negligence, amongst others.

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

Isn't the law worded that an offence is commuted if you drive a mechanically propelled vehicle without [mot/tax/insurance/licence]. I.e. the wording is such that there are certain conditions that prevent you from being able to do so, against a default condition of being allowed. This is crucially different from driving a mechanically propelled vehicle being generally prohibited and certain conditions being created that allow it.

Removing the cars from the equation, because the argument gets much more emotive once cars are involved. Cyclists are prohibited from riding on the road at night without lights. So are we to interpret this as meaning that cyclists are generally prohibited from using the road unless they meet certain conditions (i.e. it being daylight or they have lights on) or that they are generally allowed to use the road with one specific prohibition (not allowed at night without lights).

The common law concept of "exception that proves the rule" comes into play here, so the specific wording becomes very important.

Some examples

Here the presumption is that you can drive a vehicle anywhere, and this section explicitly removes the permission to drive in places other than a road.


Section 87 is worded similarly, and removes the right to drive without a licence, a right that people actually had 100 years ago.


Section 143 removes the right to drive without insurance.


So to me it looks like you are generally allowed to drive anywhere, same as a pedestrian is generally allowed to walk anywhere, but over the years restrictions have been added. Exactly the same as the restrictions added to pedestrians (no motorways and certain other roads, no private property etc.) and cyclists (same as pedestrians, and also without lights at night)




So I don't beleive Wongsky's argument has any merit. So long as a motorist does not fall foul of one of the (admittedly large number of) restrictions placed on them they have the exact same rights and responsibilities as any other road user.


I emphasise the responsibilities bit because that includes the responsibility to not injure people through negligence, amongst others.

There's a difference - none of the things you mention regarding vehicles, are actually about rights.

Currently, in this country, nobody has a right to use a motorised vehicle on public roads. If everything qualifies, they have a limited privilege.

Nobody has an automatic right, either from birth, or from the age of 17 to drive a vehicle on a public road. They have to apply, get a licence, be insured, be driving a vehicle that's deemed to have passed roadworthy controls, have any necessary VED paid, the car be insured to be on the road, and only then, when a driver has passed 2 mandatory tests, can they then drive a car on a public road, on their own.

It's not a "right" if there's a long list of conditions that have to be met first.

Pedestrians need none of those machinations to use all public roads.

Why?

Lum

Again, it's very much about semantics, as law often is.

When cars first came out, there were no specific restrictions on them. People could happily drive them down cobbled streets scaring people's horses or whatever. They had the exact same rights and responsibilities as a horse rider or a pedestrian.

Over the years restrictions have been put in place on all classes of road user.

And this is the key point, for both mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians. The law is subtractive, not additive. It's a semantic but crucially important difference.

The law is..

Anyone can drive a car anywhere they like, unless:
- They are under 17
- They don't have a licence
- They don't have a roadworthy vehicle
- They are drunk
- They don't have tax
- They don't have insurance
- They are attempting to drive somewhere other than a road (unless they have permission from the landowner)
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

The law is not:

Nobody can drive a car at all, unless:
- They are over 17
- They a licence
- They a roadworthy vehicle
- They aren't drunk
- They have tax
- They have insurance
- They are on a road or with permission of the landowner
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

For pedestrians the law works exactly the same

Pedestrians can walk anywhere they like unless:
- It's a motorway
- There is a no pedestrians sign
- It's private land and they don't have permission from the landowner
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

The underlying starting position is the same for both.

johnfarquhar74

Wongsky wrote: »

Pedestrians need none of those machinations to use all public roads.

Why?

Because it would be a nightmare to enforce, because folk have been walking roads long before the current legal system was installed and rights recognised, because money can't be made from them and if it could there would be anarchy?
May I politely suggest you keep those daft questions to yourself just in case Big Brother is watching and gets ideas;)

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

Again, it's very much about semantics, as law often is.

When cars first came out, there were no specific restrictions on them. People could happily drive them down cobbled streets scaring people's horses or whatever. They had the exact same rights and responsibilities as a horse rider or a pedestrian.

Over the years restrictions have been put in place on all classes of road user.

And this is the key point, for both mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians. The law is subtractive, not additive. It's a semantic but crucially important difference.

The law is..

Anyone can drive a car anywhere they like, unless:
- They are under 17
- They don't have a licence
- They don't have a roadworthy vehicle
- They are drunk
- They don't have tax
- They don't have insurance
- They are attempting to drive somewhere other than a road (unless they have permission from the landowner)
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

The law is not:

Nobody can drive a car at all, unless:
- They are over 17
- They a licence
- They a roadworthy vehicle
- They aren't drunk
- They have tax
- They have insurance
- They are on a road or with permission of the landowner
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

For pedestrians the law works exactly the same

Pedestrians can walk anywhere they like unless:
- It's a motorway
- There is a no pedestrians sign
- It's private land and they don't have permission from the landowner
- Others I can't be bothered to list.

The underlying starting position is the same for both.

You're wrong about the default position.

Pedestrians can use public roads, because they've had rights to, for a very long time.

At first, when cars first came out, they were probably not differentiated in law, but once they have been it's different.

You say the default condition is that people meeting that criteria can drive, unless they don't meet the criteria. But that's misleading. It's not the default position. Because it's not a right.

It's because it's a privilege that has to be qualified, and then is still highly controlled.

You have to apply, firstly - so it's far from a default that once you reach the minimum age, it's almost automatic; you then have to qualify, so that you can do so without supervision; and once you reach a certain age, you have to apply again - and potentially have to re-qualify. And certain medical conditions may mean you cannot either temporarily, or permanently drive a vehicle on public roads.

Also, if somebody is caught, bang to rights, for drink driving, they can be banned from driving - repeated sufficiently, I believe for life? That doesn't much sound like a right or default position to me.

Sure enough, if a pedestrian is caught drunk on the roads, they can be prosecuted, even imprisioned for a while - and certain by-laws may make it possible for them to be banned from certain places. But in general, nobody can be banned, comprehensively, from being a pedestrian, on public roads.

arcon5

She should contribute at least 50% of costs if she walked out in front of a moving vehicle whilst the light was on green.

Lum

Again. a drink driving ban puts you foul of the "except if you don't have a driving licence" criteria. This or any other ban, ASBO for pedestrians, whatever, is placing a restriction on the underlying right.

Yes car drivers are subject to many more restrictions than pedestrians but every single one of them is exactly what it says.. a restriction, a removal from the default position. Providing the car driver does not fall foul of any of those restrictions they have just as much right to be there as anyone else.

At the end of the day none of this matters though. If a pedestrian steps out in front of your vehicle and you do not take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent a collision then you have, at the very least, contributed to the accident. Nobody has the right to say "Well I'm allowed to be here. It's their fault so I'm just going to plough on and ignore them". Likewise a pedestrian cannot say "I have a right to cross here so I'm just going to leap out from behind this phone box in front of that 44 tonne truck". If the truck cannot reasonably stop and could not have reasonably predicted that someone would jump out from that point, it will be the pedestrian who will be to blame.

What's really needed is a bit of common sense and common decency. Pedestrians shouldn't be stepping out in front of cars and expecting them to slam on the brakes. Cars shouldn't be harassing, bullying or hitting pedestrians that are already on the road, and everybody should learn how a sodding zebra crossing works!

We all have a duty of care to other road users and to other members of society at large. It's not a one way thing.

adouglasmhor

If a pedestrian is wandering aimlessly along say Byres Road in Glasgow during the rush hour, causing traffic to build up and tempers to fray.

When nice Constable McGlumpher of the Strathclyde Police turns up is he going to say "Nothing we can do pedestrians have a right to use the roads" or is he going to say "Oi McWongsky!" Use the pavement or you are getting lifted for obstruction". So much for rights.

mikey72

adouglasmhor wrote: »

If a pedestrian is wandering aimlessly along say Byres Road in Glasgow during the rush hour, causing traffic to build up and tempers to fray.

When nice Constable McGlumpher of the Strathclyde Police turns up is he going to say "Nothing we can do pedestrians have a right to use the roads" or is he going to say "Oi McWongsky!" Use the pavement or you are getting lifted for obstruction". So much for rights.

But he couldn't tell the motorist behind him to simply run over him.

adouglasmhor

mikey72 wrote: »

But he couldn't tell the motorist behind him to simply run over him.

Of course not, that would be very inapropriate.