Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

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.

It's not the same and you're squirming.

A drink driving ban, temporarily, or permanently, revokes your licence to drive vehicles on the road.

An ASBO might prevent somebody from going to a certain area, but I'm not aware of anything that either prevents people from general pedestrian use of public roads (bar being in prison...) either temporarily or permanently.

Think what happens when you reach a certain age - your licence expires, and you need to reapply. That's automatic, and it applies to your licence to be able to drive a vehicle on public roads - think about that for a second.

Lum wrote: »

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.

Perhaps as any other vehicle driver, maybe.

They need a licence to do so before any of it, that ain't automatic, nor is it default, and it's not forever. That should be telling you something.

One of these things is not like the other.

Lum wrote: »

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".

I have never tried to suggest that pedestrians, merely because they have a right to be there, and priority whilst crossing, makes them automatically not negligent should they dash out into the road.

However, if a pedestrian is crossing the road, has done so in reasonably clear air (ie not dashed out when a vehicle couldn't reasonably stop) they have priority until they have completed crossing, regardless of whether they're at a "designated" crossing, near a corner, or just at some other random point along a road.

Lum wrote: »

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.

So long as the speed the truck, or other vehicle, for that matter, was not unreasonable for the conditions and it was that, rather than the speed with which a pedestrian walked into the road, that was the reason why the collision occurred.

Lum wrote: »

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.

Agreed - I've never suggested they should, but for whatever reason, if somebody is crossing the road, and the only reason that drivers are annoyed, is because it's simply holding them up, it's far from a valid complaint.

Yes, some people cross roads like complete horses' 'arrisses, but all the same, some drivers react with total ignorance and misplaced arrogance, when encountering pedestrians crossing a road, too.

Lum wrote: »

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!

To go full circle, it's hard to see the majority of negligence, for a heavily pregnant woman (not specifically just because she's pregnant, but more so because of how sprightly is likely to make her) to be crossing a road at traffic lights, even if it was on green, and for a motorcyclist to collide with her.

Especially as it would appear that at the time, they jumped up, apologised, and said they didn't see her. If her being heavily pregnant meaning it's unlikely she just appeared out of nowhere - well if that wasn't a smoking gun, him jumping up, apologising and saying he didn't see her, bloody well is.

Green doesn't just mean go, whatever, it means go if it's clear and safe to do so. And if she was already crossing, it wasn't, and I doubt she had the speed to dash out quickly, so he should have been being cautious anyway at a junction with traffic lights.

Accidents happen, nobody, but the most indoctrinated, new-age-dogma spouting crowd would try and deny. All the same, though, it takes something special to go from the initial circumstances, to being plied, or played, I suppose, by the claiming fraternity, that it would make sense to try and claim compensation from her. Being passive may make that an easy gamble for them, but otherwise, I can hardly see any actual civil case favouring her being liable for damages - that's simply got to be a very remote outcome.

Wongsky

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.

Having rights to use the roads, doesn't mean you have rights to obstruct other people using the roads.

Having priority when crossing, doesn't mean you have the priority to hold-up traffic because your pished on wife-beater, and depressed 'cos you've spent all your giro a week before the next one is due.

I know why you're arguing about it - because you don't like the concept. That's your choice. All the same, though, it's hardly the most robust position.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Of course not, that would be very inapropriate.

Absolutely.

'cos whether we like it or not, pished-up, ne'er-do-wells, still pay a significant chunk of their dole back in tax, what with all the booze, fags, and VAT on their Sky subscriptions.

Every silver lining, and all that...

Lum

It is the same, regardless of whether the restrictions are small or large. That is how the exception the proves the rule works.

If you start from a position where no laws apply to pedestrians and you write a statue law that states that it is an offence for a pedestrian to be on private land without permission of the landowner. You also implicitly create a law that it is acceptable for a pedestrian to be on any other land.

Likewise if you word the first driving related law (lets ignore the red flag law as it's been repealed) "It is an offence to use a mechanically propelled vehicle without holding a valid driving licence" you implicitly create a law giving permission to use that vehicle in all other circumstances.

Also remember that the original purpose of the driving licence was for revenue raising, there was no test attached to it. That was an additional restriction on the criteria for holding a driving licence that was added later.

In both cases it's the exact same process. It only varies in the number of restrictions added. There is no tipping point where after so many restrictions are added the default position is flipped to the opposite.

To take the classic exception that proves the rule example. Say I own a bit of private land at the roadside and I put up a sign saying "No parking on Sundays". I implicitly give the public permission to park there on the other 6 days of the week. This is roughly analogous to how it is for pedestrians.

If I make the sign say "No parking on Monday - Friday" it's still the same process, the underlying rule I have created is still that people can park there, just not on Monday - Friday. This is roughly analogous to the current restrictions on car drivers.

If I word the sign "No parking Monday 00:01 - Sunday 23:00". The process is still exactly the same, I am creating an underlying right for people to park there for the one hour of the week that I have not created an exception for.

If I word the sign "No parking except on Sundays" then it would apply in the manner that you describe, but motoring legislation is not written in this way.

Rolandtheroadie

So OP, hows the OH bearing up.

NBLondon

Wongsky wrote: »

Having rights to use the roads, doesn't mean you have rights to obstruct other people using the roads.

I think you're getting too deep into the detail based on a mistaken interpretation of the term "rights".

If you have a right to something, that actually means that the state/government cannot arbitrarily/unjustly take it away from you without due process of law.

The conditions for driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle are due process of law. So we do have a right to drive subject to those conditions.

A PC ordering adrunk to get out of the road and stop obstructing the highway ia also due process of law. So we also have a right to walk anywhere subject to conditions.

Your point about the green light meaning "Proceed if it is safe to do so" is the much more important one.

Wongsky

Lum wrote: »

It is the same, regardless of whether the restrictions are small or large. That is how the exception the proves the rule works.

No it's NOT the same.

Pedestrians require no privilege in law, no qualification, no application, no licence that may expire or be revoked, to be able to use public roads.

Motorists can only use vehicles on public roads, if they apply for and are granted licences, that are their initial entry point to be able to do so. That licence can be revoked, either temporarily, or permanently - either because of breach of rules, or because of the onset of certain medical conditions, or when it expires.

See that last bit? Expires.

That is most definitely NOT the same scenario - nor even part of the same venn diagram, as the public and their rights to use public roads.

You're merely bickering along a certain line, more out of resistance, than anything else - and it really is flawed.

Define what a licence is.

Lum wrote: »

If you start from a position where no laws apply to pedestrians and you write a statue law that states that it is an offence for a pedestrian to be on private land without permission of the landowner. You also implicitly create a law that it is acceptable for a pedestrian to be on any other land.

I'm not getting this spurious link between property / land owernship, trespass, and pedestrians having rights to use public roads.

Lum wrote: »

Likewise if you word the first driving related law (lets ignore the red flag law as it's been repealed) "It is an offence to use a mechanically propelled vehicle without holding a valid driving licence" you implicitly create a law giving permission to use that vehicle in all other circumstances.

Rubbish - you merely state a qualifying criteria that you have to at least request, and be subsequently granted permission, before you can even start. And that permission, is automatically tombstoned.

Lum wrote: »

Also remember that the original purpose of the driving licence was for revenue raising, there was no test attached to it. That was an additional restriction on the criteria for holding a driving licence that was added later.

That initially, there was a legal void where motorised vehicles are concerned, and has been increasingly differentiated over time, doesn't make it the same standpoint or default, as a pedestrian's rights.

Define what a licence is. Then try and tell me it's tantamount to having the same status as a right to use public roads as a pedestrian.

Lum wrote: »

In both cases it's the exact same process.

No it's NOT!

It's nothing like the same process. A driver has to APPLY for permission to even start trying to use a vehicle on a road, then they have to qualify, then have to meet all the other legal requirements. And a licence is nothing more than a permissions slip, which is time bound, can be revoked for various reasons, and will automatically expire at a certain point.

That's nothing like the scenario for the general public having rights to be able to use public roads.

Lum wrote: »

It only varies in the number of restrictions added. There is no tipping point where after so many restrictions are added the default position is flipped to the opposite.

Which is complete rubbish - the public doesn't have to apply for permission to be able to be a pedestrian on a public road, they are not held accountable by qualifying criteria, a "permission slip" nor can their general access be removed (conveniently ignoring their removal from society if they are imprisoned, nor does their access automatically expire at an arbitrary point (obviously ignoring the point when they are, um dead).

Lum wrote: »

To take the classic exception that proves the rule example. Say I own a bit of private land at the roadside and I put up a sign saying "No parking on Sundays". I implicitly give the public permission to park there on the other 6 days of the week. This is roughly analogous to how it is for pedestrians.

It's nothing like that - permission is quite a gulf away from having a right.

That's just naive.

Lum wrote: »

If I make the sign say "No parking on Monday - Friday" it's still the same process, the underlying rule I have created is still that people can park there, just not on Monday - Friday. This is roughly analogous to the current restrictions on car drivers.

Your sign doesn't given any rights to anybody.

It merely states when something is not permitted.

Lum wrote: »

If I word the sign "No parking Monday 00:01 - Sunday 23:00". The process is still exactly the same, I am creating an underlying right for people to park there for the one hour of the week that I have not created an exception for.

You are not creating any sort of right at all.

You merely imply that there is permission to park there at certain points.

Lum wrote: »

If I word the sign "No parking except on Sundays" then it would apply in the manner that you describe, but motoring legislation is not written in this way.

I appreciate the convoluted effort - truly - but it's all spurious, really.

You are trying to suggest that permission granted is tantamount to right to do something - and it's not.

That's how owners of business can prevent people from using their facilities, on a discretionary basis - because the public DON'T have rights in that scenario - they have permission - like drivers do, when they get a licence, and meet all the other legal stipulations.

Wongsky

NBLondon wrote: »

I think you're getting too deep into the detail based on a mistaken interpretation of the term "rights".

If you have a right to something, that actually means that the state/government cannot arbitrarily/unjustly take it away from you without due process of law.

What rights can be taken away, then?

NBLondon wrote: »

The conditions for driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle are due process of law. So we do have a right to drive subject to those conditions.

No, you have permission, provided certain conditions are met.

And it's not unlimited permission. Your licence will automatically expire, or could because of medical condition(s), or breaking the rules - even permanently.

How does a pedestrians rights to use public roads, ever get comprehensively and permanently removed?

terryw

And we we haven't started on the concept of contributory negligence yet.

Wongsky

terryw wrote: »

And we we haven't started on the concept of contributory negligence yet.

I thought we briefly flirted with the concept a couple of pages back?

Couple of drinks, the odd martini, didn't lead anywhere. Everybody went home slightly frustrated...