Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Mrs_Arcanum

A colleagues husband has access to a roadworthy taxed and insured car, but if he were to attempt to drive it he would immediately be breaking the law, as he does not have any form of driving licence.

Yet he is free to walk anywhere permitted and has to undergo no training or prove he is capable of controlling his legs in the correct manner. Nor does he have to have tax or insurance or a Doctors note to show his legs are in a safe condition to undertake this method of travelling from a to b.

londonTiger

Hoonercat wrote: »

Or he could be facing a large bill for damages which he can either pay for himself or go through his insurance co, putting his premiums up, and wondering why he should be out of pocket because a pedestrian failed to see him? I'm guessing that this didn't happen on a pedestrian crossing as there is no mention of a green man, only a red light. Some people see a red light and assume it's safe to cross without actually looking first, I've seen it happen several times.
To suggest that the biker must have been speeding doesn't really make sense, your OH was only half way across the first lane when she was hit, the bike would have had to have been traveling at a ridiculous speed to have hit her and she would not have escaped injury free.

No. In this country there's far too much liability on vehicles as a result you have idiots just crossing the road and walking slowly across a main road focing the traffic to slow down for them.

It's damn right scary when driving across a residential road knowing that any idiot can just walk on the road in front of you and automatically it will be your fault.

I'm shock the a heavily preganant woman wouldn't take precautions with these things, look both ways and wait for the green man before crossing. How irresponsible! The read circle light is for traffic, not for pedestrians. They do not tell pedesterians when the lights will change and indeed in this case there may be separate lights for different lanes of traffic.

A motorcyclst can't just slam on their breaks as easily as cars can, on top of the standard precautions for road vehicles, motorcyclists need to be observant of pot holes and be extra vigilant over other road users.

It seems clear that the motocycle got the green light and your OH misjudged this and stepped onto the road. They're well within their rights to put a claim through because unfortunately if they don't they risk having a claim filed against them. It's unfortunate they went though a claims company because now the claims company is going to rack up the charges.

BertTheRaccoon

This thread is full of win :laugh:

Mrs_Arcanum

londonTiger wrote: »

No. In this country there's far too much liability on vehicles as a result you have idiots just crossing the road and walking slowly across a main road focing the traffic to slow down for them.

It's damn right scary when driving across a residential road knowing that any idiot can just walk on the road in front of you and automatically it will be your fault.

I'm shock the a heavily preganant woman wouldn't take precautions with these things, look both ways and wait for the green man before crossing. How irresponsible! The read circle light is for traffic, not for pedestrians. They do not tell pedesterians when the lights will change and indeed in this case there may be separate lights for different lanes of traffic.

A motorcyclst can't just slam on their breaks as easily as cars can, on top of the standard precautions for road vehicles, motorcyclists need to be observant of pot holes and be extra vigilant over other road users.

It seems clear that the motocycle got the green light and your OH misjudged this and stepped onto the road. They're well within their rights to put a claim through because unfortunately if they don't they risk having a claim filed against them. It's unfortunate they went though a claims company because now the claims company is going to rack up the charges.

My question is, why didn't the motorcyclist steer round the pregnant pedestrian rather than ploughing into them. Bikes are after all more manoeuvrable than cars.

I avoid running pedestrians over on a 4' wide path whilst cycling. Roads are far wider.

marlot

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

My question is, why didn't the motorcyclist steer round the pregnant pedestrian rather than ploughing into them. Bikes are after all more manoeuvrable than cars.

Target fixation may have something to do with it. The brain can play some strange tricks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_fixation

http://www.commutebybike.com/2008/09/18/commuting-101-avoid-target-fixation/

real1314

societys_child wrote: »

It was the first thing I found, maybe should have solicitor.

But you just don't get it do you.

If a pedestrian is crossing the road causing the motorist to stop to avoid a collision, the motorist has given way.

So what do you call that?

Think about it, The motorist has given way.

Therefore the motorist must have given them the right of way

The alternative is to not give way, and run into them, which isn't allowed.

If I'm hammering some nails into a piece of wood, and I clip my mug of coffee with my shoulder, causing it to fall into the path of my hammer, I would attempt to stop the swing of my hammer so that I don't smash the mug.
Therefore the mug has "right of way" over the hammer. Handymanway Code Reg 7.00L

but...if a brick comes flying through the air towards my head, I'd move my head to avoid getting hit by it, therefore the brick clearly has "right of way" over my head. Brickway Code Reg ID.10.T

If an asteroid is flying through space, towards a satellite, the controllers of the satellite would attempt to move the satellite, therefore the asteroid has "right of way". Spaceway Code Reg 42

If a peanut is flying through the air, I'd try to move my mouth to catch it. Therefore my mouth has "right of way" over the peanut. Noshway Code reg 7.8.9

I'll get my coat............................:cool:

Yorkie1

real1314 wrote: »

If I'm hammering some nails into a piece of wood, and I clip my mug of coffee with my shoulder, causing it to fall into the path of my hammer, I would attempt to stop the swing of my hammer so that I don't smash the mug.
Therefore the mug has "right of way" over the hammer. Handymanway Code Reg 7.00L

but...if a brick comes flying through the air towards my head, I'd move my head to avoid getting hit by it, therefore the brick clearly has "right of way" over my head. Brickway Code Reg ID.10.T

If an asteroid is flying through space, towards a satellite, the controllers of the satellite would attempt to move the satellite, therefore the asteroid has "right of way". Spaceway Code Reg 42

If a peanut is flying through the air, I'd try to move my mouth to catch it. Therefore my mouth has "right of way" over the peanut. Noshway Code reg 7.8.9

I'll get my coat............................:cool:

:rotfl:

Think I need to go and weed the garden, this thread has gone round in circles so long it's now launched itself into outer space like a coiled spring! :rotfl:

Johnmcl7

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

My question is, why didn't the motorcyclist steer round the pregnant pedestrian rather than ploughing into them. Bikes are after all more manoeuvrable than cars.

I avoid running pedestrians over on a 4' wide path whilst cycling. Roads are far wider.

It sounds like the motorbike was going at a reasonable speed and while bikes are smaller than cars, I wouldn't say they're more manoeuverable as you have to be very careful with your balance. Any quick moves moves such as swerving or grabbing the brakes can drop the bike, a pedal bike is very different as it's much lighter and very easy to balance as you can pretty much stop and keep the bike upright as well as lean it over or swerve without issue. I don't know what happened any more than anyone else in the thread (aside from the OP) but it sounds like the motorcyclist was going at a reasonable speed and didn't expect the pedstrian so wasn't ready to evade or stop and hit straight into them.

While I think there is possible blame for either side (without having seen the incident), I'd feel extremely bad about hitting a pregnant lady and certainly wouldn't be wanting to claim off them but it is concerning how manby people now relent to these claims companies.

John

londonTiger

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

My question is, why didn't the motorcyclist steer round the pregnant pedestrian rather than ploughing into them. Bikes are after all more manoeuvrable than cars.

a bike can't just swerve, it's not a car. a car can take avoiding action and crash into a vehicle on it's right and still be relatively unscathed. A motorcycle has to check his/her mirrors before swerving.

Even if it did swerve and avoid the idiot in he middle of the road, there's a good chance they may go off balance and end up on it's side.

The human brain isn't a computer, it can't do all these calculations all at once. I was invovled in an accident that was not my fault. When you see the collision about to take place the only thing that happens is that you hit the brakes and your brain freezes. You only hit the brakes because it's almost second nature to you. There's not much room for any other thought, you just stare at the other car as it gets closer and closer to you..

Given that the pregnant woman didn't get an ambulance and didn't have any damage done to the baby. I would say the collision between the bike and the pedestrian was very light. The bike may have hit the brakes but the braking distance wasn't enough to completely avoid the collision.

May it did swerve a little a just got clipped a little on it's handle which resulted him falling on his side and damaging his bike. facts of the matter are:

* speed of collision was extremely low, low enough to not force a miscarriage on a pregnant woman.
* damage was severe enough to require an insurance claim

my guess is motorcycle took some sort of avoiding action.

londonTiger

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

I avoid running pedestrians over on a 4' wide path whilst cycling. Roads are far wider.

I take it you're not a proper rod user, you'v never driven nor ridden an actual motorbike. There is a huge difference between a pushbike and a motorbike. A motorbike weighs 200+kg, it is harder to stop and due to it's weight harder to balance.

A pushbike is completely different mate, as others already pointed out.