Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Mrs_Arcanum

londonTiger wrote: »

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.

I regularly fall off my bike as I try to steer by leaning as my momentum is insufficient to keep me upright along with the pedals scraping the kerb. :rotfl:

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

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.

Still waiting for you to post anything other than opinion TBH, all your squirming, semantics and bluster and no substance, go on just one link in the RTA, Highway Code or a legal or government journal, go on, you know in your heart you must be right, but someone somewhere must agree with you?

adouglasmhor

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Still waiting for you to post anything other than opinion TBH, all your squirming, semantics and bluster and no substance, go on just one link in the RTA, Highway Code or a legal or government journal, go on, you know in your heart you must be right, but someone somewhere must agree with you?

Do it and I will put my hands up and admit I was wrong all along.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Still waiting for you to post anything other than opinion TBH, all your squirming, semantics and bluster and no substance, go on just one link in the RTA, Highway Code or a legal or government journal, go on, you know in your heart you must be right, but someone somewhere must agree with you?

You think it's just my opinion, that pedestrians have RIGHTS as opposed to mere permission, to use public roads?

I wasn't doing any squirming - others (including you) were doing some desperate dances and contortions, just to bicker against something they really don't like the sound of, which all didn't stand scrutiny and logical besting.

As to pedestrian rights - well rights are constitutional - and as England's constitution is, well, not really singularly defined (some would say largely unwritten) it doesn't mean they don't exist - just in the same way you have a right to free speech, to own property, to be presumed innocent etc.

Personally, I'm not interested in appeals to authority - arguments live or die on there merits and whether they can be articulated logically. As did this particular one. That you still feel unfulfilled is tragic - I feel for you, I really do. But I'm not spending my time, searching for links on the internet, for things that are pretty damned fundamental - and at the end of the day, anyone wading into debate on this topic, so forcefully, should bloody well know already.

Do you need to be told and supplied a link to an internet site / webpage, informing you of your right to freedom, of your right to free speech, of your right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, of your right to own property, your RIGHT to be able to walk down a public street?

They only real, if there's some link to some document that states it?

'cos you could spend a while researching some internet link that proves all the things that are actual rights.

Some basics: people in this country, have a right to be able to walk using public roads. They don't have to request permission (generally), nor are there any explicit requirements.

To drive a motorised vehicle on a public road, the very first, most basic step you need to do (and accepting you must be above a certain age, and have certain qualifying criteria) is to apply for a license.

So then, what's a definition of a license?

I'll help you out, there - it's a fancy way of saying permission slip. That's right permission. You have to ask for permission. That doesn't sound like something that's an automatic right. Why? Because it isn't. By default you CAN'T. You have to at least meet basic qualifying criteria, then apply for permission then pass some tests, and then - and only then - have you got permission - to be able to drive, unsupervised, on public roads - and not unlimited permission... it runs out, or can be revoked through either rule breaking, or medical conditions that make you automatically ineligible.

Curiously, you don't have to apply for permission to be a pedestrian. Funny that.

That license, whether you then qualify for a full one, after completing mandatory tests, or whether still left in learner / provisional state, will be tombstoned - in a much briefer period if you don't qualify, but all the same, doesn't last forever.

I'm sure people reading this thread, can make up their own minds, see the arguments that were purely reluctance to an idea that is objectionable to some, and cogent, logical rebuttal.

As I said, I'm not interested in appeal to authority, and have eventually run out of patience in stating the bleeding obvious - if that's the only way you will feel satiated, then I suspect you're going to be disappointed.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Do it and I will put my hands up and admit I was wrong all along.

Bloody hell, you are desparate and unfulfilled about this, aren't you? Replying to yourself?

Here's closure for you: you were wrong all along - just thought I'd help you along with that.

Lum

This has reached the point, as many internet "discussions" do where both sides are just re-stating the same argument over and over again in different wordings and are never going to agree. It's not going to get any further.

So OP, how is your wife doing?

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

You think it's just my opinion, that pedestrians have RIGHTS as opposed to mere permission, to use public roads?
All humans have rights, passing a driving test and getting a licence does not remove them does it?
I wasn't doing any squirming - others (including you) were doing some desperate dances and contortions, just to bicker against something they really don't like the sound of, which all didn't stand scrutiny and logical besting.

As to pedestrian rights - well rights are constitutional - and as England's constitution is, well, not really singularly defined (some would say largely unwritten) it doesn't mean they don't exist - just in the same way you have a right to free speech????, to own property, to be presumed innocent etc.

Personally, I'm not interested in appeals to authority - arguments live or die on there merits and whether they can be articulated logically. As did this particular one. That you still feel unfulfilled is tragic - I feel for you, I really do. But I'm not spending my time, searching for links on the internet, for things that are pretty damned fundamentathat do not existl - and at the end of the day, anyone wading into debate on this topic, so forcefully, should bloody well know already.

Do you need to be told and supplied a link to an internet site / webpage, informing you of your right to freedom, of your right to free speech, of your right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwiseNo because i have seen that before, of your right to own propertyI have seen that before, your RIGHT to be able to walk down a public streetwhich isn't the same as the right to wander amongst traffic ?

They only real, if there's some link to some document that states it?

'cos you could spend a while researching some internet link that proves all the things that are actual rights.

Some basics: people in this country, have a right to be able to walk using public roads. They don't have to request permission (generally), nor are there any explicit requirements.

To drive a motorised vehicle on a public road, the very first, most basic step you need to do (and accepting you must be above a certain age, and have certain qualifying criteria) is to apply for a license.

So then, what's a definition of a license?

I'll help you out, there - it's a fancy way of saying permission slip. That's right permission. You have to ask for permission. That doesn't sound like something that's an automatic right. Why? Because it isn't. By default you CAN'T. You have to at least meet basic qualifying criteria, then apply for permission then pass some tests, and then - and only then - have you got permission - to be able to drive, unsupervised, on public roads - and not unlimited permission... it runs out, or can be revoked through either rule breaking, or medical conditions that make you automatically ineligible.

Curiously, you don't have to apply for permission to be a pedestrian. Funny that.
That license, whether you then qualify for a full one, after completing mandatory tests, or whether still left in learner / provisional state, will be tombstoned - in a much briefer period if you don't qualify, but all the same, doesn't last forever.

I'm sure people reading this thread, can make up their own minds, see the arguments that were purely reluctance to an idea that is objectionable to some, and cogent, logical rebuttal.

As I said, I'm not interested in appeal to authority, and have eventually run out of patience in stating the bleeding obvious - if that's the only way you will feel satiated, then I suspect you're going to be disappointed.It's received wisdom, non existent, made up[, believed by you like some people believe in fairies

Bloody hell, you are desparate and unfulfilled about this, aren't you? Replying to yourself?

Here's closure for you: you were wrong all along - just thought I'd help you along with that.

England does not have a constitution, it does not even have it's own parliament (did you mean Great Britain, you certainly could not have meant the UK as in one part of the UK there is an offence of "jaywalking" so certainly no "right" to any priority there). And even if you have a right to walk down a public street (at no point have I said otherwise) it does not necessarily give you any priority on the road, bit of a logic fail there, unsurprisingly.
Your entire argument is based on "it is because I say so".
The rest is merely your self-opinionated viewpoint which with your lack of knowledge on other points as above means so very little.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

England does not have a constitution, it does not even have it's own parliament (did you mean Great Britain, you certainly could not have meant the UK as in one part of the UK there is an offence of "jaywalking" so certainly no "right" to any priority there). And even if you have a right to walk down a public street (at no point have I said otherwise) it does not necessarily give you any priority on the road, bit of a logic fail there, unsurprisingly.
Your entire argument is based on "it is because I say so".
The rest is merely your self-opinionated viewpoint which with your lack of knowledge on other points as above means so very little.

Fundamentals: the public have a right to walk on the roads, even that thing you seem to pay heed to, the Highway code states that pedestrians have priority when already crossing - why would it say that then? You don't have to meet some minimal requirements, nor do you need to apply for permission, nor does it expire, nor can it be comprehensively and permanently removed.

In contrast, the public have no stated rights to drive motor vehicles on public roads. They have to meet qualifying criteria, apply for permission, qualify, not breach the rules, not develop certain medical conditions, and your permission will automatically expire.

My argument isn't merely that of assertion, it's based on fundamentals, and logic that simply cannot be denied - which is, largely, why you're not, you're just wibbling around the edges.

As to your comments about passing a driving test and obtaining a driving license - of course it doesn't remove any rights, nor does it grant any additional ones, it merely does what's required to obtain permission to drive a motorised vehicle on the road.

And that all goes to why a pedestrian has priority in certain scenarios - because they have a right to do so, whereas drivers merely have limited permission.

adouglasmhor

Wongsky wrote: »

Fundamentals: the public have a right to walk on the roads, even that thing you seem to pay heed to, the Highway code states that pedestrians have priority when already crossingIn circumstances listed, it also tells them to watch for other traffic and be prepared to go back - why would it say that then? You don't have to meet some minimal requirements, nor do you need to apply for permission, nor does it expire, nor can it be comprehensively and permanently removed.

In contrast, the public have no stated rights to drive motor vehicles on public roads. They have to meet qualifying criteria, apply for permission, qualify, not breach the rules, not develop certain medical conditions, and your permission will automatically expire.

My argument isn't merely that of assertion, it's based on fundamentalsWhich do not exist, and logicno it's not it's based on repetition and making things up that simply cannot be denied - which is, largely, why you're not, you're just wibbling around the edges.

As to your comments about passing a driving test and obtaining a driving license - of course it doesn't remove any rights, nor does it grant any additional ones, it merely does what's required to obtain permission to drive a motorised vehicle on the road.

And that all goes to why a pedestrian has priority in certain scenarios (so not all you admit it at last!)- because they have a right to do so, whereas drivers merely have limited permission.why does one follow the other and surely they both have a right to be there, the driver si still a person just in a car?

You really should try thinking through what you post, no point in relying to you further, you have a closed mind and can't accept that you may be wrong on something, i bet you are a barrel of laughs in person too.

Sgt_Pepper_2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

You really should try thinking through what you post, no point in relying to you further, you have a closed mind and can't accept that you may be wrong on something, i bet you are a barrel of laughs in person too.

So who's got the biggest pecker, you or wongsky?

adouglasmhor

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

So who's got the biggest pecker, you or wongsky?

Oh mine is small to average at best.