Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

adouglasmhor 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 says:-

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

(http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070332)

Curiously, it doesn't cite a section of the RTA... how can that be? Something so significant as saying that if pedestrians have started to cross the road, they have priority, and no reference to the RTA? Something is surely not like all the others...

And it doesn't say that such priority is restricted to being at road junctions - it's merely in a section talking about road junctions - because that's likely where most vehicles will encounter such hazards. There's nothing stated, other than "If they have started to cross they have priority" there's nothing limiting this to junctions - there's no criteria, distance from junction or corner, or anything else - it's merely in a section about junctions, because of when such situations are likely to happen. It doesn't say "they have priority when crossing near a corner" or "they have priority when crossing near a junction" it just says: "If they have started to cross they have priority"

Surely you must have been curious as to why there's no cite to the RTA there? That must just be one whole massive mystery to you. Why on earth would that be...

adouglasmhor wrote: »

it also tells them to watch for other traffic and be prepared to go back

They should always watch for traffic, but it doesn't say anything about being prepared to go back, there - all it says is:-

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

adouglasmhor wrote: »

- 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,

Yes they do (he's behind you...).

Even the Highway code states it.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

and logicno it's not it's based on repetition and making things up

No it's not (he's behind you...) - it's not based on repetition, it's based on fundamentals, logic, what it says in the Highway code.

Aren't you even the slightest bit curious as to why there's no RTA reference to such a significant statement that pedestrians have priority when they've started crossing?

adouglasmhor wrote: »

And that all goes to why a pedestrian has priority in certain scenarios (so not all you admit it at last!)

When they've started to cross, as mentioned above.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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?

Because the driver requires permission, and all sorts of requirments be fulfilled. The pedestrian doesn't and has a right to be there.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

You really should try thinking through what you post,

Sorry, but that's just laughable.

You haven't shown any thought - just reluctance to a concept, and a constant, whiny voice of detraction.

I've based my argument on fundamentals, solid logic, that withstands scrutiny.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

no point in relying to you further, you have a closed mind and can't accept that you may be wrong on something

In this instance, I'm not wrong.

That you keep mithering to say so, is, rather ironic in that you're guilty of what you accuse.

If you want the last word - just say so - I've got no problem with leaving you with some self-esteem. But I won't let you rubbish things I've written, with, um, rubbish.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

i bet you are a barrel of laughs in person too.

Yup - completely.

I'm available for after dinner speeches and bar mitzvahs too.

A sure sign you're really scrabbling for something when you need to turn ad hominem - don't let that trouble you, though. It was probably evident to everybody else, let this be a moment of self-realisation to you.

photome

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.

I bet you are both a barrel of laughs

is there a locked sound proofed room somewhere that you could both visit (without internet access)

Wongsky

photome wrote: »

I bet you are both a barrel of laughs

is there a locked sound proofed room somewhere that you could both visit (without internet access)

How are posts on-topic, harming you?

If you don't wanna read them, nobody makes you read a thread, and peace of mind is just a flick of the scroll wheel, or a click away...

pacific4130

This thread... Wow.

DUTR

EdGasket wrote: »

I thought a pedestrian always has 'right of way' on a road anyway irrespective of what traffic lights are set at. The bike should have been going at a speed where it was able to stop safely in an emergency and at a junction that should have been very slowly. I think your gf should lodge a counterclaim with the biker for her injuries/inconvenience or whatever else you can think of.

Nope, I used to think similar, my friend years back got knocked over by a cyclist as she crossed the road and was succesfully sued by the cyclist.

adouglasmhor

DUTR wrote: »

Nope, I used to think similar, my friend years back got knocked over by a cyclist as she crossed the road and was succesfully sued by the cyclist.

But pedestrians always ave priority Wongsky says so.

Is a pedestrian entitled to step into a road at any time and assume that the traffic will give way to him?

A pedestrian (or anyone else who uses the road) has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid harm. An adult of normal intelligence who steps into a busy road without regard to car traffic will almost certainly be in breach of that duty. If he was struck by a car and injured, a court would likely apportion a substantial share of the fault to him.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/car_and_vehicle_accidents/500048.html

Buzby

As a biker, if a pedestrian ignores signals and crosses regardless, and the biker who has his path obstructed and has to take avoiding action which may result in a fall, it is the pedestrian who will be liable.

I note the derision of the no win no fee comment, however many of us already pay additionally for uninsured losses, and it is this who pursues the other party. If they have no policy to claim on, this is not an end to the matter as they remain personally liable regardless. However, a decision must be made whether there enough assets to make a claim worthwhile.

In 30 years of biking, I'm fortunate to have been involved in just 3 accidents, none of them my fault and in each case required ULR in order for me to be recompensed - one of those was a pedestrian. Therefore the assertion that pedestrians require to be 'given way' to at junctions is meaningless - it deepens on the junction and the circumstances.

The last similar incident - where a bus hit a pedestrian, the pedestrian simply stepped onto the road to cross without care and consideration for road users. Despite injuries, was deemed 100% at fault, but no police prosecution was taken, it was the insurer who pursued the Claim and won in the Small Claims court.

Wongsky

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But pedestrians always ave priority Wongsky says so.

Pedestrians have priority when already crossing, not just 'cos I say so, if you were paying attention, so does the Highway code. Wonder why that would be...

adouglasmhor wrote: »

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/car_and_vehicle_accidents/500048.html

That's largely talking about legal negligence, not priority.

olly300

Buzby wrote: »

The last similar incident - where a bus hit a pedestrian, the pedestrian simply stepped onto the road to cross without care and consideration for road users. Despite injuries, was deemed 100% at fault, but no police prosecution was taken, it was the insurer who pursued the Claim and won in the Small Claims court.

I learnt that a few months back that if you drive a bus, coach or a mini-bus and a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you don't have to stop abruptly if stopping like that would put the lives of those on bus, coach or mini-bus you are carrying at risk.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wongsky wrote: »

Pedestrians have priority when already crossing, not just 'cos I say so, if you were paying attention, so does the Highway code. Wonder why that would be...

That's largely talking about legal negligence, not priority.

Is that part of the highway code linked to the rta or just advice?