Pedestrian hit by biker - biker trying to claim from pedestrian

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

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

It's not linked to the RTA - because it's not going to be.

And it's not just merely advice (it's not saying should) - it's stating something:-

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

It's stating they have priority.

And it doesn't reference the RTA at that point, because it's not a matter for the RTA. Pedestrians have priority in those circumstances for reasons entirely outside, before, and without precdent of the RTA.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wongsky wrote: »

It's not linked to the RTA - because it's not going to be.

And it's not just merely advice (it's not saying should) - it's stating something:-

It's stating they have priority.

And it doesn't reference the RTA at that point, because it's not a matter for the RTA. Pedestrians have priority in those circumstances for reasons entirely outside, before, and without precdent of the RTA.

Priority under what law?

The highway code is just a guide.

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Priority under what law

The highway code is just a guide.

Indeed - a best practice document, if you will.

Doesn't mean it's not stating the truth, though.

Do you think that would be stated, were it not true? And why, would you imagine, it's not citing either the RTA, or another act / law? Why would that be...

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wongsky wrote: »

Indeed - a best practice document, if you will.

Doesn't mean it's not stating the truth, though.

Do you think that would be stated, were it not true? And why, would you imagine, it's not citing either the RTA, or another act / law? Why would that be...

And if you run a pedestrian over what have you done wrong?

Gone against best practice, they can't do you for that.

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

And if you run a pedestrian over what have you done wrong?

Gone against best practice, they can't do you for that.

<sigh>

The Highway code stating that pedestrians have priority when they've started crossing, is NOT just best practice.

It stems from something entirely outside, before, more fundamental than the RTA.

There's a reason it's saying that, it's not just good advice, it's not just best practice, it's because it's rather fundamental.

Doesn't something, anything, even just a slight teensy-weensy bit of it, just sound a bit curious to you, that it states something quite significant, yet references no current law? It's not stating "should" - it's actually stating they have priority. Why would it be so categoric, yet not be referencing the RTA.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wongsky wrote: »

<sigh>

The Highway code stating that pedestrians have priority when they've started crossing, is NOT just best practice.

It stems from something entirely outside, before, more fundamental than the RTA.

There's a reason it's saying that, it's not just good advice, it's not just best practice, it's because it's rather fundamental.

Doesn't something, anything, even just a slight teensy-weensy bit of it, just sound a bit curious to you, that it states something quite significant, yet references no current law? It's not stating "should" - it's actually stating they have priority. Why would it be so categoric, yet not be referencing the RTA.

wonsky believe what you will, but it must at least be covered by common law to be enforceable.

john1

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted. The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

wonsky believe what you will, but it must at least be covered by common law to be enforceable.

What do you mean enforceable?

Pedestrians have had rights on public roads for a very long time - it's extant.

This section of the highway code is merely pointing that out, so that drivers (who bother to consult the highway code) aren't ignorant over which party has priority in that situation.

Do you believe the highway code is saying something untrue? Is that what you're contending? That it states it, but its, not really, true, it's just a bit of kidology?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wongsky wrote: »

What do you mean enforceable?

Pedestrians have had rights on public roads for a very long time - it's extant.

This section of the highway code is merely pointing that out, so that drivers (who bother to consult the highway code) aren't ignorant over which party has priority in that situation.

Do you believe the highway code is saying something untrue? Is that what you're contending? That it states it, but its, not really, true, it's just a bit of kidology?

The highway code states a lot of things you shouldn't do.


So what if you do them, who can do anything about it?

Wongsky

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

The highway code states a lot of things you shouldn't do.

In this example it's not stating should or shouldn't, it's plainly just stating priority. Are you suggesting it's not true?