Mum hit by car at petrol station

Flyboy152

arcon5 wrote: »

Disagreeing with a relative doesn't mean they are wrong or you are right. If ops mum can see a professional for a check up that's great. But if she wishes to not take it further then she is entitled to , as the victim, do just that.

After all the point of pursuing it if there is nothing finically to gain is to punish the person to ensure it doesn't happen again. If this guy was in tears after it and understood he made a crucial error then it's likely he will remember this and learn from it.

Or, more likely, remember that he got away with it and has learned what to do the next time.

Flyboy152

melbell wrote: »

and the NHS will provide such treatment

Yeah....right. And Ian Duncan Smith himself will sit by her bed and mop her brow for her.

Flyboy152

goater78 wrote: »

Technically it's four

Ooh I love that. It comes up often in quizzes; "How many ghosts visit Scrooge?" Or, "how many visit him on Christmas Eve?" The answers to both questions are not the same.

gregg1

sarahg1969 wrote: »

You seem to be making the assumption that it's always the driver's fault?
It isn't, and we don't know if that was the case here.

I think you may find that if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver would have a difficult job convincing the police that he was NOT at fault.

gregg1

Slowhand wrote: »

Oh dear.....?

A (fairly) newbie and a troll I see!

melbell

I don't the police would imply drink or drugs.

I smell troll or compo digger. Got your eyes on something OP/

ILW

gregg1 wrote: »

I think you may find that if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver would have a difficult job convincing the police that he was NOT at fault.

Why would that be?
They would have to prove carelessness or intent which would not be easy.

pinkshoes

Looking at this objectively from both sides, there is no speed limit on a forecourt, and the way they're usually designed, a car wouldn't have much time to accelerate by the time they got to the bit where people cross to pay.

Are you 100% sure that your mother was fully concentrating when she crossed the 'road' to pay? I've nearly stepped out infront of a car at a petrol before as I was concentrating on locking my car, finding cash to pay etc...

To me, and my knowledge of petrol station lay outs, the car would have had to have been already driving towards the exit when she crossed, so although he may have been going faster than sensible, perhaps she should have seen the car, judged the speed and waited to cross?

Errata

pinkshoes wrote: »

Looking at this objectively from both sides, there is no speed limit on a forecourt, and the way they're usually designed, a car wouldn't have much time to accelerate by the time they got to the bit where people cross to pay.

Are you 100% sure that your mother was fully concentrating when she crossed the 'road' to pay? I've nearly stepped out infront of a car at a petrol before as I was concentrating on locking my car, finding cash to pay etc...

To me, and my knowledge of petrol station lay outs, the car would have had to have been already driving towards the exit when she crossed, so although he may have been going faster than sensible, perhaps she should have seen the car, judged the speed and waited to cross?

All fair points considering the OP wrote

a driver leaving going fast hit her and knocked her up into the air.

hubb

I think he was using the forecourt to do a quick turn around. He seemed very eager to get away after scribbling his reg down as illegible as he could.

Why should I chase him up when the police will do a better job. They are gong to view the cctv.