Accident not in Accident Book

bod1467

stebiz wrote: »

A car park where she had permission to park

And your point is caller?

stebiz

bod1467 wrote: »

And your point is caller?

She should have taken more care. Anyway the fact she can't park there now will mean it won't happen in future because she'll have to walk the extra 10 yards over the road.

Not a fan of compensation culture on schools or hospitals.

arcon5

stebiz wrote: »

She should have taken more care. Anyway the fact she can't park there now will mean it won't happen in future because she'll have to walk the extra 10 yards over the road.

Not a fan of compensation culture on schools or hospitals.

The fact she had permission to park there just strengthens her case. And I'm not sure what point your making as this small fact isn't relevant to much.

Cars can lose control also can they not? Her going to another carpark doesn't negate the risk car parks pose. Just next time it'll more likely be a car and not a bus.

And as for op taking more care... Howd you figure that one? A bus swerving and loosing control is hardly something you can plan for. Nothing in this thread suggests op wasn't taking reasonable care.

stebiz

arcon5 wrote: »

The fact she had permission to park there just strengthens her case. And I'm not sure what point your making as this small fact isn't relevant to much.

Cars can lose control also can they not? Her going to another carpark doesn't negate the risk car parks pose. Just next time it'll more likely be a car and not a bus.

And as for op taking more care... Howd you figure that one? A bus swerving and loosing control is hardly something you can plan for. Nothing in this thread suggests op wasn't taking reasonable care.

Your hearing a side of a story that came about AFTER she'd already posted. None of this was mentioned initially.

Compo and a valid reason why disabled people shouldn't park where it is deemed dangerous for able bodied people to park.

ThumbRemote

stebiz wrote: »

Your hearing a side of a story that came about AFTER she'd already posted. None of this was mentioned initially.

It wasn't relevant to her question. It was only mentioned because you and others started posting assumptions solely designed to criticise the victim of an accident.

stebiz wrote: »

She should have taken more care.

And rather than admitting you were wrong, you just keep at it.

k3lvc

Tabitha_T wrote: »

Incidentally, although the police were called, no action was taken as the accident was on 'private land' and not the main highway.

'No action' will not have been because of private land - particularly if the injury is as described. There must have been some other reason.

Tabitha_T wrote: »

Bad enough that my Mum got hit, but this could easily have killed a small child.

Won't someone think of the children :rotfl: - suggest you take this to the Daily Mail - they love a good story involving an out of control bus, a load of children and a school. Did the driver wrestle with the controls whilst passengers on the bus could be heard screaming ?

stebiz

k3lvc wrote: »

'No action' will not have been because of private land - particularly if the injury is as described. There must have been some other reason.



Won't someone think of the children :rotfl: - suggest you take this to the Daily Mail - they love a good story involving an out of control bus, a load of children and a school. Did the driver wrestle with the controls whilst passengers on the bus could be heard screaming ?

:rotfl::rotfl:

You can only imagine the speed as it accelerated across the car park.

arcon5

stebiz wrote: »

Your hearing a side of a story that came about AFTER she'd already posted. None of this was mentioned initially.

Compo and a valid reason why disabled people shouldn't park where it is deemed dangerous for able bodied people to park.

Yet before the rest of the story presumptions was already made and conclusions already reached.

And yet more assumptions that she was parked dangerously.

stebiz

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It wasn't relevant to her question. It was only mentioned because you and others started posting assumptions solely designed to criticise the victim of an accident.



And rather than admitting you were wrong, you just keep at it.

Not criticising anybody. Just don't think she should have been there in the first place. Permission or not.

stebiz

arcon5 wrote: »

Yet before the rest of the story presumptions was already made and conclusions already reached.

And yet more assumptions that she was parked dangerously.

So why would a school not allow other parents to park in their car park but would allow disabled people? Cars and children don't mix. Park as far away from school as you can is the answer.