We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Cyclist Incident and an unreliable witness!
Comments
-
And you seem to have an issue with distinguishing an attempt at humour from serious discussion. 🙄kinger101 said:
You're being ridiculous now. It clearly doesn't give drivers cart blanche to run over cyclists on the pavement.Jenni_D said:And a Must takes precedence over a Should.
And if you want to be pedantic ... the driver DID NOT run over a cyclist on the pavement - the cyclist ran IN TO the car. Jenni x1 -
Cyclists are considered vulnerable road users and as such owed a higher duty of care. If you look at the likes of Know your rights as a cyclist – case law you might need to know | Royds Withy King there is a series of case law for RTCs involving cyclists and in no case was the cyclist found at fault however in each case a contributory liability was applied to the cyclist so their damages reduced.
1 -
Did you read all of the article that you linked to? because in two of the cases, the claims were dismissed because the drivers did nothing wrong and it was the actions of the cyclists that lead to the accidents.Sandtree said:Cyclists are considered vulnerable road users and as such owed a higher duty of care. If you look at the likes of Know your rights as a cyclist – case law you might need to know | Royds Withy King there is a series of case law for RTCs involving cyclists and in no case was the cyclist found at fault however in each case a contributory liability was applied to the cyclist so their damages reduced.Elson V Stilgoe
"The judge found that the claimant could have stopped and waited for the defendant to pass, before entering the defendant’s carriageway to avoid the flooding. The Judge found that the defendant was driving appropriately, so the claimant’s case was dismissed."Streeter v Hughes
"The claim failed because the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision"0 -
TooManyPoints said:Most of whom think that checking the road is clear before they get into the car, start the engine, send a few texts, adjust the seats, tune the radio etc. ,means that they can then suddenly smoke the tyres reversing straight across the pavement without any warning or looking- usually when I am walking directly behind them....
"Some", I think rather than most. Many, if they have any sense, reverse into their drive so they can pull out more safely.
Anecdotal, but I reckon at least 90% of the cars I see on driveways here are parked nose-in. I may have the only car on our street that gets reversed in. I see a lot of cars taking ages trying to reverse onto the street.
0 -
In all honesty, no but as you say, cases were dismissed rather than the cyclist being found at fault, It could be there was no counterclaim being made else it is no different to driver fault but 100% contributory negligenceGeorge_Michael said:Did you read all of the article that you linked to? because in two of the cases, the claims were dismissed because the drivers did nothing wrong and it was the actions of the cyclists that lead to the accidents. collision"
0 -
Shall I order in some popcorn? 😁Sandtree said:
In all honesty, no but as you say, cases were dismissed rather than the cyclist being found at fault, It could be there was no counterclaim being made else it is no different to driver fault but 100% contributory negligenceGeorge_Michael said:Did you read all of the article that you linked to? because in two of the cases, the claims were dismissed because the drivers did nothing wrong and it was the actions of the cyclists that lead to the accidents. collision"Jenni x0 -
It always amuses me to hear people use the excuse"I can't reverse to save my life" when doing the above or pulling into a parking space.Herzlos said:
Anecdotal, but I reckon at least 90% of the cars I see on driveways here are parked nose-in. I may have the only car on our street that gets reversed in. I see a lot of cars taking ages trying to reverse onto the street.TooManyPoints said:
Yet somehow manage to reverse out, which is harder to do given that you have far less visibility of any cross traffic...
Life in the slow lane1 -
"You managed on your driving test, didn't you? Are you telling me you'd fail now? Better book some refresher lessons, then."born_again said:
It always amuses me to hear people use the excuse"I can't reverse to save my life" when doing the above or pulling into a parking space.Herzlos said:
Anecdotal, but I reckon at least 90% of the cars I see on driveways here are parked nose-in. I may have the only car on our street that gets reversed in. I see a lot of cars taking ages trying to reverse onto the street.TooManyPoints said:
Yet somehow manage to reverse out, which is harder to do given that you have far less visibility of any cross traffic...0 -
You understand the difference between fault and contributory negligence?Jenni_D said:
Shall I order in some popcorn? 😁Sandtree said:
In all honesty, no but as you say, cases were dismissed rather than the cyclist being found at fault, It could be there was no counterclaim being made else it is no different to driver fault but 100% contributory negligenceGeorge_Michael said:Did you read all of the article that you linked to? because in two of the cases, the claims were dismissed because the drivers did nothing wrong and it was the actions of the cyclists that lead to the accidents. collision"
If the cyclist was in a 50/50 accident then they would have to pay 50% of the third party's losses and the TP pay 50% of the cyclist's.
If the cyclist is 0% at fault but 50% contributory negligence then the TP has to carry all their own losses but only has to pay 50% of the cyclists and so there is a marked difference between the two.
You most commonly see contributory negligence in accidents where a driver isnt wearing a seatbelt... so the fact they were rear ended whilst stationary at a junction wasnt influenced by the lack of seatbelt hence they are 0% at fault but their injuries are worse because of the lack of the seatbelt and so they typically get around 25% contributory negligence so rather than receiving the £4k for their injuries they receive £3k.1 -
3 pages helping the OP and 5 pages of pedantic nit picking and arguing amongst the regulars. MSE forum at its finest.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards