Anyone for chicken?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6215351.stm

Biker sues over stupid chicken-playing ****.

 

In

Sounds scarily similar to the prat that leapt out on me and my daughter a
few months ago, plod were totally disinterested although they did say that
had I hit him they probably would've pursued me for careless driving !!

 

Seems entirely reasonable.
He was not at fault in the accident and suffered significant harm as a
result.
--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

Here's hoping he wins.

 

I had a kid of about 9 do something similar to me a while back.
He was showing off in front of his friends outside a leisure centre and lept
into the road , waved his arms around then jumped back onto the pavement.
No problems in stopping in time but I decided to ride up onto the pavement
and express my opinion on his actions.
He burst into tears at this point which impressed his mates no end.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

In

Without the ABS my K would have been wearing sponsorship from Adidas and
Nike (from his chav uniform)

I pulled over and confronted this one but he just stared me in the face and
said "Whats your fucking problem" ... at this point my fist clenched then I
took note of all the witnesss's rolling out of the local pub to see the
commotion.

 

Yeah, someone's got to be to blame haven't they.

Seems unreasonable to me- someone lost a child and this probably won't
help them.

I know the road in question and heaven only knows how the bike rider
failed to spot the pedestrian.

 

Here's hoping he doesn't. You don't get compensation for everything.

 

AIUI, the kid ran out at the last minute whilst the rider was
overtaking a van (in a legal, (otherwise) safe and controlled manner,
of course).

Anyway, it won't affect the bereaved financially- they shouldn't even
have to be involved; it's just a judgement as to the intent of the
child, who should be a cert for a Darwin award. The message is: play
chicken on a busy dual carriageway, and you're McNuggets. With extra
ketchup.

 

Would the claim be made against the parents? If so then I don't think
I could bring myself to claim against them but if they weren't going
to be involved then I don't see a problem with the rider trying to get
back his losses.

 

On a dual carriageway. Where the rider should have been able to see the
kid leaving the pavement and either going in front or behind the van he
was overtaking. The kid's travelled through about 8 feet from probably a
standing start. The bike's got another 8 feet of sideways movement to
play with- not even thinking about braking.

It won't affect them financially; gosh I'd never have guessed. Thanks
for sharing your wisdom.

 

No, it's the fact that the claim's being made at all that's my issue
with it. He's killed someone through his negligence[1] and expects
"someone else" to bail him out.

[1] I know the road and don't see how he couldn't have seen something
going on.

 

That's not how the coroner saw it and I'd expect him to have had a
look at the scene as part of his examination of the evidence.

Hypothetically speaking here; would you claim against a car drivers
insurance if he caused an accident which involved you and he died in
the accident?

 

Huh ? I can't see how no-one could be to blame for this incident, if
that's what you're implying. The obvious prime candidate is the kid
for running out into the road plus his mates for egging him on.

I'm not sure why the biker needs to do anything to help the parents if
he was, as the coroner stated, not to blame in any way.

Can't say I'd claim in similar circumstances (I'd probably feel guilty
regardless and wonder what I could have done to avoid the accident)
but I don't see a major problem with this biker claiming.

Don't know the road so can't comment directly but the coroner's
comments imply he didn't feel the biker was lax in his observation,

Cheers,

John

 

Burnt says...

That's pushing it.

The kid ran out while the bike was on the blind side of the van. The kid
didn't see the bike, the biker didn't see the kid. Kid's fault for
playing chicken. Biker found not to be at fault, which not even you can
question, unless you're smarter and more experienced in these matters
than trained Police accident investigators, of course.

 

Well, I would have expected him to have looked as well. However I don't
see how he could have come to the conclusion he did.

Quite possibly- you should know better than to expect consistency from
me.

 

Kindly explain how knowledge of a road allows you to accuse someone of
negligence in an accident you weren't a witness to?

 

Well, I'm sure some kind soul would point it out to them- and I'm
completely aware that it's not them who have to cough up; but it's not
the point really.

I can't.

It's an open road with an unobscured pavement. The kids would have been
visible on the pavement before obscured by the van. If playing chicken
they would most likely have been moving around.

The road's a forty zone around the roundabouts and NSL afterwards. The
kid would have needed to have run out in front of the van by quite some
time to clear the 8 or so feet of carriageway and put him in the path of
the bike.

It would have got my 'radar' flickering, I'm certain of that much.
Enough to miss them? I don't know.

 

wrote

Seems perfectly reasonable to me that parents who cannot bring up a
child to behave in a decent law abiding manner should be punished by
society for it. The death of the kid is a very unfortunate by-product
of the system but should not prevent those seeking compensation from the
negligent from pursuing or achieving their goals.

The article says he was overtaking a van at the time so presumably in a
blind spot somewhere.

 

A kid has no place on a dual carriageway, I would be making sure
there's no other road vehicles likely to affect my overtake. Kid
asked for it, and got it 100%.

What other consideration is there?