Anyone for chicken?

Eh?

Since when? I'd have thought the weight of history would be against you
on that one.

 

"PC"?

Do you know what that means?

I know the road and don't see how he could have avoided seeing something
going on. Whether he could have avoided it or not is another matter.

I don't think he's 'innocent' and don't see why the tax payer should
bail him out (assuming it's the tax payer who fund the criminal injuries
compensation scheme). If it's the insurers I don't see why my insurance
premiums should be inflated by this sort of situation.

Fact- accidents happen and somethings you should either insure against
yourself or take as a risk.

 

Read what happened- the child ran out in front of a van, not the bike.
Cleared the van and got collected by the bike.

 

Absolutely, yes.

See other post for my reasons; he's not suing the boy's family he's
going after the criminal injuries compensation board; which is funded by
my tax.

Very kind of you; I don't really give much of a damn either way if you
are.

However, to set your mind at rest I won't be placed in that situation
since I've got a small mortgage and good life/health insurance policies.

 

*clutches chest*

How will I cope? You think I'm "thick as ****".

If you're ignoring me why ask a question?

I don't think he's entitled to 'compensation' against something he's not
insured against- one way or another it'll be the general public who fund
this and I don't think that's right.

 

Of course you can. And if they're in front of me they'd better get the
**** out of the way; especially if I'm driving the 735...

 

Hmmm...

"He had started to run across the carriageway as a van approached, but
failed to spot it was being overtaken by the Suzuki.

Mr Young was unable to avoid colliding with the child, and the bike hit
him full in the chest."

I suppose the coroner would have had the right facts to assume that the
biker wasn't negligent.

 

Eh? He was overtaking a van, probably concentrating on the road ahead
and the van was moving at the same time. I really don't see how the
biker would be expected to look at the front of the van (as opposed to
looking where he was going) to watch some stupid kid playing chicken.

If he was overtaking a stationary parked van, then it'd be a different
story in that he'd probably be expected to pay more attention.

If it was a car, he may have seen the kid pulling the stunt, but I'd
also think that his visibility in looking through a van is somewhat
impaired (Mind you, the article doesn't say what type of van it was).

 

I would have been scanning the side of the road as a matter of course.

 

You missed a bit of my post. What if the van was something like a boxed
transit?

 

Through the van using your X-ray vision? Okay Clark .......

 

If you sit far enough behind a vehicle then your view of the pavement
isn't usually obscured.

I don't have a problem with the rider trying to recoup some of his
losses but I don't hold with the idea that he couldn't have seen the
lemming from a bit further back down the road.

Of course the other alternative is that the kid didn't see the bike
because the van obscured his view and it really was just an accident
rather than a premeditated game of chicken. That would then exclude a
claim being made against the criminal injuries board or whoever it is
the claim's being made against.

 

The road curves if it's where I think it is.

 

Oh, so now:
a) You're not sure where it is.
b) You don't know where the accident occurred.
c) You don't know in which direction it happened.
d) Weren't there at the time.

I have to say, it's not looking good.

 

I'm sure the kid was playing chicken; but with the van and not with the
bike.

 

Not 100%, no. However the road in question is pretty uniform and is a
wide open dual carriageway for the whole of it's length; curving
slightly for most of the way.

No. Never claimed to. How does this vary from a) above?

No. Never claimed to.

No. Never said I was.

And? I don't really care how you think it looks to be honest.

 

I was thinking along similar lines. Can I say "ding!" here? I can? Ta.

Ding!

 

Do you not think that this (in one direction), would make a significant
difference in the visibility of the side of the road, from behind a van?

a) Location, b) Bit of the road.

Is that why you're replying?

 

There's a difference betwen an accident and a crash.

 

Probably. This is no way limits his responsibility to the biker.