Anyone for chicken?

Yeah and he didn't think to look if there was something past the van.

FFS, playing chicken on the road is stupid at the best of times, but on
a dual carriageway is just asking for a Darwin award.

 

Yes... I'm not defending the child's actions.

But in any case, which of us didn't do stupid things at the age of 12
(at least I think that's how old he was.)

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

Would you care to explain?

I'm sure neither of the parties meant for it to happen.

 

Unfortunatly the witnesses said the lad was playing chicken , this
shows that he had intent to indanger other road users

What ever happens its still sad that the little shit died

--

 

"accident" implies that is was just one of those things, couldn't be avoided
etc. Which is why the term is being dropped from official reporting of such
incidents.

 

Not every one can be in the same position though

 

I'm sure the majority of us take that as read. However, if the same
happened to me, and it was demonstrably the fault of some 12-year old
waste of DNA, I'm damn sure I'd take advantage of any state-controlled
mechanism that allowed me to minimise my losses. He was found to be
blameless by a Coroner. That is an officer of the Crown. You want to
fight the Crown, when they are admitting your innocence in the matter?
If so you're a bigger twat than I'd ever imagined you to be. Children
are not sacred.

 

No it fucking isn't. He asked for it and he got it. People can
produce more brats.

 

Oh my fucking non-existent deity of choice.

The human race deserves 100% whatever destiny awaits it. I choose
(yeah, right; like it's up to me) to deny my DNA to future
generations.

 

Bear wrote

Shit that results in the death of a child is not shit. It is unfair for
a start.

You actually don't know he is a dumb ****. Chances are equally as good
he was a bright kid who was bored to buggery and back.

So, you are in favour of others being held responsible for the actions
of a 12 year old, who by the definition of law is old enough to be held
responsible for his own, provided those others answer to the title of
parent. Is this liability just to be restricted to the biological
parents or to others who may, temporarily perhaps, be doing the job?

Growing up in the wrong postcode probably.

You should try reading the thread, there are many voices who are
unhappy. A lot of them like yours seem to think that someone is to
blame but not society in general.

There is a fucking easy use of bad argument. What **** here would
disagree with the use of sleazebag and lawyer in the same sentence?
Mind you, you don't know that they are sniffing a bit of legal precedent
and the kudos that attaches to their CV from doing so this is true but
on the other hand their job is to argue their clients case and the fact
they have clients suggests they are earning from the exercise and would
it be right if it were the same lawyers chasing the "parents"? You
aren't obliged to answer that last question as you all ready have in
'c)' above.

Hysterical bollox.

 

Should have worked harder or been born better then.

 

Eh? I've said I don't see why the crown (read you and I) should pay and
haven't expressed the view that children are sacred.

And, re the 'twat' bit; you can take it as read that I don't value your
view of me.

 

Because he'd like some compensation for his smashed limbs and ditto
bike?

 

An accident could be termed as when the outcome was not reasonably
foreseeable. Where neither party is to blame.

I'd suggest that it's reasonable to foresee that running into the road
to play chicken would result in what did, in fact, happen.

This is hardly a dictionary definition, but I do get irritated when
people talk about vehicle 'accidents'. They're invariably crashes, and
entirely avoidable. True, genuine accidents are very, very rare. I
understand some Plod, and a lot of pilots, think the same way.

YMMV[1] as ever.

[1] And clearly does.

 

Probably. This is no way limits his responsibility to the biker.[/QUOTE]

It'll be interesting to see if the rider wins his claim, wins part of
it or if he gets fucked off.

I don't think he'll get anything from the CICA and he can't claim
against the MIB because there isn't an uninsured driver to blame.

 

I don't think playing chicken is a criminal offence.

What would the kid have been charged with if he'd caused an accident
and not been injured himself?

 

I hope you never have kids and have to suffer the premature loss of
one of them. In fact I hope you never have kids so you can pass on
your ideas to them.

 

Well, from his POV he suffered injuries and loss that were down to the
actions of another individual, and not just some random bad luck.
Probably this is the only legal path open to him.

Possibly, but since *road* accident insurance is a legal requirement,
people not unreasonably expect to be able to make a claim against
someone in the case of a road accident. The question is, where do you
draw the line at what actions can be compensated for and what actions
cannot? Do we accept as a society that some specific activities, such
as driving or being a customer or employee, to quote a few examples,
can be covered but others cannot?

Insurance is a way of spreading an individual's acute misfortune
amongst the many. In this case I include funds raised through taxation
as insurance. So, what do we insure against, if anything? Nothing at
all, as in "shit happens"? Everything, as in "someone is always to
blame, even God"? Some *specific* high-risk activities, and the rest
is just "shit happens"? The latter seems close to what we have now.

I personally do dislike the idea of a "compensation culture" but
primarily because it seems to make it so much harder to *do* things; a
lot of motor sport, for example, is heavily dependent on convincing
inscos that the risk is profitable. Inscos, in that regard, wield a
lot of power over what we can and cannot do under current laws. Then
again, this does provide motivation for, say, organisers of
professional operations, to run their operations, well,
professionally.

I think that there should be some support for those have suffered
acute loss. Our current insurance system, whilst I dislike it,
provides both a mechanism for providing that support and a means of
adjusting the cost to an individual's risk. I don't like the way that,
as I indicated above, it places such a powerful veto in the hands of
inscos, whose motives are pure profit-driven.

 

I strongly suspect that he only saw the risk to himself and the risk
to others never even entered his head, so there was no intent, as
such. This based on vague memories of being an idiot child.

True.

 

Heh. Lovely.