Anyone for chicken?

snip>

No if a pedestrian jumps out but yes if a car or motorbike pulls out.
They've got insurance, or at least should have.

 

OK, why not? Think of the children!

 

OK, why not? Think of the children![/QUOTE]

Bones heal and chicks dig scars. It's not as if a pushbike costs much
so **** 'em.

 

http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s6p1289
Get one now, it's on special offer.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

*I* feel it does.

They could sue my estate; there would be something worth having- up to
their conscience whether they wish to take it from orphaned children.

Reverse the situation, they don't have anything worth having so I sue
their parents who've already got the grief of a dead child to deal with.
Which is why I wouldn't sue the parents; naturally this presumes I've
got my current resources etc.

We're talking about what *I* feel is the right course of action.

 

Well; income support, housing benefit, legal aid are all means tested so
it's not quite the same- you only get paid if you can show a need; not
an insurance as much as a basic safety net.

unemployment benefit, State pension you've probably got a point.

Export guarantees- these are selective so it's not quite the same.

"Payments to Farmers affected by BSE"; the farmers were paid to take a
cow out of the food chain, this was deemed to be essential to stop the
disease spreading and finding its way into pies. Fact was that it
wasn't known if the cow had BSE until after it was slaughtered and the
brain was inspected (or at least that's how it was in the sole instance
I had experience of which was about 10 years or more ago)

 

He's off work, his bike is trashed and he's hurt. Fair grounds to claim
compensation at least for lost earnings I'd say, particularly as it wasn't
his fault.

He's killed someone through his negligence[1] and expects

If it was his negligence, don't you think plod would've pushed for a
prosecution for *something*?

He's probably only got to eyes and maybe they can't see through vans.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

I'm not sure charged is the right word, but somebody could have stood on
the other side of the road drinking his pint, in a piss-taking fashion.

 

That'd be a bit harsh just because someone played chicken with the
traffic.

 

I am *so* glad I don't want kids. we may fall out.
--
Adie
(replace spam with nickname to reply)

UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

ZX9R
keeper of the FAQ for my sins
MRO#11 BOTAFOF#7 BOTAFOT#130 DIAABTCOD#17 MIB#24 YTC#16 BOB#15 ex-UKRMMA#22 BOMB#11

 

The kid didn't see the bike, so it's fair to assume the biker didn't see the
kid, wouldn't you think? I wouldn't even call it negligence.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Isn't that what the MIG (Motor Insurance Group, or whatever the **** it's
called) was set up for, or even the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
The kid committed a "criminal" act and as a result, the biker lost out. Why
should he be the one to lose?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Have you never passed a truck where you know there's a camera and made sure
the camera's view of you was always obstructed by a slower moving vehicle,
so you can get past it over the limit but not getting flashed? If it can
happen by design and planning, it can happen under "other" circumstances too
and this appears to be a perfect example of another circumstance.

I've never seen "Chicken playing kids" [YES] or [NO] on any insurance form
I've ever filled in.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Yeah, but there's stupid and there's ...


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Or the amphibious relative, like a chromium-plated neo-modernistic
skeletal hippo, it seeks out the still waters, peeking a wheel shyly
from the depths of the cut, it's main body hidden, iceberg-like, just
waiting for the unwary.

 

Seeing someone doesn't necessarily mean you're supposed to anticipate
some ridiculous action like leaping out in the road, especially in a
busy area like that, and /especially/ considering how long he would
have been in a blind spot if you're overtaking at that low a speed. I'm
kind of interested to know why you lot are choosing the rider to be the
bad guy in this instead of a badly behaved child. Surely Darwin's Law
is at work here.

 

This reminds me of the definition of pilot error: when a committee takes six
weeks to decide what you should have figured out in three tenths of a
second.

The accident was caused by the child running out in the road. The court
absolutely exonerated the motorcyclist. I'm assuming no-one's going to
muddy the waters by trying to pin part of the blame on the van driver.

The motorcyclist was injured physically and psychologically, and almost
certainly has had uninsured losses, through no fault of his own, and
therefore has a reasonable case for compensation. The problem seems to be
deciding who to sue for the actions of the boy.

In making a claim with CICA, his lawyers seem to be arguing that the boy's
actions constituted a "violent act". I suspect that this will fail, because
I think they would also have to show that it was a criminal act, and that
would require them to show criminal intent, which will be difficult.
Stupid, reckless, dangerous certainly: criminal unlikely.

Whether it's morally right to pursue a claim in a case involving the tragic
death of a child: **** off. Your misplaced sentimentality is irrelevant,
irritating and possibly actionable.

 

Got to say I think this is the best, fairest and probably most accurate
sum-up in the entire thread.

 

message

I reckon No.1 daughter wrote it when her dad wasn't looking...

 

Possibly because the incompetent tosser apparently doesn't know what
else his right hand is for. Dreaming along passing a van at ~50mph on
a NSL dual carriageway is asking for trouble, as any fule kno. If
he'd given the throttle a proper twist he'd have been past the van and
gone before the sprog ran out - he may even have startled the sprog
into staying put and thus inadvertently saved his life.

Speed saves lives.