Anyone for chicken?

<G>

Yup, far too reasoned and literate for Platy.

 

I'm saying nuffink.

 

You can sort of. My home insurance covers damage to any of my
belongings outside the house, whoever causes the damage is irrelevant.
Effectively the same cover as my FC car insurance.

My company health insurance covers the same but to me.

 

So if it wasn't negligence by the rider because he didn't see the kid
was it a criminal act by the kid to jump in front of a bike that he
couldn't see?

 

Best not to.

It's a bit like the bullshit line "I can't afford a motorbike". Yes
you can but your budget will only stretch to a cheap old nail.

Pushbikes can be cheap or they can be expensive.

 

I'm not trying to lay the blame on the rider when the kid ran out in
front of him but if he couldn't see the kid how could the kid have
seen him? I agree that Darwin's law is working here because it was
rank stupidity but was it a criminal act?

I just don't think the biker will be 100% successful in his claim.

 

You fire a gun at random in your local park and someone gets hit,
they're not negligent but it may be a criminal act by you as you knew
there could well be people around.

 

So do loud pipes.

 

Throwing "things" into traffic would normally be done with the intention
that the things actually hit the traffic. The intention when playing
chicken (ie throwing oneself into the traffic) would be to avoid impact,
albeit by the narrowest of margins.

If the boy hadn't been hit by the motorcyclist, would his action have been
considered criminal? I don't believe so. Do the unintended consequences
convert it into a criminal act? Again, I don't think it does.

 

Fuckoff. Your all ****'s.

 

There's often a serious line in my facetious comments, and you've
picked this one out. I like to be readily detectable, so I make
myself available to be seen and heard, but I will always try to
minimise the time I spend in a position that is either unexpected or
out of line of (direct or mirrored) sight.

That said, I had to modify my style the other day, due to the
intermittent wetness and greasiness of the surface. To make
overtakes, I'd cross the line and get on the dry line on the other
side before putting the power on, as anything else resulted in some
very entertaining powerslides. Coming to a halt at a junction on the
back brake (due to the front locking up a couple of times), I was
entertained to find the rear wheel coming round for a visit to the
front end.

A return to Winter throttle settings seems to be called for, thumb on
the switch block to avoid sudden openings, that sort of thing - but
I'll still make my overtakes as wide and over with as quickly as I
can.

 

frag says...

It serves to remind them what a lousy job they did of bringing the
little scrote up.

 

banged the rocks together and they said :

You know when you're driving/riding along a motorway, and one of those
*huge* signs is coming up, but you're overtaking a wagon in lane 1?

And it always seems to completely block your view of said sign so you
can't read any of it? Speeds matched perfectly so wagon stays in front
of sign?

And you can't imagine how a transit can obscure a small kid running out
from the side of the road?

Anyway, the biker wasn't at fault (IMO) and has suffered financially
and physically, so he's entitled to regain his losses. No need for the
family to get involved in any way I'd guess.

Yes, it is bloody sad that the papers/news latched onto it, they're the
people who are increasing the familys suffering - "Oh, that'll make
people buy our rag, **** the bereaved family"

 

An insurance company would almost certainly (IME) look at a claim for
Contributory Negligence to reduce their liability.

 

I had this kind of thing explained to me by a brief last year, the
example used being that of kids dropping bricks off a motorway bridge.
Don't confuse intent with recklessness.

 

I'm not: read what I said again.

 

Well of course plod were disinterested. They are paid to be
disinterested and probably swear an oath to uphold the law in a
disinterested way. I would be shocked to hear that they were NOT
disinterested, who needs a biased, pecuniary police force?

HOWEVER if they were UNinterested then I would be very disappointed.

 

I see him as a potentially valuable asset to the Pedants Club; after,
that is, an explanation of why the police shouldn't be paid for their
toil.