From Today's Times Front Page

"Drivers who knock down children should be forced to pay compensation
even if the victim ran out without looking, a report into improving road
safety has recommended."

This has happened to me and thankfully, I only hurt the little fucker a bit.

Discuss.

 

Utter fucking rubbish. Their parents should pay for the car damage.
I always reverse over the cunts to make sure.

 

"It's cheaper to kill one than maim one".

 

Heh. I never got the chance -- no reverse gear on the bike, see. Some
lady came out from Boots asking the lad if he was diabetic. "He's a
stupid fucking ****", I replied rather loudly.

 

I can see it now; hoardes of kids legging it down to the nearest main
road to hurl themselves at cars to get their pay packets. At least
it'll cut down vehicle theft as the pikeys will have a new career path
to follow.

 

I've seen this happen. A kiddy aged about 3 ran into the road, on a
pelican crossing with the lights against him. The driver ahead of me was
presented with the prospect of an utter disaster, and his good reactions
made it a minor thing- the kiddy was only bruised, rather than going
under the car.

The proposal is complete rubbish.

HTH
--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

Indeed. But "Think of the children!"

 

Did your incident happen on the open road or in a built up area?

Did you see the kid before he started running out in front of you?

 

Not wanting be too pedantic but the report (presumably not as reported by
The Times!) actually recommended that more research was conducted, as they
found that the countries with the lowest incidence of child road acidents
were also ones that had implemented such legislation (whcih may of course be
coincidence hence the 'more research' bit)..

And the actual way it has been implemented elsewhere is that the motorist is
'presumed' to be responsible for accidents in residential areas, unless they
can prove otherwise. Claims would be made against the motorists insurance,
not them directly.

Now my initial though was 'load of bollocks' but to be honest, there should
be very few cases where anyone is riding through a residential area when
they can not stop for a child, whether they run out or not.

And it'll impact us motorcyclists even less - aren't we always told to
anticipate hazards and expect them to occur?

 

B. Walworth Road SE something or other.

No. He 'appeared' from between two parked cars as I approached[1]. He
was short.

[1] His mate was doing the same in the next gap between cars, and I
almost hit him too.

 

I don't know it. No matter - you mentioned parked cars below.

I'm not criticising - and I might have hit him too [1]- but whilst it's not
practicable I suppose we should be anticipating such events. I mean it's
the *classic* pedestrian hazard. I appreciate this would mean crawling at
a snail's pace, or at least keeping as much distance between bike & parked
cars as possible (which we should be doing to prevent being winged by
unexpected opening of car doors).

If he was short enough to be obscured by cars then he was probably young
enough that his parents should carry the burden of responsibility.

[2] <Holier-Than-Thou>although in over a third of a million miles on bikes
I've never had a pedestrian-related incident (or near-miss) in a built up
area.
For me the bottom line is that if you hit someone or something then either
your observation isn't up to scratch or you're riding too quickly for the
conditions..</HTT>

 

Wizard wrote

Not really. I think it says in the Highway Code somewhere that you
should drive in a manner such that you are always in a position not to
have accidents. And face it, if you are in a built up, child rich, area
driving at 5mph, with a red flag man in front and eyeballs on stalks,
you would fairly unlikely to have any sort of accident, let alone one
which involves damaging your pension fund contributors.

 

In message <>, Sorby <>
writes

Ssssssssssh! This is rapidly becoming a sensible thread.

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

In message <4142eead$0$83408$>, AndyP

I fear not, 'cos not all bikers are also HGV drivers, the knights and
angels of the road.

--
Dave OSOS#24 Remove my gerbil for email replies

Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one

http://dswindell.members.beeb.net

 

Hmm. Whatever. This was utterly unavoidable on my part. I'm quite
sure of this.

 

Though I am a well known opponent of the EU Human Rights act it probably
does prevent you being automatically responsible and liable for an act
carried out by another party.