Think of the children

I knocked a drunk over with my bike on Christmas eve (when I was in my
teens) After he was taken off[1] and plod talked to his mate I was told
to go on my way. Apparently the one that leaped out on me had, had this
discussion with his mate that you could blow a motorbike over and then
hid behind a parked car waiting for one. (Me)
Riding along at 30 in a 30 limit on a clear road does not prepare you
for some one leaping out from behind a parked car 15 feet in front of
you, then bending in the middle and blowing hard at you.

[1] bruised but nothing broken

 

No it's not. That only applies to cars.

 

Paul Corfield

I always thought he doesn't give a ****?

 

I was once flattened as a pedestrian. It was entirely my fault and there
was no way that the driver could have avoided me. Notwithstanding that I
expect he felt regret and remorse and wondered whether there was something
he could/should have done to miss me. I submit that those (perfectly
natural) sentiments do not make him responsible for what happened and if he
had subsequently been obliged to cough up a ten shilling postal order as
'compensation' it would have been grossly unfair.

 

porl secured a place in history by writing:

That's what I mean, since that's fundamentally what this thread is
about....

Nope - there is a big difference between whether I *could* have avoided it,
and whether an averagely competent rider *would* or *should* have avoided
it, riding normally.

Pedestrians who get hit crossing roads by vehicles travelling within the
speed limit, and at a safe speed for the conditions (weather) should always
be to blame as far as I am concerned. Any shift in the balance from that
point makes a judgement about the competence of the driver or rider to
foresee events that he won't have got from the driving test he may have
passed yesterday, may not be mentally capable of and is fundamentally
subjective. Pedestrians do not have to cross roads where there is no
crossing provision - if they choose to do so, it's at their risk.

Personally I do my utmost to avoid hitting anything, including giving as
much thought to what might happen as I can muster and would be mighty
pissed off to hit anything that I could have avoided in one way or another
- but if I was riding in a legally approved way in every respect, I
shouldn't have to accept any legal responsibility for the accident.

 

Most household policies cover the holder for third party liability.

 

They are? Damn. There goes my favourite snack[1].

Phil.

[1] Dog are great for hiding the evidence no?[2]
[2] For any law enforcement officers reading this without the benefit
of a sense of humour - it's a joke OK?

 

Hear hear.

 

<Waves>

Had a few close calls though. But seeing kids/dogs/old people on the
pavement usually makes me paranoid[1]. And I was always taught to ride
defensively[2] - which of course means I might not go a fast as the
city-filtering-gods of UKRM..

Put me down for a non-copy..

Phil.

[1] More than usual. The worst ones are people in stationary cars
opening doors..
[2] As in "everyone is trying to kill me. I must always have an escape
path". Doesn't work all the time (but then it doesn't need to!) but it
does mean that all but one of my accidents are down to *me* losing
control rather than being hit..

 

I'm on my way up slowly..[1]

Phil.

[1] This having to work for a living is a bitch eh? I've done more work
in a month in this job that I did in 6 months in either of my last
jobs..

 

I'd not long passed my car test and was driving around London for the first
time. Sitting at lights there was a bus to the right of me and as the lights
went green the bus didn't move but I did. An OAP was stumbling along
obscured by the bus and I stopped just as she reached my car. I must have
_just_ touched her and she kind of collapsed on the bonnet, but there wasn't
even a bump or a noise and she wasn't hurt.

Lesson: If you can't see everything and traffic isn't moving there's
probably a reason.

 

However - pedestrians can and do turn much more quickly than vehicles
can. While I agree with you (mostly) that drivers need to take more
responsibility for accidents with peds there is the theory and there is
the practise.

No matter how good we are there are always times when our
concentration/ability is not at it's peak. Is that our fault? Possibly.
But not automatically..

It's not intended to be "some comfort". I suspect it's an attempt to be
a pragmatic view of the situation. The one part of your view that I
disagree with is that it is *always* the riders responsibility. Use of
the road is a consensual contract - pedestrians and driver/riders alike
have to take the needs and safety of others into consideration. No-one
is expected to be perfect but everyone is required to put in their best
effort.

The fact that a pedestrian decides to ignore that should not
necessarily be seen as a failure on the part of a motorist - especially
in busy traffic.

However - I do agree with this.. even though in a lot of places peds
are *not* allowed into the road except at designated crossing points..

Phil.

 

Good job. But it wasn't covered in my car test. Mind you, I took it in
Somerset if that says anything.

 

Yebbut in Somerset you can't move off for the crowd watching the lights
change ;-).

 

So if it's a "safe speed for the weather conditions" then it's a safe speed,
full stop?

FFS.

 

I don't recall anyone saying that.

You seem to have a problem differentiating between, on the one hand,
the idea that drivers, and indeed all road users, should act in a
responsible fashion and, on the other, that they should be held
responsible for the actions of others, over which they have no
control.

The first point I, and I'm sure most others, would agree with
wholeheartedly; the second is just ridiculous.

 

Hello? It was certainly implied up there ^^^^ where you said "Hear hear" to
Ferger's "Pedestrians who get hit crossing roads by vehicles travelling
within the speed limit, and at a safe speed for the conditions (weather)
should always be to blame as far as I am concerned."

"No control"? That's my whole point - we *do* have control. If we have an
accident then, however temporarily, we have put ourselves out of control.
That's why I feel every party is at least partly responsible for the
accident they are involved in.

It's ridicilous *in the extreme* to think you are *totally* blameless if
you're involved in an accident.
You might be blameless in the eyes of the law - but you're still sat there
with a sore arse/head (or worse) beside a damaged (or written-off) bike
sorrily spinning its wheels in the air looking at an injured pedestrian.YOU
HAVE *EVIDENTLY* FUCKED UP. Not in a legal sense - but in a
self-preservation sense.

I don't expect you or anyone to agree with my point of view - but I'll keep
defending my point of view if you keep pressing me.

 

Yes, I agreed with that. How, exactly, is that the same as what you
were saying about safe speeds?

It can, and does, happen. Several examples have been quoted that
you've stunningly failed to counter.

You are, quite simply, wrong. Deal with it.

You bloody started it, and it's you doing all the pressing. Tha fact
that you've been pushed so much on the defensive might perhaps be an
indication that you should STFU.

 

The fact that someone's subjective account is given to prove their own
assertation is hardly conclusive evidence is it? You weren't there, we
weren't there. Why would you necessarily take their word for it?

Baaa--aaaa-aaa