Just knocked a kid over while driving car!

Steeps · 19 Apr 2017 at 15:51

D.P. said:
In the OPS case if he was going 5MPH faster he would have caused more serious injures and quite rightly could be at fault. If he was driving 5MPH slower then there would be no collision and that is obviously a safe speed.

And if he was going 10mph faster he would have been past the place the child ran out into the path of the car before the child had a chance to, meaning there would have been no collision so that is also a safe speed.

It is completely possible for the OP to have been at a standstill on the road in traffic and the child still run out into the road into the side of the OP's car fast enough to cause injury. Is this still the fault of the driver?

D.P. · 19 Apr 2017 at 16:08

Steeps said:
And if he was going 10mph faster he would have been past the place the child ran out into the path of the car before the child had a chance to, meaning there would have been no collision so that is also a safe speed.

It is completely possible for the OP to have been at a standstill on the road in traffic and the child still run out into the road into the side of the OP's car fast enough to cause injury. Is this still the fault of the driver?

I don;t get your point, if the cra wasn't moving then the person behind the wheel isn't driving. Of course there are extremes that cannot be be avoided, it is the responsibility of the driver to mitigate these circumstances as much as possible by adjusting speed and driving behavior.

D.P. · 19 Apr 2017 at 16:10

Haggisman said:
And if he was going 5mph slower and the kid ran out 1m closer to him he still would have hit him...

There is no speed* which makes it impossible to have a collision, yes it is the driver's responsibility to ensure they do everything they can to mitigate that possibility, but ultimately the person placing themselves (or failing to prevent their children from doing so) in the path of a moving vehicle also has to take some responsibility for their actions

* Unless you count 0 as a speed

No one said there was a speed that makes it impossible to have a collision, but there are speeds that reduce the probability of collison and reduce the impact energy and injury risk, and there are speeds that do the opposite. As a driver you have to adjust speeds to the road conditions

ttaskmaster · 19 Apr 2017 at 16:13

Rroff said:
Find it shocking in my neighbourhood how many just let their kids run out in the street

Back in my day everyone knew a kid who'd been run over and killed... usually the same Year as you but in one of the nine or ten other local schools. We still played in the streets, occasionally got run over, but mostly knew how to be safe.
Parents would take the 'French' route and just say, "If you get run over, don't come crying to me".

Andy90 said:
The onus on any driver is to drive to the conditions and surroundings - it is called hazard perception.

Yeah, perception, not prophesy. There's only so much you can perceive, let alone have time to react to... and guaranteed there'll be a Beemer up yer bum with flashing headlights if you are too careful.

Haggisman · 19 Apr 2017 at 19:29

D.P. said:
I don;t get your point, if the cra wasn't moving then the person behind the wheel isn't driving. Of course there are extremes that cannot be be avoided, it is the responsibility of the driver to mitigate these circumstances as much as possible by adjusting speed and driving behavior.

I agree completely with what you're saying, but when they've done so as far as reasonably possible, then why should they bear the full responsibility for someone elses actions?

If you're crawling along at 10 mph and a kid decides to run out from behind a parked van and cracks their head open on your side window, how exactly are you supposed to "drive to the conditions" to avoid that?

Raymond Lin · 19 Apr 2017 at 19:31

Glanza said:
Cynic in me is just wondering when you'll get a letter through the post now you've given your details to him, the old where there's a blame there's a claim mentality etc.

The thing is, since the kid is 6 years old, the limitation has 15 more years to run, 18 years old + 3 years.

Long wait OP!

Soundood · 19 Apr 2017 at 19:36

Dis86 said:
Sounds like natural selection foiled again! As has been said, let the police know even if it's just to protect yourself.

seriously? a six year old kid is nearly killed and you think natural selection is foiled again? I really wish this wasnt a family friendly forum, so I could tell you what I really think.

Haggisman · 19 Apr 2017 at 19:51

Soundood said:
seriously? a six year old kid is nearly killed and you think natural selection is foiled again? I really wish this wasnt a family friendly forum, so I could tell you what I really think.

Would it be that you have no sense of humour?

koolpc · 19 Apr 2017 at 19:51

Well, not heard from the parents of the little lad.

Dis86 · 19 Apr 2017 at 20:01

Haggisman said:
Would it be that you have no sense of humour?

Apparently so! Soundood, get a grip. Tell me what you really think. Lol

Dis86 · 19 Apr 2017 at 20:04

koolpc said:
Well, not heard from the parents of the little lad.

No news is good news and all that. I'd honestly put it out of your mind otherwise you'll just continue to needlessly stress which isn't good for you.

Either that or hardman soundood will tell you what he really thinks!

Richie · 19 Apr 2017 at 21:02

zoomee said:
Back on point seeing as its more important how much a car is worth for some.

Including yourself in that statement?... Given you had to mention the price in the first place...

Tefal · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:02

The big arguments in this thread tbh are all missing the simple word "reasonable".

people always want tio lock ther law down to an absolute but the law not being stupid is flexible and has grey areas.

"reasonable" being the big one.

something can be less than ideal but still be reasonable.

MooMoo444 · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:03

Disgusting child killer in the making :mad:

Get off our roads :mad:

FutileBreadMachine · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:05

Why does the NHS require the driver to pay? If you are playing football with a friend and you tackle him badly and break his leg, will the NHS charge you for that?

Haggisman · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:38

FutileBreadMachine said:
Why does the NHS require the driver to pay? If you are playing football with a friend and you tackle him badly and break his leg, will the NHS charge you for that?

I'd be questioning what sort of game of football involves tackling your mate with a car?

MooMoo444 · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:39

Haggisman said:
I'd be questioning what sort of game of football involves tackling your mate with a car?

Scrutinize · 20 Apr 2017 at 07:44

FutileBreadMachine said:
Why does the NHS require the driver to pay? If you are playing football with a friend and you tackle him badly and break his leg, will the NHS charge you for that?

Because there is legal provision for them to do so. In my previous role one of our employees (their fault) seriously injured a pedestrian.

The NHS element of the claim was in excess of £100k which was our self insurance threshold. The claim went well north of £250k in the end.

ttaskmaster · 20 Apr 2017 at 10:42

Tefal said:
The big arguments in this thread tbh are all missing the simple word "reasonable".

This is the internet. No-one is reasonable!!

koolpc · 24 Apr 2017 at 09:20

Police rang me to say nobody has reported the incident. Nothing from the hospital either! No further action to be taken.