If you think this I hope you dont have a license.
Poll: who is at fault here
- Thread starter bigmike20vt
- Start date
If you think this I hope you dont have a license.
dlockers
D
dlockers
But we don't. We favour pedestrians... have you been asleep recently?
So, according to you, if you pull out of a side road without looking it's 100% their fault? Man, I hope you don't mean what you write.
You have seriously misunderstood the recent, very modest, changes in UK rules of the road of you think that is true. And, please, please, don't try crossing a road against a red man any time soon.
dlockers
D
dlockers
Why? Will some purest dash cammer or motor biker run me over to prove a point?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,257
- Location
- London
Both I guess, the woman was stupid for just walking out, and the biker could have been going a lot slower due to the stationary traffic, people do stupid things, and the biker should know things like this can happen. Whatever the laws are, you use common sense.
Last edited:
The woman should know things like this can happen too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,257
- Location
- London
Well yeah, that’s what I said.
We arent talking some hypothetical situation.
In this specific situation the biker is entirely at fault, they were either unaware or not riding to an acceptable standard or both.
Was the woman stupid for not being more cautious, yes, but the biker failed miserably at reading the road, the situation and the conditions.
I appreciate that reply wasn't to me. But nevertheless, new rule H2 may beg to differ:
So if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at any junction then you should give way (it's a "should" rather than "must" but this rule change still has consequences if you collide with a pedestrian at a junction because you were not looking out for them). Pedestrian crosses on red at a junction and you hit them? Your fault, you should have given way.
Pedestrians can step out into the road at any time and are entitled to do so. Granted if they just leap across like this woman did then they bear some degree of liability. But the new rules state they can use any part of the road at any time.
The woman failed on every level to observe the highway code recommendations for crossing a road, whether between parked cars or stationary traffic.
Are you seriously saying that it's entirely the bikers fault when she didn't do a single bit of "due diligence" to be sure it was safe to cross?
*Edit* also, trying to "downplay" her total failure to observe any part of the Highway Code or a sense of self-preservation by ensuring the road was safe to cross first as "stupid" is downplaying her responsibility and culpability in leading up the "accident"
She was not "stupid" she was reckless both in terms of endangering herself and road users. She took absolutely zero consideration of the situation.
Answer me this...
If she had not been a "pedestrian" but instead some scroat on an e-scooter looking to cross the road and got hit, would everyone be so quick to defend them? Or would they all be piling the blame on the person who totally failed at every level to observe the Highway Code or conduct themselves in a safe manner around traffic?
Last edited:
Nah you’re wrong, the biker isn’t completely at fault.
We’re just going in circles now with this debate.
Yes.
As I said the clip posted online was conveniently started at the point it was.
Go back even 1 second and I would bet money she was visible on the path moving towards the road and in full view of the biker.
https://twitter.com/Nathan_Booker/status/1609536796295335941?s=20 
still think the biker's too fast...I mean you get 20mph limits in areas/roads that are far clearer/more visibility than this situation
still think the biker's too fast...I mean you get 20mph limits in areas/roads that are far clearer/more visibility than this situation
Last edited:
That is a huge and wild assumption to make in regard to the clip.
You're just presuming (probably due to a prejudice against bikers as displayed by several others in this thread) The clip is "conveniently started" to reflect positively on the rider and negatively on the pedestrian.
Do you actually have ANY evidence to prove what you claim?
I could just as easily say "the clip started where it did because there was nothing to see before it" ... Can you prove me otherwise?
What makes your assumption superior to mine?
They're both entirely unfounded and lack evidence to support it, at which point were simply talking about opinion and prejudice.
Last edited:
clearly edited...Kindai is a biker. I'm not sure why he would have a prejudice against them. I also think it was the bikers fault and I am a biker myself (or at least I was until recently). It seems that quite a few of us bikers actually hold the riders actions to a higher standard than many non-bikers (I appreciate you also ride).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,082
I was a biker too though its been a few years. I sure as heck wouldn't be riding that fast in that situation its an accident waiting to happen.