H1 doesn't work like you seem to think it does. It doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your own actions or inactions.
Poll: who is at fault here
- Thread starter bigmike20vt
- Start date
H1 doesn't work like you seem to think it does. It doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your own actions or inactions.
That rule relates to stopping to give way when pedestrians are crossing the road. It doesn't provide carte blanche for them to run at moving vehicles. Also, FYI, the highway code is a dumbed down guide for road users - it's not actually law in itself. You were confident legislation placed liability with the biker, so I'd be interested to see it (hint: don't look for too long, it doesn't exist).
As an aside, if (for example) your dog runs into the road and causes a collision with a vehicle, you can and will be held liable for costs for repair. The biker similarly would have a claim against the lady, though whether his insurance chose to pursue it is another matter entirely. 
Other posters are also correct in that 'accidents' are vanishingly rare. Both parties could have done this differently, and the biker can no doubt learn some lessons for the future. That doesn't make him in any way liable, however.
Other posters are also correct in that 'accidents' are vanishingly rare. Both parties could have done this differently, and the biker can no doubt learn some lessons for the future. That doesn't make him in any way liable, however.Got a decent chuckle out of this:
I'll stay away from blaming anyone and say rather that both could've prevented it from happening.
I must admit that was the first thing that entered my mind when I saw that.
Aah yes the look at the floor and away from oncoming traffic while crossing the road, because if you can't see any vehicles then they don't exist. I've seen a deer apply more sense while trying to cross the road, than this women.
I picked both but I hold the women more at fault for reasons stated already. For the biker I don't have a problem with his speed but I think he could have spotted this earlier as you can see her before she is blocked by the car. Also this is one of the reasons why I try to look through the windows of cars.
I picked both but I hold the women more at fault for reasons stated already. For the biker I don't have a problem with his speed but I think he could have spotted this earlier as you can see her before she is blocked by the car. Also this is one of the reasons why I try to look through the windows of cars.
The trouble is as the biker you need to be looking in too many places at once. Is someone going to pull out, move over, open a door etc.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
As an aside, if (for example) your dog runs into the road and causes a collision with a vehicle, you can and will be held liable for costs for repair. The biker similarly would have a claim against the lady, though whether his insurance chose to pursue it is another matter entirely.
You do you, I'm not about to go out and test that theory, I'll continue to drive and ride expecting someone to be a plank.
Yep, woman was clearly walking too fast to stop.
You don't need to go out and test it, you can simply back up your claim using legislation.gov.uk if you wish. If you could, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong - something you seemingly can't.
BTW, you're not the only one who drives/rides like that, I'm an advanced course instructor... That doesn't mean the woman isn't at fault here.No he wouldn't. It's already been demonstrated in this thread to be perfectly legal.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I would personally blame over population levels and these excesses of procreation and immigration have allowed too many people to be able to afford motorised transport. Such queuing traffic and wealth for the working man would be unthinkable in the 1930's
As an insurance assessor I'd try for 50 / 50 and cross my fingers...
As an insurance assessor I'd try for 50 / 50 and cross my fingers...
Last edited:
Ok, I assume you're talking about filtering? (you didn't say which post you was referencing).
Going too fast against parked vehicles and not being able to stop safely when someone ran out on him. He bumped in to her.
She could argue she couldn't see him because of the cars and that he was going too fast for the situation.
Motorists are told to slow down their speed when passing parked vehicles and to give them a wide birth for this very situation.
For hitting the woman maybe but not for making legal progress
Last edited:
She couldn't argue that. If you can't see you don't step out. It is literally that simple. She completely failed to look.
Both made mistakes.
Hopefully she’s learnt to cross the road at a crossing or if she’s going to cross through traffic, be more vigilant with her checks.
Biker could have filtered slower and should have been more aware of the potential risk that can appear in an instant, a lesson for them both.
Hopefully she’s learnt to cross the road at a crossing or if she’s going to cross through traffic, be more vigilant with her checks.
Biker could have filtered slower and should have been more aware of the potential risk that can appear in an instant, a lesson for them both.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,659
They're both at fault but the Biker is most at fault
Why do you keep saying parked cars?
I don't think a car in traffic is classified as parked.