Poll: who is at fault here

Who was at fault?

  • Bike

    Votes: 102 36.2%
  • Woman

    Votes: 106 37.6%
  • Equally at fault, I've deduced that while sitting with a digestive biscuit and a steaming hot bovril

    Votes: 74 26.2%

  • Total voters
    282
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,224
Location
7th Level of Hell...
There is no official speed one must filter at for stationery traffic but common sense should ideally prevail.

Exactly... Common sense would make me go slower considering the dangers that may occur from doors opening, dogs or children running out etc etc

I don't think he was going too fast at all. I mean yeah he could have been slightly slower, but I doubt 5mph less would have resulted in a different outcome.

It may have. I guess we'll never know


Don't look, get banged.

This remark says everything people need to know about your thoughts on the matter... I don't think it's unfair to assume you ride a motorcycle?
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2008
Posts
7,743
This remark says everything people need to know about your thoughts on the matter... I don't think it's unfair to assume you ride a motorcycle?

Used to. :)
I've had people do some ridiculous things yeah. Pedestrians and car drivers. I would totally sympathize with the women if I hit her for sure, but it's still her fault so...
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2009
Posts
15,961
Location
N. Ireland
Passed the link on to a few biker mates and all bar one reckon he’s going far too fast but that of course the auld bird is a bit mental for just running out. Couple of them mentioned that she may well have seen him but assumed she’d be across before him if she got a wriggle on, hence why she ran.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2016
Posts
8,771
Location
Oldham
Oy. She was also going too fast for the situation, right into a road full of active traffic and while looking the other way. To be clear, he didn't run into her, she ran into him. He didn't mount the pavement, she ran into the road. Too many of the replies here are emotive rather than factual.
He literally knocked her over.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,925
Location
Northern England
How would this position change if it was a little kid running out? Kids are less experienced and cannot be expected to take the same precautions as adults. This is one reason why you must filter at an appropriate speed only.

I can tell you that it doesn't. A friend of my father's ran over and killed a kid that had run from between two parked cars. He was initially arrested and charged with death by dangerous. His dashcam footage proved that he was driving within the speed limit and safely. Kids' fault. He walked from court.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2007
Posts
2,727
Location
Essex
I’ll say this as a 25 year biker.

Change in The Highway Code says pedestrian have rights of way , although the biker has every right to filter it’s his responsibility to look out for pedestrians ,bottom line he was going to quick.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
2 Oct 2004
Posts
5,797
Location
London, NW1
I can tell you that it doesn't. A friend of my father's ran over and killed a kid that had run from between two parked cars. He was initially arrested and charged with death by dangerous. His dashcam footage proved that he was driving within the speed limit and safely. Kids' fault. He walked from court.
He walked from a Crown Court then. Criminal litigation totally different.

The thread here is concerning civil liability, ie who is at fault.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Oct 2004
Posts
5,797
Location
London, NW1
He was found to be free from any blame. I.e. was not at fault.

There is a difference between criminal and civil litigation. We do not get to know what the precise findings of the tribunal of fact were in that case as they are the jury. Or was it a successful app to dismiss or half-timer? And if so on what basis did it succeed?

Fault = liability.

Death by dangerous is completely different, as doubtless you know.

This is who is at fault for the accident, not consideration of dangerousness.

Were you to give an informed response you might point out s3 careless driving appears very similar to common law negligence that appears in a civil claim, in which case I’d tend to agree. But you do not get split liability outcomes when charged with criminal driving offences.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,925
Location
Northern England
There is a difference between criminal and civil litigation.

Fault = liability.

Death by dangerous is completely different, as doubtless you know.

This is who is at fault for the accident, not consideration of dangerousness.

Were you to give an informed response you might point out s3 careless driving appears very similar to common law negligence that appears in a civil claim, in which case I’d tend to agree. But you do not get split liability outcomes when charged with criminal driving offences.

No, but shared blame can come in to it with judgements and sentencing. As stated he was found to be completely free of any blame. Not just deemed to be not guilty.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
23,770
Location
Lincs
I’ll say this as a 25 year biker.

Change in The Highway Code says pedestrian have rights of way , although the biker has every right to filter it’s his responsibility to look out for pedestrians ,bottom line he was going to quick.

You better go off and learn about those changed then. Pedestrians now have priority when they have started to cross the road at a junction

Rule 8​

At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, other traffic should give way. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rules H2 and 170).

To cross the standard carriageway, as that woman was doing, the standard green cross code applies

Rule 7​

The Green Cross Code. The advice given below on crossing the road is for all pedestrians. Children should be taught the Code and should not be allowed out alone until they can understand and use it properly. The age when they can do this is different for each child. Many children cannot judge how fast vehicles are going or how far away they are. Children learn by example, so parents and carers should always use the Code in full when out with their children. They are responsible for deciding at what age children can use it safely by themselves.

A First find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. It is safer to cross using a subway, a footbridge, an island, a zebra, pelican, toucan or puffin crossing, or where there is a crossing point controlled by a police officer, a school crossing patrol or a traffic warden. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions. Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly. Do not cross the road diagonally.

Rule 7: Look all around and listen for traffic before crossing


Rule 7: Look all around and listen for traffic before crossing
B Stop just before you get to the kerb, where you can see if anything is coming. Do not get too close to the traffic. If there’s no pavement, keep back from the edge of the road but make sure you can still see approaching traffic.

C Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it.

D If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

E When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic. Do not walk diagonally across the road.

Which the woman didn't do any of those at all.

Luckily she wasn't hurt worse than she was, but that's her fault.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Oct 2004
Posts
5,797
Location
London, NW1
No, but shared blame can come in to it with judgements and sentencing. As stated he was found to be completely free of any blame. Not just deemed to be not guilty.

You could advance it in a plea in mitigation potentially, I agree.

Sounds like offered no evidence or discontinued then in your scenario.

Anyhow, it is totally different to civil litigation. Similarities in criminal road traffic matters are there of course but we aren’t debating that.

Who is liable for the accident?
That is not the same as is the driver (or woman) guilty of an offence.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,925
Location
Northern England
You could advance it in a plea in mitigation potentially, I agree.

Sounds like offered no evidence or discontinued then in your scenario.

Anyhow, it is totally different to civil litigation. Similarities in criminal road traffic matters are there of course but we aren’t debating that.

Who is liable for the accident?
That is not the same as is the driver (or woman) guilty of an offence.

Discontinued. The dashcam footage was provided. Curiously it was offered to the police at the time of the accident and they refused to view it choosing to charge him instead.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Oct 2004
Posts
5,797
Location
London, NW1
Discontinued. The dashcam footage was provided. Curiously it was offered to the police at the time of the accident and they refused to view it choosing to charge him instead.
Ha sounds like typical police antics to me…

I do think in cases like this one with the pedestrian emerging the common law has been a bit harsh on the motorists, but that’s just my view. Often with a lot of personal injury and negligence type cases one has limited sympathy with some people who are just dozy!
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
4,146
Location
Oxfordshire
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.
Except she can't because she didn't once stop, look, listen at all. She is at fault.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,925
Location
Northern England
Ha sounds like typical police antics to me…

I do think in cases like this one with the pedestrian emerging the common law has been a bit harsh on the motorists, but that’s just my view. Often with a lot of personal injury and negligence type cases one has limited sympathy with some people who are just dozy!

They were shocking. When under interview he was recorded as asking why he was under arrest and the response was 'because you killed a kid so you're a danger'.

edit: he asked it several times as he was in shock and it hadn't registered with him what had actually happened or what he'd been charged with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom