Hitting a pedestrian

[Dogtrousers]

I did a bit of searching, and found this. Now, this is specifically for car/pedestrian incidents, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.
http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/road-accident-claim/pedestrian-claims.html
4. If the pedestrian was clearly at fault can a driver claim against the pedestrian for vehicle damage?
It is very rare that a driver would claim against a pedestrian for vehicle damage, but there is theoretical right to do so. It would depend totally on the facts of the accident and also whether the pedestrian had the means to pay for such a claim. Often building and contents insurance might be able to pay for such claims.
Where the pedestrian is a child it would be even more rare and as a claim would have to be made against the child pedestrian direct it is very unlikely the child would have the means to meet any claim subject to being included under the parents building and contents insurance.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I did a bit of searching, if you did too you'd stop spouting rubbish.


Ner.

Fixed that for you.

Didn't you know bringing facts in to this is against the rules.

 

[KneesUp]

You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.

You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.

You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Didn't you know bringing facts in to this is against the rules.

I feel such a fool

 

[Profpointy]

I did a bit of searching, and found this. Now, this is specifically for car/pedestrian incidents, but I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.
http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/road-accident-claim/pedestrian-claims.html
4. If the pedestrian was clearly at fault can a driver claim against the pedestrian for vehicle damage?
It is very rare that a driver would claim against a pedestrian for vehicle damage, but there is theoretical right to do so. It would depend totally on the facts of the accident and also whether the pedestrian had the means to pay for such a claim. Often building and contents insurance might be able to pay for such claims.
Where the pedestrian is a child it would be even more rare and as a claim would have to be made against the child pedestrian direct it is very unlikely the child would have the means to meet any claim subject to being included under the parents building and contents insurance.

Agreed - I wasn't being entirely flippant when I said even if the cyclist won, any damages would have to be paid out of pocket money. And if any small claims writ named the parent, rather than child - the it would immediately get thrown out. I'd also suggest a claim for £500 wasn't entirely plausible - so regardless of blame my sympathies would with the kid here. "jog on mate" might be.my response

 

[Peter Armstrong]

If the Childs parents can not anticipate them stepping out in the road how was the cyclist suppose to?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Agreed - I wasn't being entirely flippant when I said even if the cyclist won, any damages would have to be paid out of pocket money. And if any small claims writ named the parent, rather than child - the it would immediately get thrown out. I'd also suggest a claim for £500 wasn't entirely plausible - so regardless of blame my sympathies would with the kid here. "jog on mate" might be.my response

Yup, whatever the right or wrong of trying to get money back from the accident, as soon as one of the parties is a minor you are pretty much stuffed. You might get somewhere if it's a huge claim (the accident had paralysed you, or chopped your thumbs off or some such) but for a bit of damage to your bike. You'd be better off buying a lottery ticket.

 

[Bman]

Ok, neither video was filmed in the UK, but the second video description even says that the driver was charged.

I agree most people would argue that the pedestrian is at fault, but in the eyes of the law, the pedestrian has no legal responsibility to cross safely.

I am happy for someone to find any relevant law that says otherwise.

 

[Markymark]

Ok, neither video was filmed in the UK, but the second video description even says that the driver was charged.

I agree most people would argue that the pedestrian is at fault, but in the eyes of the law, the pedestrian has no legal responsibility to cross safely.

I am happy for someone to find any relevant law that says otherwise.

Pedestrians are Road Users - see here
Road users in the UK, have a Duty Of Care

I would suggest that therfore Pedestrians have a duty of care although it is not expressly written.

 

[theclaud]

How do you know I didn't slow down already? Maybe I wasn't going that fast in the first place? My point was that he decided to cross when I was just yards from him - whether I had slowed down or not was irrelevant by this point.

If people cycled the way you suggest, they would have to slow to virtual standstill every time they passed a pedestrian who they had not made eye contact with. I suspect you don't cycle the way you tell others to either.

This always comes up, and it simply isn't true. I'm a relatively nippy commuter by Swansea standards, and I also cycle a lot in London, where there are plenty of faster people than me but I'm still no dawdler. There are occasions when one does have to slow almost to a standstill, but most of the time it is possible to maintain a reasonable speed by anticipating and choosing a different line. One learns to read the trajectory of pedestrians quite well. Not infallibly of course, but the obvious advice is that the less sure you are, the greater the allowances you need to make. The simplest way I can put this is to say that you should take responsibility for the danger you present to others and cycle within the limits of your abilities.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.

I think not.

 

[TheJDog]

If you say you can't envision a scenario where you might hit a pedestrian who steps into the street and it is their fault, you are being deliberately obtuse and quite irritating.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If you say you can't envision a scenario where you might hit a pedestrian who steps into the street and it is their fault, you are being deliberately obtuse and quite irritating.

It is not a binary situation. There is always question of degree of fault to be established.

 

[KneesUp]

The duty of care is shared equally. The amount of care needed to exercise that duty of care is not. KE determines the hierarchy. Physics is a harsh mistress.

So, to give an extreme example - if I jump out from behind an advertising board in front of you as you cycle past, it will be your fault because you had more kinetic energy? Or, another example. One of my friends is very overweight - he is about 30 stone. He has more kinetic energy moving at 1mph than my 24kg daughter does on her 7kg bike at 37mph (c.17.8kJ joules vs 18 kJ) If she rides into him at 37mph (unlikely with stabilisers, admittedly) who is to blame?

You can't ascribe blame according to physics.

You can, and we do, ascribe responsibility according to physics. Or HGV licenses would be free with cornflakes.

You were ascribing blame according to physics though, which is very different.

If you weren't implying that you can't ascribe blame according to physics then I'm not sure what your point is. Are you just saying that people in charge of things with more kinetic energy need to be more careful? That's hardly controversial, or illuminating, especially since we know nothing about the amount of care either party was taking, in which case I think it fair to assume the cyclist was taking reasonable care given the kinetic energy being generated and the fact that most cyclists are careful on account of all the motorised vehicles about the place. Also, if the cyclist had been riding whilst playing the accordion blindfolded and whistling La Marseillaise I presume the OP would not be saying it was the pedestrians fault.

However, let's take your point purely in terms of responsibility. Can you not imagine a situation in which the cyclist is being perfectly responsible and the pedestrian walks out on him anyway? Have you really never ridden a bike and thought 'they didn't see me'? Do you really expect every cyclist to ride at walking pace in case a pedestrian waiting to cross steps out in front of them?

 

[TheJDog]

It is not a binary situation. There is always question of degree of fault to be established.

I'm pretty sure the fault can be ascribed 100% to one party.

There have been two posts by OP, neither describes what happened. You are deliberately being irritating. I am blocking you. Ain't no one got time for this.