Settle a Highway Code related domestic dispute.
- Thread starter Sara_H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
RecordAceFromNew
Swinging Member
- Location
- West London
[QUOTE 2846703, member: 45"]The only thing that Sara is wrong about in the OP is the quoted rule which appears to only apply to pedestrians at junctions. Apart from that, the HC is clear that it is not about right of way but about giving way.
See my sig line.[/quote]
May be it is semantic but is that really true? Let us look at an imaginary but similar scenario: the OP's OH was instead driving along in the same circumstance and true to his belief did not slow down let alone stopped, and for whatever reason the pedestrian, who happened to be carrying Dell's huge stone tablet walked in front of the moving car - miraculously, nobody was hurt, however the same could not be said about the car nor the tablet which given the providence was practically priceless! The question then, is that in a court of law who do you think would be obliged to compensate who for the damages? I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure the pedestrian was at fault and would have to compensate the driver for damage to the car, because the pedestrian firstly shouldn't have been in that position and secondly should have remained stationary albeit stranded in the uncomfortable and somewhat unsafe position, and not walked into the path of the car, while it was within the right of the OP's OH to be driving along the road. Please explain why if you think I am wrong.
Given the OP clearly said she was sure "pedestrians who'd already started crossing had priority", I believe the judgment would have been exactly the same even if the pedestrian was hurt, or if the car managed to swerve to avoid the pedestrian but resulted in a collision causing damage to a 3rd party - the pedestrian is still legally liable for all damages precisely because the pedestrian did not have "priority" (but was negligent). If the pedestrian had priority once he started crossing he would have been compensated. I think the presence/absence of pedestrian priority in that circumstance was the crux of the debate between the OP and her family (because I see no indication that the debate was about courtesy and decency), and the OP while courteous was wrong (regarding the debate).
See my sig line.[/quote]
May be it is semantic but is that really true? Let us look at an imaginary but similar scenario: the OP's OH was instead driving along in the same circumstance and true to his belief did not slow down let alone stopped, and for whatever reason the pedestrian, who happened to be carrying Dell's huge stone tablet walked in front of the moving car - miraculously, nobody was hurt, however the same could not be said about the car nor the tablet which given the providence was practically priceless! The question then, is that in a court of law who do you think would be obliged to compensate who for the damages? I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure the pedestrian was at fault and would have to compensate the driver for damage to the car, because the pedestrian firstly shouldn't have been in that position and secondly should have remained stationary albeit stranded in the uncomfortable and somewhat unsafe position, and not walked into the path of the car, while it was within the right of the OP's OH to be driving along the road. Please explain why if you think I am wrong.
Given the OP clearly said she was sure "pedestrians who'd already started crossing had priority", I believe the judgment would have been exactly the same even if the pedestrian was hurt, or if the car managed to swerve to avoid the pedestrian but resulted in a collision causing damage to a 3rd party - the pedestrian is still legally liable for all damages precisely because the pedestrian did not have "priority" (but was negligent). If the pedestrian had priority once he started crossing he would have been compensated. I think the presence/absence of pedestrian priority in that circumstance was the crux of the debate between the OP and her family (because I see no indication that the debate was about courtesy and decency), and the OP while courteous was wrong (regarding the debate).
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
very true, a thread about being "right" has been turned into a thread about "courtesy", mostly due to the OP being wrong and everyone wanting to placate her.
- Location
- Glasgow
Aperitif
Meme bar
- Location
- ...I don't have much idea - really.
This thread is now locked. Everyone wins. Happy New Year.
swansonj
Guru
Marmion: might you perhaps reflect on whether there was anything in the way in which you chose to make your point that the OP was technically wrong that contributed to the descent of this thread into ill feeling?
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
It's a group responsibility unpinnable on a single source.
There's no obligation to donate vitriol and ill feeling, it's a voluntary thing.
Aperitif
Meme bar
- Location
- ...I don't have much idea - really.
No, you can't say that - people want to be argumentative for no good reason, let them carry on.
Linford
Guest
[QUOTE 2847389, member: 45"]As I've spent many years trying to explain to linford the only time that blame is a consideration is after an incident. Discussing blame before brings some bizarre pre-emptive judgement which is pointless and damaging. The correct attitude when using the road is about cooperation and minimising risk. It's about dealing with whatever situation we come across properly, and following my sig line.
Taking this situation as an example the most dangerous thing a driver can think is that the pedestrians shouldn't be where they were found and that they're to blame for anything negative that might happen. The correct thing to do is one minimise the risk to all involved.[/quote]
Great...I'm being blamed for someone else's post now
Taking this situation as an example the most dangerous thing a driver can think is that the pedestrians shouldn't be where they were found and that they're to blame for anything negative that might happen. The correct thing to do is one minimise the risk to all involved.[/quote]
Great...I'm being blamed for someone else's post now
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
Nowt to do with me. I just gave my opinion.
Glenn
Veteran
- Location
- Newport, shropshire
Not sure if it's been posted, I only read the first 2 pages, the peds need to look and learn from this.
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjihwFWZI8
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbjihwFWZI8
