| Motoring Discussion > 13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Bromptonaut | Replies: 97 |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 13:45
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
This story first reached me via the cycling bush telegraph but it subsequently transpired to be near home. Bethany Probert, then aged 13, was hit by a car on an unlit lane near Silverstone on 3 December 2009. She was returning from feeding her horse and was walking on the left, possibly listening to music. She suffered life threatening/life changing injuries including a traumatic brain injury. The driver who hit her, Paul Moore, a mechanic from Force India, claimed not to have seen her until impact. His pre accident speed was 50mph and he claimed to be looking right to negotiate oncoming traffic. Bethany was on his left. Streetview of accident site: goo.gl/maps/ISgvt A brief factual law report is at www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42927524-19e1-435c-bcb9-872e11ba857b . The court found the road was well used by pedestrians, joggers and dog walkers and the defendant was held to be 100% responsible. Compensation is not yet determined but likely to be in millions. Moore has now appealed the contributory negligence point with the support of his insurer. The two areas of negligence alleged are (1) Bethany’s or her Mother’s failure to arrange collection from stable (2) Failure to wear hi-viz. What does the panel think? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 13:49
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 13:58
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - madf
|
|
Moore has now appealed the contributory negligence point with the support of his insurer. The two areas of negligence alleged are (1) Bethany’s or her Mother’s failure to arrange collection from stable (2) Failure to wear hi-viz. Hmm 1> implies ALL 13 year olds should not walk on the roads. So fail. 2?> implies hi viz is a legal requirement. It ain't. So fail. Waste of time and money... |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:02
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Waste of time and money... Needless to say I hope so. Cyclists are urging a boycot of the insurer, said to be Churchill. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:11
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - bathtub tom
|
|
>>walking on the left, possibly listening to music If 'walking on the left' means she had her back to oncoming traffic, then I would've thought that would be a contributory factor. If she had her back to oncoming traffic and was listening to music.................... |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:09
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
>>(1) Bethany’s or her Mother’s failure to arrange collection from stable Damned outrageous. She was legally riding along a road she was entitled to be on. The risk that he is maintaining her mother should have helped her avoid is him. >>(2) Failure to wear hi-viz. Aside from why the hell should she, he said he was "looking right to negotiate oncoming traffic" so he wouldn't have seen her whatever. What about if a tree had fallen, would he have just driven into that also? I really do hope that this does significant harm to Churchill's business and that they lose the case resoundingly. 'Course the lawyers will still get paid. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:21
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
She was walking in the road, in the dark, wearing dark clothing, on the wrong side of the road, with a an ipod stuck in her ears. The fact that others use the road is of no consequence because they probably wouldn't do it in such an unsafe manner. Of course there is an element of contributory negligence. Was the driver prosecuted for any offence? |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:23
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
I can see how walking with your back to traffic, listening to music, possibly in dark clothing, etc. all means you are difficult to see and cannot hear traffic etc. But if the driver had his lights on and was observant he'd have seen her wouldn't he? And if it was so dark and his lights not that good to see everything in the dark... then why was he driving at 50mph? Surely he'd have had to slow down so he could see sufficiently ahead to remain safe. He's going to lose his appeal I hope. And it's not as if this makes much a difference to him - only his insurer surely? If the blame was 75:25 against him/her, still a lot to pay out for the insurer. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:55
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
A reasonable person would IMO think it dangerous to walk in the road, on the left, in the dark, on an unlit narrow twisty road, wearing dark clothing listening to music. I occasionally walk home at night on roads like this. I carry a torch, listen for traffic, face said traffic except on blind bends with no refuge, and get ready to jump on the verge or against the hedge when a car approaches. I also drive on these roads and have been very late seeing unlit peds and cyclists on occasion, usually when there are oncoming headlights. There was a notorious local who came back from the pub very night at about 10 on his bike with no lights, pedalling very slowly. I called him the phantom cyclist. He was eventually killed, by a drunk driver as it happens. I think she was careless, or if she is deemed not responsible, her parents were. A material degree of contributory negligence to me. The fact that high viz is not mandatory does not mean that she took reasonable care - it looks as if she didn't. The driver won't be the promoter of the counter claim - but it's possible he has no choice really, if he has a duty to the insurer to mitigate his insured loss which is probably the case. That is also a narrow road - if he saw her when she was so close that he couldn't stop, with oncoming traffic he might also have had nowhere to go. This is the sort of thing that makes me shudder, most of us will have had a near miss if we drive on that sort of road. Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 14:57
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:26
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - CGNorwich
|
|
If the person injured had been an adult there is a high probability that in the same circumstances there would deemed to be a degree of contributory negligence. What the case is really about is at what age can one legally be deemed to be partly responsible for the consequence of one's actions and is in effect a test case. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 14:46
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fenlander
|
|
Just my observations... I'm sure, as Zero says, she was walking on the road not on the verge. If that streetview is accurate for location there is no way either of my girls would have been walking along there in the dark... you can either consider I wouldn't have let them... or they would have had sense not to... either way they would not have been victims in that circumstance. Again considering the road situation 50mph was a little fast... but even at 30mph, if on dip with oncoming traffic headlamps to distract, there'd be a chance it would have been damn hard to miss her. Isn't it said here by those that know insurance must always be seen as a business... so following from that there must be a duty to minimise losses for that business... emotion surrounding an injured child not being part of the business case?? |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:03
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
I hadn't looked at the Streetview until just now. I think walking along that road in the dark on her own was dangerous. Forget being hit by a car... she could have just as easily been attacked. I take back quite a bit that I said above - she should have been picked up by her parents shouldn't she. And whilst on the one hand that road looks narrow to be a 50mph road, I've driven on some as narrow as that and they claim to be national speed limit... but you wouldn't drive at the limit of course. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:15
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
Incidentally, I share Bromp's obvious concern that it's undesirable to create a perception that pedestrians, and by extension cyclists, are the only ones responsible for their safety. In this case though, allowing that I haven't seen the evidence in full, I have some sympathy with the driver as well as the victim's family. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:20
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
I know that road. So first, what was he doing driving at 50mph if he was able to see obstructions in the road. Ok, this time it was a young girl, but it could equally have been a deer, a tree or a random bit of debris. At 13, I might let my child walk down there at night; There's no point in saying "you're 16, now out you go". Things have to be gradually learned, and 13 is knocking on a bit. Equally i might not have done, I'll let you know when No 1 is 13. That to one side, are we saying that if the child had been 18 then the driver would have seen her? Her age is not relevant. Now no-one, not even the insurer is saying that the accident was the girl's fault. What they're saying is that she contributed to its occurrence and therefore she should have her payout reduced my a percentage proportionate to that contribution. She wasn't wearing Hi-Viz. Well he wasn't looking at her, so how would that have made a difference? She was (perhaps) listening to music meaning she didn't hear him coming. I don't really see that failing to jump out of the way is contributory negligence. She was walking on the left. Well, I know that the guidance is walking on the right facing the traffic, but there are many occasions where, because of the road, that is a more dangerous idea. Her parents should have picked her up. Perhaps, but not relevant. It could have been any obstruction, including an adult. Is he saying that if you walk along that road then you must at least partially accept being run down? I really cannot see that the compensation should be reduced. I also believe that doing so further issues a message that I don't like; that you must wear hi-viz, not listen to music, etc. etc. etc. or you're a bad and careless person. He was within the limit, driving too fast, not looking or seeing appropriately for the conditions, made an assumption about obstructions which was wrong, and hit someone. And the Insurer is a business. They should mitigate their loss. And this time they should lose so badly that in order to protect their revenue in future they will not try such an approach, and should equally punish the lawyer that led them down this route. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:27
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
Like Mark I know the road. It's a very quiet lane. Even on Grand Prix day, it s mostly used by the P&R buses and by taxis avoiding the A43 and no trouble to cycle. The girl lived in Silverstone and I suspect she was only walking half a mile or so, probably something she did regularly. The Court of Appeal, granting leave, nored that defendant might have an uphill struggle on the 'parent should have picked up' point. It seems to be mostly about age, hi viz and extent to which contributory negligence should apply. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:49
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
I completely understand your argument Mark, and 50mph seems to me a bit too fast in the circs. , and I do not suggest the incident was entirely self-inflicted. He should have been travelling at a speed that allowed for what he could and couldn't see, and the fact that oncoming traffic would put him in the verge etc. - if he wasn't, then the degree of blame he carries increases. Nevertheless there will always be somebody going too fast. It's being his fault doesn't make it easier to bear. We are discussing a degree of contributory negligence here, not saying it was the victim's own fault. A passenger in a car would usually be completely blameless but their payout can be reduced for not wearing a seatbelt, if having worn one would have reduced their injuries. Typically 25% IIRC. I do think it's possibly unwise for the insurer to take this line but that's a commercial decision. The lawyer may only have advised them on the law. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:51
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> I really cannot see that the compensation should be reduced. I also believe that doing >> so further issues a message that I don't like; that you must wear hi-viz, not >> listen to music, etc. etc. etc. or you're a bad and careless person. You are over reacting. No one has accused her of being a bad person, or doing it on purpose. No one has said one has to wear HiViz merely be aware of how one is visible. Seems to me that most kids, mine certainly and it seems most on here, would have been drilled into their heads some element of common sense how about how to negotiate a road in those circumstances ( and most certainly not the way she did it) and even you agree you have thoughts about allowing it. Seems to me the parents share some of the blame as well. >> He was within the limit, driving too fast, not looking or seeing appropriately for the >> conditions, made an assumption about obstructions which was wrong, and hit someone. Was he prosecuted for any driving offence? >> And the Insurer is a business. They should mitigate their loss. And this time they >> should lose so badly that in order to protect their revenue in future they will >> not try such an approach, and should equally punish the lawyer that led them down >> this route. And now you are over reacting in a hysterical manner. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 15:52
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 19:54
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
>>You are over reacting I may be wrong in your opinion, or indeed in reality, but your emotive manner of commenting on the delivery rather than the message is becoming tiresome. >>Was he prosecuted for any driving offence? I don't know, do you? Was she? Is it relevant? Are you saying that being prosecuted is the sole determination of wrong doing? Because if so, then she's home and dry. >>And now you are over reacting in a hysterical manner. Again. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:04
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> I may be wrong in your opinion, or indeed in reality, but your emotive manner >> of commenting on the delivery rather than the message is becoming tiresome. My manner was was emotive? wow. And you don't comment on the method of delivery? Talk about pot calling kettle black.. If its tiresome dont read it and dont bother to respond - Seemples huh? >> >>Was he prosecuted for any driving offence? >> >> I don't know, do you? Was she? Is it relevant? Yes it is >>Are you saying that being >> prosecuted is the sole determination of wrong doing? Because if so, then she's home and >> dry. No - I am saying that if he was not prosecuted he is mostly blameless. And therefore not liable to pay up. I guess thats the way the Insurance company is thinking. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:14
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> No - I am saying that if he was not prosecuted he is mostly blameless. >> And therefore not liable to pay up. I guess thats the way the Insurance company >> is thinking. Edit; to clarify, if the police declined to prosecute for an offence of carelessness or dangerous driving, the assumption he he was not wholly responsible for the events. Therefore the girl had some responsibility. But prosecution or not is a key fact we are missing. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:28
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
>>And you don't comment on the method of delivery? Umm, I think you might have missed the irony of me commenting on your habit of commenting on the delivery within your delivery. And indeed then you commenting on the likelihood of me commenting on your emotive habit of commenting. >>I am saying that if he was not prosecuted he is mostly blameless Really? Did you mean that? "mostly blameless"? Now that I really don't agree with. There can be many reasons why someone was not prosecuted, including the standard of proof required. That burden of proof is inconsistent across types of court and suits. Equally there could be a flaw in the process followed; cautioning etc. There could be many things. Ultimately if someone was simply walking along a road and someone else drove into them, then in the absence of the material involvement of another third party, I'd have to see the driver at fault. Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 20:32
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:44
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
> >> >>I am saying that if he was not prosecuted he is mostly blameless >> >> Really? Did you mean that? "mostly blameless"? Yes >> Now that I really don't agree with. There can be many reasons why someone was >> not prosecuted, including the standard of proof required. That burden of proof is inconsistent across >> types of court and suits. >> >> Equally there could be a flaw in the process followed; cautioning etc. There could be >> many things. It could just be that he was blameless and no prosecution was warranted. >> Ultimately if someone was simply walking along a road and someone else drove into them, >> then in the absence of the material involvement of another third party, I'd have to >> see the driver at fault. The police may not think so. It would help to see the police report i think. Anyway I think you are wrong, very wrong. I have made my reasons clear and I will leave it at that. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:39
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Westpig
|
|
>> She wasn't wearing Hi-Viz. Well he wasn't looking at her, so how would that have >> made a difference? >> It would have made an enormous difference. It is hard to miss high vis in your headlights. Driving is about doing a load of things, multi-tasking, in sequences. If something isn't right, you notice. If it seems o.k. you don't notice anything different and carry on as normal. He'd most likely have noticed the high vis. >> She was (perhaps) listening to music meaning she didn't hear him coming. I don't really >> see that failing to jump out of the way is contributory negligence. Someone has already said above that walking in the dark on unlit roads has its problems, so someone sensible would narrow them down. I often walk to and fro my local on an unlit country lane..and ...ALWAYS carry a torch and am prepared to merge into the hedge if needed. I'd like to stay alive. >> >> She was walking on the left. Well, I know that the guidance is walking on >> the right facing the traffic, but there are many occasions where, because of the road, >> that is a more dangerous idea. Seeing what is coming your way is virtually essential. >> He was within the limit, driving too fast, not looking or seeing appropriately for the >> conditions, made an assumption about obstructions which was wrong, and hit someone. Too harsh. How about 'he was driving down a dark road at an acceptable speed, took his eyes off the road to look right, as we'd all do, and hit something he hadn't previously seen'. >> >> And the Insurer is a business. They should mitigate their loss. And this time they >> should lose so badly that in order to protect their revenue in future they will >> not try such an approach, and should equally punish the lawyer that led them down >> this route. That will be a wait and see, won't it. >> |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:49
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
>>How about 'he was driving down a dark road at an acceptable speed, took his eyes off the road to look right, as we'd all do As we all do, indeed. Perhaps we just take this attribution of blame too far. Perhaps we should simply say that if it was 75% your fault, then its your fault and that's all there is to it, and the question of blame is thereafter ignored. I also believe that something can be your fault without prosecution being necessary. I doubt any major miscarriage of justice would result. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 21:49
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> She wasn't wearing Hi-Viz. Well he wasn't looking at her, so how would that >> have >> >> made a difference? >> >> >> It would have made an enormous difference. It is hard to miss high vis in >> your headlights. Driving is about doing a load of things, multi-tasking, in sequences. If something >> isn't right, you notice. If it seems o.k. you don't notice anything different and carry >> on as normal. He'd most likely have noticed the high vis. Depends on the type of Hi Viz. Day-glo yellow/green doesn't actually show up that much except in daylight. The stuff that catches attention in headlights is the 'scotchbrite' or similar stuff that is retro-reflective. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 21:52
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> Depends on the type of Hi Viz. Day-glo yellow/green doesn't actually show up that much >> except in daylight. Its better than a black superdry jacket. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 01:06
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - VxFan
|
|
>> The stuff that catches attention in headlights is the 'scotchbrite' scotchbrite is a scouring pad. 3M reflective scotchlite tape is the stuff that you're most probably referring to. As for the main question, IMHO she should have been walking on the RH side of the road, toward oncoming traffic. 1. She would have had chance to see what was coming, regardless she had her headphones on muting any sounds around her. 2. She would have more than likely had chance to jump out the way if the car driver hadn't seen her, or just got out the way before the car was anywhere near her. 3. Obviously her age was a contributory factor in that she wasn't street wise. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 15:56
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - neiltoo
|
|
>> As for the main question, IMHO she should have been walking on the RH side >> of the road, toward oncoming traffic. >> 1. She would have had chance to see what was coming, regardless she had her >> headphones on muting any sounds around her. >> 2. She would have more than likely had chance to jump out the way if >> the car driver hadn't seen her, or just got out the way before the car >> was anywhere near her. The sense of this has appeared on several posts. In fact, it doesn't matter which side of the road she was on , if the car came from behind her, she still wouldn't see it. However, if the driver was keeping as near to his near side as possible, then he may have left room to avoid her, or even a better chance of seeing her. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:12
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - TeeCee
|
|
Walking on the left does it for me. It was drilled into me from a very early age that you must always walk on the right when there's no pavement. Apart from the obvious advantage that you get to see what's coming and have the option of diving out of the way if it does turn out to be some inattentive idiot, there's another one too: Your face shows up very well in headlights, while the back of your head does not[1]. Also, when walking at night on an unlit road with no pavement, depriving yourself of the use of one of your most important senses by stuffing headphones in your ears is the height of idiocy. The "not wearing hi-vis" argument is purest cobblers though and if they are appealing solely on those grounds, they deserve to lose. [1] Actually mine does these days, but I doubt she's bald. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:46
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
|
The road in the Googlemaps link is very like the backroads around us. Herself and other nippers were allowed to cycle in them in the fifties, but we wouldn't allow our grandchildren to do it now. There is too much traffic and although I am more cautious now I used to hammer along them as quickly as I could. It can't be guaranteed that drivers like that will never be around. I have often had to brake and swerve for deer wandering about in the road and once one ran into the side of the car. However: it may not be the pedestrian/cyclist's sole responsibility to avoid being killed, but he or she certainly has a responsibility - the main responsibility really - and one would hope they would recognise their own best interests. 50mph is not fast on such roads. From the description of the accident - for that quite obviously is what it was - the unfortunate girl victim was at least 75% to blame. Invisible clothing, walking on the wrong side of the road listening to music... The driver will be worrying about his licence of course, but the main emotion of a proper person after something like that would be sorrow and inevitable guilt for being involved in the death of a child. Horrible |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 21:57
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The road in the Googlemaps link is very like the backroads around us. Herself and >> other nippers were allowed to cycle in them in the fifties, but we wouldn't allow >> our grandchildren to do it now. Stick with writing AC; you'd be a pretty useless Judge. I know this road. It links Silverstone with other villages of which Blakesley is the biggest. I can ride out there from here (Bugbrooke) on a summer evening and maybe see a dozen cars in course of covering 25 miles. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 22:02
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
| Its a very pleasant ride from Woodend down to Silverstone village and the 7-11 that is there (or at least, used to be). |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:51
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Shiny
|
|
Yes, I find in favour of the claimant on two points. Part 1: General guidance (1 to 6) 1 Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others. 2 If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light keep close to the side of the road. It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend. 3 Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials. 4 Young children should not be out alone on the pavement or road (see Rule 7). When taking children out, keep between them and the traffic and hold their hands firmly. Strap very young children into push-chairs or use reins. When pushing a young child in a buggy, do not push the buggy into the road when checking to see if it is clear to cross, particularly from between parked vehicles. 5 Organised walks. Large groups of people walking together should use a pavement if available; if one is not, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing. 6 Motorways. Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency (see Rule 271 and Rule 275). Laws RTRA sect 17, MT(E&W)R 1982 as amended, reg 15(1)(b) & MT(S)R reg 13 www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/general-guidance-1-to-6 On the question of age, I find the parent responsible as she was under 14 years old. I use the Horse riding helmet laws as an precedent, where the parent is responsible for any causing or permitting... "he Highway Code refers to the legal requirement imposed by the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990 that all children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet which complies with the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders Regulations) 1992. The Highway Code also refers to the legal requirement that such helmet MUST be fastened securely. " Last edited by: sooty tailpipes on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 15:56
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 01:12
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - VxFan
|
|
>> in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials. I can remember an advert a few years ago suggesting carrying a folded newspaper if you had dark clothing on. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 15:56
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Haywain
|
|
I drive down many lanes like this in Suffolk and was once pilloried on this (or an earlier related forum) for being a 'mimser'. I said that I drove bearing in mind the 'what if' question - you would know why if you'd ever come off a motorbike, slid down the road on your backside, peered in through your ragged jeans and seen raspberry jam. The driver in this report hadn't been considering 'what if'. Having said that, I would certainly have drilled it into my child, on a road like that, to walk on the right, not to use headphones and to wear a h/v vest. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 16:42
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Boxsterboy
|
|
I think the girl was contributory to the crash. She should have worn brighter clothes, had a torch, and walked facing the traffic. Or her parents should have picked her up. But it also sounds as if the driver was driving at an excessive speed for the type of road and road conditions. Although in general peds and cyclists are making themselves more visible at night, there are still some total idiots who seem to have a death-wish, cyclists in particular - dark night, dark bike, dark clothes and no lights. Madness. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 17:05
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - BobbyG
|
|
I also think the girl was contributory but whether that is allowed in the eyes of the law is for others to argue on. These types of lanes soemtimes lend themselves to faster driving at night than in daytime - because you are looking out for other lights. So you may well take up more of a position in the middle of the road, you will have full beam on ready to dip it and move across when you see another light. Your senses and eyesight and brain will be focussing on the road between the two verges, looking for lights or what your brain is expecting to see. I would not expect to see someone walking along in the dark, possibly blending into the surroundings. I had a recent close call with a cyclist and this was on a lit , 30mph road. Late at night at a point where the side of the road was bushes, trees and overhanging branches and amongst it , cycling along was a guy with dark clothing and no lights. I simply did not see him at all until the very last second. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 17:20
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - zookeeper
|
| i had a near miss several years ago, i was walking on an unlit country road with no path but it had a grass verge, as i approached the hump back bridge the road got narrower...still on the grass verge and facing oncoming traffic my left foot went into an unseen pothole and before i knew it i was face down across the road....just luck nothing was coming, didnt do that again |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 17:22
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Haywain
|
|
"looking for lights or what your brain is expecting to see. " I think we have six species of deer in Suffolk - none of the wretched things carry headlights or, for that matter, h/v vests. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:45
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Westpig
|
|
>> I think we have six species of deer in Suffolk - none of the wretched >> things carry headlights or, for that matter, h/v vests. >> Deer do not have the brain capacity or physical ability to think of wearing a high vis. Humans do. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 07:39
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Haywain
|
|
"Deer do not have the brain capacity or physical ability to think of wearing a high vis. Humans do." Quite, Westpig, I was alluding to the fact that, even if all pedestrians made themselves perfectly visible, there are still plenty of good reasons for driving with care. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 17:25
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Cliff Pope
|
|
This sad and ultimately futile argument would not be necessary if we didn't have a blame culture but instead had something like the New Zealand insurance system. There I believe the system is: a) Has someone suffered a loss? If yes, what is that loss worth? How much compensation will be required to try, as far as possible, to make up for that, or at least provide decent care for life? Whatever is required is paid out the state-run insurance scheme. b) Has someone committed an offence for which he should be prosecuted? Is there a partial defence that it was not entirely his fault? The two aspects do not have to be mixed, and there is no need to establish her degree of "blame" in order to assess what compensation is appropriate. An accident is an accident. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 20:56
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Dutchie
|
| I don't like these type of roads if you can call them roads.Narrow no cats eyes and limited visibility.I'm no mimser but 40mph is fast enough.Yes the driver is contributory neglicence hitting the girl with his car. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 21:32
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
Although it has nothing to do with the accident or blame, but if she was my daughter I'd not want her walking down that road at night in the dark. All sorts could happen to her. Most would not have resulted in an accident and terrible injury granted. But this accident could have involved anyone. A man in his 40s etc. doing the same as her would have been hit. I look forward to finding out the judgement. If I had to walk that road I'd have had a torch, probably hi-viz of some sort, walking towards traffic, etc. And I'd say that was common sense. But not everyone has common sense. Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 21:32
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 21:45
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
|
>>but if she was my daughter I'd not want her walking down that road at night in the dark. All sorts could happen to her Its difficult. Or at least I find it so. I let mine do much more than most people would, but there has to be a line somewhere. The trouble is if you completely exclude them from all risk, what do they do the day they face a risk and you're not there? You need to lead them into it, but its tough to know where the line lies... e.g. Today I was in a restaurant with my wife and at the end of the meal allowed the two girls to go off on their own to a coffee shop about 200 yards away. Bear in mind this is the centre of a busy capital city (Santiago). We collected them from there about 30 minutes later, and both have cell phones. If they had disappeared and you had read about it in the paper, no doubt I would have come across as foolish and reckless. But at their age I could do and did do a lot more than walk to a coffee shop on my own, and I'm not sure I believe that the risk is materially different these days. I used to get on a bus with my sister, go the 2 - 4 miles into town centre, go swimming, and then get us both home again. Frankly when they're riding or climbing I would rather they did it without me there, since my nerves and my heart simply can't take the stress. I still let them do it though. My wife is more conservative than I, but until something goes wrong I am clearly correct. If something does go wrong, then who knows.... Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:17
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 22:17
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
>> I let mine do much more than most people would, but there has to be >> a line somewhere. I'm with you on that. Put yourself in their place remember what you did when you were forbidden to do something you knew you could do perfectly well. That's when accidents are more likely to happen. On the contrary, give them responsibility for doing it safely. Huff and puff a bit, tell them why you're concerned then suggest that if they still want to do it they should think about x, y & z to keep themselves as safe as possible. Attach conditions if you need to, such as getting home by certain time or checking in. We always tried to make the default answer yes, and the habit forms of being open about what they are up to, getting advice and being trusted. If the default is no, then unless you keep them prisoner they will at some point stop listening, start doing silly things, not telling you, and getting guidance from less suitable people. Drinking is a good example. When mine asked, they were told they could drink whatever they decided was reasonable at home, after a discussion about was was reasonable and why. They lost interest fairly quickly and both can take it or leave it even now. Of course the kids who were forbidden to touch it were the ones with the bottle of cider behind the village hall, hiding from the parents. Mine had no need to. We also took a conscious decision to provide a no quibble taxi service for them, and sometimes their friends, to help them pursue their interests - it was a constant routine of swimming, music, karate etc., a bit wearing but well worth it. You don't keep the kind of relationship you need for your children to value your advice if you only ever fence them in. I know we had a lot of luck as well, but I like to think we had some influence in them turning out as well as they have. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 00:26
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - No FM2R
|
| Agree with all that, Manatee. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 08:29
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Cliff Pope
|
|
>>If I had to walk that road >> I'd have had a torch, probably hi-viz of some sort, walking towards traffic, etc. And >> I'd say that was common sense. But not everyone has common sense. >> Absolutely. The thing about walking in the dark is that you can see the traffic coming from miles away, can hear it if you are not isolated inside headphones, have ample time to flash the torch, and step onto the grass verge or huddle in the hedge largely out of harm's way. But it could have been a deer, sheep or cow, or somebody already injured or ill. Or a tree down, or anything else. It's awfully tempting at night to assume that anything you need to see will have lights. And giving cars brighter and brighter lights just makes objects to the side even more invisible. But it was still an accident, and apportioning blame is a poor way of determining how much compensation someone requires to try and ameliorate the consequences. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 08:35
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> But it was still an accident, and apportioning blame is a poor way of determining >> how much compensation someone requires to try and ameliorate the consequences. In a genuine accident, with no blame, there should be no compensation. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 09:05
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
>> In a genuine accident, with no blame, there should be no compensation. >> I thought Cliff was saying there should be, based on loss/need not factored by blame. Didn't someone say that's what happens in NZ? Certainly true in principle here that liability follows blame - in general if you aren't negligent you aren't liable. There was some debate a while back about whether car on ped/cyclist collisions should always be deemed the responsibility of the driver. Maybe that makes sense if directed at exactly this point, rather than saying that the driver must always be at fault. Prosecution if applicable could be a separate issue. Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 8 Feb 13 at 09:06
|
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 22:34
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Dog
|
|
"On 3 December 2009 the Defendant was driving to work at around 17:00 along a single carriageway that had no lighting and upon which a 60 mile per hour limit was imposed. The Defendant used the road daily and was therefore aware of the layout and condition. The Claimant was a pedestrian walking in the same direction as the Defendant, and was wearing dark clothing and was probably listening to her iPod at the time through earphones. The Claimant was walking in the road as a result of overhanging greenery and a lack of a footpath along this particular road. Unfortunately the Defendant’s vehicle hit the Claimant, causing her multiple injuries including a traumatic brain injury. The Defendant stated that he was driving at around 50 miles per hour and that he did not see the Claimant until he hit her. The Defendant stated that he was looking on the opposite side of the road and had positioned himself to the left hand side of his lane so as not to collide with any oncoming traffic. Court Findings The Court found that the road was regularly used by cyclists, pedestrians, joggers and dog walkers. They found that a reasonably prudent driver would not have exceeded 40 to 45 miles per hour in the circumstances, therefore 50 miles per hour was too fast. The Court found that the Defendant should have been aware of other road users and should have reduced his speed as a result of oncoming vehicles. The Court found that the Defendant moving over to the left side of his lane to avoid oncoming vehicles meant that he was not focused on the road ahead of him and therefore any possibility of avoiding the Claimant had been lost by the Defendant’s actions. Liability was therefore established against the Defendant. Contributory negligence? With regards to the allegations of contributory negligence against the Claimant, which were based upon the Claimant wearing dark clothing, listening to her iPod, and that she should have waited for her mother rather than walked along the road in the dark, the Court found that given the Claimant’s age, the same degree of responsibility for her actions could not be attributed to her as was attributed to adults. Even if the Claimant was wearing high visibility clothing, the Defendant would not have seen the Claimant as he was not looking in front of him, but was looking at the oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. Also, even if the Claimant had been wearing earphones and listening to her iPod, the oncoming traffic would have obscured the sound of the Defendant approaching. The Defendant was therefore found 100% responsible for the Claimant’s claim". Having lived in Cornwall for the last 15 years, and having first hand experience of people driving far too fast down narrow country lanes with very sharp bends, I am of the opinion that if the Defendant had been driving at a sensible speed for that type of road, the accident may well not have occurred - regardless of any contributory negligence from the Claimant. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 22:43
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Having lived in Cornwall for the last 15 years, and having first hand experience of >> people driving far too fast down narrow country lanes with very sharp bends, I am >> of the opinion that if the Defendant had been driving at a sensible speed for >> that type of road, the accident may well not have occurred - regardless of any >> contributory negligence from the Claimant. Spot on Fido!! |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 22:56
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - CGNorwich
|
|
True but that is not what the case is about. The accident did happen, the driver was certainly negligent and was responsible for the accident. However if the pedestrian had been an adult he would certainly have been held to be responsible to a degree for the injuries he suffered due to the lack of care he took for his own safety and damages would have been reduced by a percentage. What this case is about is whether a 13 year old child can be expected to take a similar level of care of their own safety as an adult. That is the issue |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 23:08
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
>> if the pedestrian had been an adult he would certainly have been held to be responsible to a >> degree for the injuries he suffered due to the lack of care he took.... >> ... What this case is about is whether a 13 year old child can be expected to take a similar >> level of care of their own safety as an adult. That is the issue And if that is taken to be the issue then the parents are partly to blame surely? I don't think you're right about what is the issue. Her age is irrelevant. And if it is not, her parents are partly responsible. The case surely is about whether anyone walking along there can be responsible for what happened. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 23:28
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - CGNorwich
|
|
No, if the child undertook to make the journey of her own volition the parents would not be responsible for her actions. There is little doubt in my mind that in the circumstances outlined an adult would be held to some degree responsible for their own downfall and their damages reduced accordingly. It's much the same as not wearing a seatbelt or crossing the road in a dangerous place. You are in not the prime cause of the accident but you made the matter worse or more likely to happen by your actions or lack of action. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 23:29
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> The case surely is about whether anyone walking along there can be responsible for what happened. In the road, back to the traffic, ears blocked, dark clothes... I would call that, if true, being largely responsible. Asking to be run into by a driver whose attention might have strayed for a moment, as everyone's does from time to time. High vis or pale, even a face, is as people have said much easier to see and from further off especially with dipped headlights. Anything bright you will see out of the corner of your eye even if you aren't focusing on or near the spot. Every little helps, or hinders as the case may be. However the poor child either hadn't been properly instructed or hadn't listened. My own children and grandchildren, except the youngest one, are all Londoners and I believe more aware of traffic as a result. Of course one had to be very vigilant while they were still small. But urban children become traffic-aware early on. It gets dinned into them. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 23:53
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - CGNorwich
|
|
Very few cases of accidents involving vehicles end up with 100% liability being ascribed to the driver of the vehicle. There is nearly always found to be an element of contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian. I am sure this case would follow the same pattern. It is whether a 13 year old can be asked to act in the same way as an adult that is open to question Personally I believe a 13 year old does not to have the experience or understanding of danger that an adult should have and therefore the matter of contributory negligence should not arise or should at least be significantly less than an adult. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 00:50
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> a 13 year old does not to have the experience or understanding of danger that an adult should have and therefore the matter of contributory negligence should not arise or should at least be significantly less than an adult. Point taken CGN, the child can't take blame. She wasn't competent and that's that. But these contributory factors, even if they can't be pinned on anyone, helped cause the accident. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 08:22
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> Personally I believe a 13 year old does not to have the experience or understanding >> of danger that an adult should have and therefore the matter of contributory negligence should >> not arise or should at least be significantly less than an adult. Personally, I know that my 13 year old was well taught in self preservation in just those circumstances, was pretty street wise, and would not have been acting the same way. The degree of contributory negligence exists, but if you like it can be loaded onto the parents for allowing the child to be there and not coaching her sufficiently. |
|
New Thu 7 Feb 13 23:21
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fullchat
|
|
That appears to be a widish single track road. Beauty of night time driving is you can see if something is coming by the lights even if you cant see the car. No need to position for a 'view' If something wasn't coming then I would have thought full beam would have picked out the figure. In any event the bends either way are not particularly severe. If something was approaching then it appears the road width would force a slow down and a bit of a squeeze. Presume if the vehicle was achieving 50MPH then nothing was coming in the opposite direction. If that's a Collision Investigation report then 50MPH would be a mathematically obtained absolute possible minimum speed not necessarily the speed the vehicle was actually travelling at. 50MPH too fast?? In my humble opinion on that road it's on the edge. Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 7 Feb 13 at 23:26
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 08:15
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
>> True but that is not what the case is about. >> >> The accident did happen, the driver was certainly negligent and was responsible for the accident. >> Were that the case, the police have a duty to prosecute. Did they. In the absence of such prosecution, legally, he was not negligent. >> What this case is about is whether a 13 year old child can be expected >> to take a similar level of care of their own safety as an adult. That >> is the issue The age of criminal responsibility should be a guide here. She would have been deemed old enough for criminal responsibility, therefore she should have been old enough for a duty of care. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 01:18
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - VxFan
|
|
>> I am of the opinion that if the Defendant had been driving at a sensible speed for that type of road, the accident may well not have occurred On the other hand, had he been driving faster, she might have still been feeding her horse and not been walking along the road yet. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 02:21
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Westpig
|
|
The Court found that the Defendant >> moving over to the left side of his lane to avoid oncoming vehicles meant that >> he was not focused on the road ahead of him and therefore any possibility of >> avoiding the Claimant had been lost by the Defendant’s actions. >> >> Even if the Claimant was wearing high visibility clothing, the Defendant would not have seen >> the Claimant as he was not looking in front of him, but was looking at >> the oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. These two points puzzle me. Surely you can do both? Surely moving to the left to allow room for oncoming traffic can have you see the road ahead as well and seeing someone wearing high vis clothing could easily happen as well as looking at other traffic. You don't exclusively look at the other lane to the detriment of everything else. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 07:23
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> You don't exclusively look at the other lane to the detriment of everything else. >> You might not but I suspect he did. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 08:55
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fenlander
|
|
>>>You don't exclusively look at the other lane to the detriment of everything else. I've ignored the mention of lanes in the reporting of this case as I think the phrase was used to try and explain how concentration could be diverted to oncoming headlamps in these circumstances. Another thing I spotted in a local paper article was that her people claimed she was walking "along the dirt strip between the road and verge". An obvious attempt to blur the fact she was walking in the road because such a strip doesn't exist. An Auto Express test on high vis vests (fairly crude but probably largely accurate) confirmed my thoughts on this case in that given the circumstances reported the girl took a massive risk that even an average driver going at an acceptable speed would be quite likely to hit her. The core of their article.... .... the results were shocking. Route one was a narrow rural road. Heavily wooded, and with light but fast-moving traffic and no pavement or street lamps, it was the sort of place in which you really wouldn’t want to break down. At 40mph, blinded by oncoming headlamps, we spotted our pedestrian ‘marker’ only 3 seconds before we reached him. Yet with him in reflective gear, the reaction time was more than tripled to 11 seconds. The distance travelled was nearly quadrupled! It was a similar, if even scarier, story on our next test route: a fast, unlit dual carriageway. At 65mph, we didn’t see our man until two seconds before we passed him – in fact, we barely had time to operate the stopwatch! It was a shock when he appeared out of the darkness, and we would never have avoided him had he stepped into the road. With the hi-vis vest, the time was seven seconds and the distance virtually quadrupled. Read more: www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/29809/night-time-vest#ixzz2KINGu3sY |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 09:26
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
That feature also says that the problem is principally when driving with dipped beams. So that's a triple problem with oncoming traffic when you add glare and having to keep left to avoid a head on. Never mind all those people who haven't found the main beam switch anyway. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 09:26
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - madf
|
|
I drive daily on rural roads. Anyone with any common sense KNOWS that pedestrians use them, there are blind corners, there are horses etc. In the dark it is much worse. The Auto Express article above suggests 40mph was far too high a speed, Round here, the roads I drive on are 30mph or less. As a runner wearing a High Vis vest - or anorak- and white socks,, I must stand out. But I have been forced to jump onto walls, into ditches and fling myself into hedges to avoid being mown down by drivers who think 30mph is OK on a blind corner on what is essentially a 1.5 track road. (No pavements of course) I have zero sympathy for any driver driving at 50mph on any country road with no pavements. Their behaviour is inexcusably dangerous. Last edited by: madf on Fri 8 Feb 13 at 09:27
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 09:46
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Dog
|
|
>>I have zero sympathy for any driver driving at 50mph on any country road with no pavements. Their behaviour is inexcusably dangerous<< That's right - the onus should always be on the driver of the one-ton-plus lump of metal, to look out for walkers/runners/horse riders, cyclists, and especially complete nincompoops. Last edited by: Dog on Fri 8 Feb 13 at 09:47
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:13
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fenlander
|
|
>>>I have zero sympathy for any driver driving at 50mph on any country road with no pavements. Their behaviour is inexcusably dangerous. So how slowly will you drive on this country road with no pavement?? tinyurl.com/ao6wcvo |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:34
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >>>I have zero sympathy for any driver driving at 50mph on any country road with >> no pavements. Their behaviour is inexcusably dangerous. >> >> So how slowly will you drive on this country road with no pavement?? >> >> tinyurl.com/ao6wcvo >> Completely different sort of road (I know this one as well). Two full lanes, straight, level and fairly open. Fifty should be OK. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:52
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fenlander
|
|
>>>Completely different sort of road (I know this one as well). But at night is it really? At the same speed with identical circumstances how would the perception the road is safer change that specific event? |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:39
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Another thing I spotted in a local paper article was that her people claimed she >> was walking "along the dirt strip between the road and verge". An obvious attempt to >> blur the fact she was walking in the road because such a strip doesn't exist. I'd be surprised if it didn't, ast least in some places. The verges inevitably get chewed up as cars mount them in absence of passing places. Streetview was taken in summer and may flatter. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:41
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Zero
|
|
you don't walk on the chewed up verge in the near dark in December you fall over and get your shoes covered in mud. She was walking in the road, in the dark or near dark, wearing dark clothing, listening to an ipod. Last edited by: Zero on Fri 8 Feb 13 at 10:42
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:50
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> you don't walk on the chewed up verge in the near dark in December you >> fall over and get your shoes covered in mud. I was thinking of this sort of thing. goo.gl/maps/oiMGG That road is however much more heavily trafficked than the Abthorpe > Silverstone lane as it's the shortest route from Bugbrooke to the southbound A5. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 12:41
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - VxFan
|
|
>> listening to an ipod. And how many people who 'have their ears on' are in a wibbly wobbly world of their own, hypnotised by the tunes they are listening to? As I suspect this unfortunate girl was. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 10:54
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fenlander
|
|
>>>because such a strip doesn't exist.... I'd be surprised if it didn't, ast least in some places. Yes but my point is it is now part of the road not a pedestrian refuge. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 11:34
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
Here's a good one I use a lot. Residents can remember when this was a single track road. Now there's room to pass, just. It's effectively been widened over the years by traffic running on the verges and subsequent resurfacings keep adding a bit more tarmac - crumbly and potholed because there's just dirt under it. You can see a ped ahead (the camera car was heading towards him). Click forward and he gets on the verge. Once past him reverse the view 180 degrees, move backwards and watch him get back on to the road. He isn't walking in the dirt bit, and neither would I! Knowing that I do no more than 30 down there, 50 seems very quick - I don't think I could do it without considerable risk and the certainty of hitting something if I did it regularly. goo.gl/maps/wer4y Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 8 Feb 13 at 11:35
|
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 11:45
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fullchat
|
|
And as far as the 'ped' is concerned that really is the right way to do it particularly in the dark. I believe its called traffic awareness or self preservation. But as a driver you cannot factor that someone is as responsible. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 12:38
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - madf
|
|
Round here the lanes are surrounded by high hedges on either side. So on blind corners you can see nothing round the bend.. I have driven round blind corners to find a horse in front of me... blocking the road... |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:03
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
Initally I could not find a copy of the High Court judgement. Another check of Bailii today turned it up immediately. www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2324.pdf It puts the location beyond my original street view and close to the mushroom farm so this looks like the place goo.gl/maps/oWHj6. The judgement is quite detailed. It includes the assertion that Bethany was on the strip at the edge of the road and the proability that she was wering headphones. I will read it in more detail on the train tonight and maybe post more detail then. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:22
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fursty Ferret
|
|
I can very easily see how this happened, having come within a hair of doing it myself. Dark twisting country A-road in the wet and at the very last minute spotted a man walking on the left hand side (no pavement) with his back to me, wearing black jeans, black coat, and a black beanie cap. I swerved fairly violently around him and stopped (mainly to make sure I hadn't clipped him with the mirror). When I pointed out that he was almost invisible with his back to oncoming traffic, his response was that I should have been looking more carefully. Which is true. Had I hit him, I'd have expected the blame. Looking at the street view image from Bromptonaut, the driver really has no excuse as even someone in black should stand out against the hedge with full beam, and they can't really be accused of walking on the wrong side of a country lane, |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:40
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> they can't really be accused of walking on the wrong side of a country lane, Yes they can. It is basic self-preservation to walk on the right in such places, with the exception of certain blind bends where there is a verge on the other side. At least if you are doing your best to make yourself invisible by wearing all-black clothes there is some chance that drivers might see your face (unless you are black of course, when they will have to rely on the whites of your eyes). Why is it that some pedestrians think they can walk in the carriageway and simply expect drivers to see them and drive round them or stop? Why do people here think we have to crawl along at 20 or 30 on what (like the road in Bromptonaut's last link) are in fact roads good for 60, just in case we come up with one of these suicidal twits? I am aware that a lot of pedestrians and cyclists resent motor vehicles and believe they have equal rights with cars on the road. Perhaps they have, but rights don't really come into it. There is a reality, and if people go about in camouflage, looking the wrong way and not even listening, they have only themselves to blame when they are run over. Although the driver who has been suckered into hitting them will probably get most of it, to go with their feelings of grief and horror. I simply can't understand the line being taken by some here. I think it's humbug actually. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:59
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Duncan
|
|
>> When I pointed out that he was almost invisible with his back to oncoming traffic, >> his response was that I should have been looking more carefully. Which is true. Had >> I hit him, I'd have expected the blame. This is a story of John O'Day Who died maintaining his right of way He was right, dead right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he were wrong. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 16:41
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Westpig
|
|
>> Dark twisting country A-road in the wet and at the very last minute spotted a >> man walking on the left hand side (no pavement) with his back to me, wearing >> black jeans, black coat, and a black beanie cap. I swerved fairly violently around him >> and stopped (mainly to make sure I hadn't clipped him with the mirror). >> >> When I pointed out that he was almost invisible with his back to oncoming traffic, >> his response was that I should have been looking more carefully. Which is true. Had >> I hit him, I'd have expected the blame. >> >> Looking at the street view image from Bromptonaut, the driver really has no excuse as >> even someone in black should stand out against the hedge with full beam, and they >> can't really be accused of walking on the wrong side of a country lane, >> Can't say I agree FF. We all have to take responsibility for our actions...and that includes walkers. As for someone all dressed in black on a dark road when you can't even see their face, that is wholly unrealistic for a driver to see them early enough to make a significant difference. Emergecny service personnel that work on fast roads, have specific training for it..and it is exceptionally dangerous working on them. It is equally so walking in the circumstances she sadly was. Furthermore, you cannot have main beam on when approaching other traffic and when you pass other traffic, you are momentarily driving into a blind void. Someone with a high vis jacket on can have you see them before all of this. Someone looking out for you not seeing them in their dark clothing can leap in the hedge and prevent an accident. Someone in dark clothing could carry a torch to let you know they are there. None of this happened. The driver has some responsibility, but so does the pedestrian and because of her age, her parents. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 17:02
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Can't say I agree FF. >> Emergecny service personnel that work on fast roads, have specific training for it..and it is >> exceptionally dangerous working on them. It is equally so walking in the circumstances she sadly >> was. I don't think that's a like for like comparison. Motorways or trunk roads and emergency service tasks are quite different from a pedestrian on a lightly trafficked country lane. >> The driver has some responsibility, but so does the pedestrian and because of her age, >> her parents. The responsibilty that might fall to the pedestrian given her age is the crux of the appeal. What her parents shoud or should not have done is not within the court's remit as the case is between the child (by her litigation friend) and the driver. Negligence by parent would require her/them to be added as parties and given the opportunity to make their cas. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 17:21
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Westpig
|
|
>> I don't think that's a like for like comparison. Motorways or trunk roads and emergency >> service tasks are quite different from a pedestrian on a lightly trafficked country lane. It's a road subject to a national speed limit....and people do 50mph on it. The lane that goes past my house looks most similar. It too has a national speed limit. I've checked my own speed at various times (on purpose, just to see, because usually I drive to the conditions not the speedo) and for me 40mph is fast, even late at night or very early morning. Usually i'm between 30 - 35mph and I am a press on driver...so I agree this fellow was knocking along. However, when I walk on it in the dark (infrequently and usually to/fro the pub), it makes me uneasy. I ALWAYS take a good torch, make sure I attract the attention of any traffic, ALWAYS walk on the right and am prepared to head for the hedge. If you don't do that, you can easily be hit..because drivers simply cannot see you. That's the facts. Same with cyclists who don't wear high vis at night and don't bother with lights. Every now and again another will come to grief..and it's no good blaming totally the car/lorry/van drivers. It's a two way process. Ignore it and die or be maimed. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 17:30
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> It's a two way process. Ignore it and die or be maimed. Quite right. 'Why should I wear something pale or a hi-viz harness thing? Why should I walk on one side of the road rather than another? Why should I keep out of the way of motor vehicles when they should keep out of mine?' To preserve your stupid worthless bum, that's why. Geddit? Why should I geddit? Whinge whinge, equal rights, reckless drivers etc etc.... Damn twits. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:25
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
The one thing immediately clear both from the judgement and the correctly located streetview is that she was, in circs, correctly walking on the left with her back to traffic. Overhanging vegetation prevents walking on right AND she had a better view round the right hand bend ahead of her. There's no mention of the driver being convicted and if he was it's a near certainty that the details would have been led as further evidence of his negligence. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:37
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
Something else you see far too often these days includes: - Drivers with their iPhone/iPod earphones in both ears when driving - surely illegal? - People oblivious to surroundings using their smartphone when out walking - including crossing roads.... But I know we cannot expect them not to be using Twitter or Facebook can we. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:39
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - rtj70
|
|
Looking at the Streetview location and then re-reading: "His pre accident speed was 50mph and he claimed to be looking right to negotiate oncoming traffic. Bethany was on his left. If there was oncoming traffic on that road surely you need to pull in somewhere for them to pass? It isn't wide enough for two lanes of traffic is it. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:44
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Crankcase
|
| Streetview is a bit deceptive (in general rather than perhaps in this specific case). Roads seem to look narrower in the pictures than they appear in reality, at least to me. Have a look at a road you are familiar with and see if you agree. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:45
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Armel Coussine
|
| That road looks two-lane to me. Not tight either. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:58
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> That road looks two-lane to me. Not tight either. It's one and a half/one and three quarters and quite tight for passing. I've held up the P&R bus on GP day riding up there 'cos there's not enough room for it to pass a cyclist. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 13:59
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Manatee
|
|
According to the measurements taken it is 5m wide including the dirt strip, and cars passing on the tarmac would have had 0.25m (less than a foot) between their mirrors. That's not a two laner; certainly you'd expect both cars to slow when passing. Some people don't though. Experience tells them that the oncoming car will "give way" by slowing or running against the verge. The road outside my house is a narrowish two lane road with a line down the middle. It's 8m wide. |
|
New Fri 8 Feb 13 16:12
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Fullchat
|
|
To get some idea of the width in relation to vehicles look at the road surface tyre wear marks. As a little experiment I have just driven home on a slightly narrower lane with good views and broad daylight. I took it up to 50mph [valves were bouncing on the Ceed :)] That is more than acceptable and in the dark I think slightly above what I consider a safe speed. |
|
New Wed 13 Feb 13 10:30
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Alanovich
|
|
I was extremely fortunate not to mow someone down at this spot last night: goo.gl/maps/SFMeJ It was very dark, the street lights there are very dim, and there was a person walking with his back to the traffic, on the tarmaced bit of the road, in black clothes, with a black rucksack and black wooly hat. I only spotted him at the last minute and swerved to avoid, luckily there was no traffic coming in the other direction. I was stopping the car at a house 100 yards or so further on, so I got out and waited for him to catch up and told him I'd found it very difficult to see him due to his dark clothes. He just said: "Oh. Thanks." I should have added that he should have been walking on the other side. He seemed to be a man in his thirties, and it staggers me that people don't know this. |
|
New Wed 13 Feb 13 13:06
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Stuu
|
|
I passed a bike last night, BMX being ridden on an unlit A-road with no lights and a black hoodie. Not far short of a suicide attempt really, I doubt even he could see where he was going, let alone anyone else see him. I do understand why drivers who have so little chance to spot these idiots feel so powerless, but if someone dies few people have the stomach to admit that bad things happen to stupid people. When a child is involved, one has to ask where are the parents, esp teenagers who are naturally irresponsible and careless. Last edited by: FoR on Wed 13 Feb 13 at 13:07
|
|
New Wed 13 Feb 13 14:23
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I passed a bike last night, BMX being ridden on an unlit A-road with no >> lights and a black hoodie. Not far short of a suicide attempt really, I doubt >> even he could see where he was going, let alone anyone else see him. >> >> I do understand why drivers who have so little chance to spot these idiots feel >> so powerless, but if someone dies few people have the stomach to admit that bad >> things happen to stupid people. When a child is involved, one has to ask where >> are the parents, esp teenagers who are naturally irresponsible and careless. Well yes, these clots should of course be showing lights. If it's a bike the pedal reflectors are usually the first clue. But, if you don't see an unlit cyclist or dark clad pedestrian until last minute what else might you not see until too late? Fallen tree? Unlit agricultural vehicle, Car with dead electrics or half in ditch? Pedestrian who's stumbled into carriageway and fallen. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 Feb 13 at 14:23
|
|
New Wed 13 Feb 13 14:37
13 YO Knocked Down – Contributory Negligence? - Stuu
|
|
>>But, if you don't see an unlit cyclist or dark clad pedestrian until last minute what else might you not see until too late? Fallen tree? Unlit agricultural vehicle, Car with dead electrics or half in ditch? Pedestrian who's stumbled into carriageway and fallen. << Thats the risk of the roads, headlights will never give you the clarity and vision of daylight, but everyone has a responsibility to do what they can to be seen. I did also see a car driving the A45 in rush hour with no lights on last night, although they did indicate! No reflectors on the BMX, I wouldnt have been suprised if it had been nicked, I cant see many reasons for riding one up the A43 with no lights. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
