What nonsense did you believe in as a kid?
Ever thought that you could get flushed down the loo? That girls wee out their bottoms? Or that bumming means two men rubbing their bums together? Tell us about your childhood misconceptions. Thanks to Joefish for the suggestion.
( , Wed 18 Jan 2012, 15:21)
Ever thought that you could get flushed down the loo? That girls wee out their bottoms? Or that bumming means two men rubbing their bums together? Tell us about your childhood misconceptions. Thanks to Joefish for the suggestion.
( , Wed 18 Jan 2012, 15:21)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Timely post.
I am as we speak filling in a witness form for an accident I was behind in London (on Friday 13th . . . gulp), where a motorbike had screamed away from a set of lights and wiped out a pedestrian who was dawdling while crossing the road.
It asks for my opinion as to blame, and being honest I have to say both of them.
What I do know though is that I, and 99% of other motorcyclists would not have hit that woman. The guy was going nuts.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 9:07, closed)
I am as we speak filling in a witness form for an accident I was behind in London (on Friday 13th . . . gulp), where a motorbike had screamed away from a set of lights and wiped out a pedestrian who was dawdling while crossing the road.
It asks for my opinion as to blame, and being honest I have to say both of them.
What I do know though is that I, and 99% of other motorcyclists would not have hit that woman. The guy was going nuts.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 9:07, closed)
If the pedestrian was already in the road
then it was unambiguously the motorcyclists fault.
Pedestrians always have right of way except, of course, when they just step out into oncoming traffic that has no chance of stopping - that's when Darwinian selection takes over.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 10:07, closed)
then it was unambiguously the motorcyclists fault.
Pedestrians always have right of way except, of course, when they just step out into oncoming traffic that has no chance of stopping - that's when Darwinian selection takes over.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 10:07, closed)
How in any way is that both of them?
If the pedestrian is already on the road then it doesn't matter that the lights have changed, it's the motor cyclists fault morally and legally.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:19, closed)
If the pedestrian is already on the road then it doesn't matter that the lights have changed, it's the motor cyclists fault morally and legally.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:19, closed)
Probably right,
but the pedestrian was running across after the lights had changed. Being objective;
- She shouldn't have been in the road.
- It was dark
- He had gone through a green light
- Although he was giving it the beans, he probably didn't have enough time/space to get over the speed limit (30mph), by the time he hit her.
I'd tend to say the biker was responsible, if I had to choose just one of them. He was being an idiot, the accident simply shouldn't have happened.
But, she has to take some of the blame.
Legally I think you're both correct. He may well get prosecuted. Fine by me.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:48, closed)
but the pedestrian was running across after the lights had changed. Being objective;
- She shouldn't have been in the road.
- It was dark
- He had gone through a green light
- Although he was giving it the beans, he probably didn't have enough time/space to get over the speed limit (30mph), by the time he hit her.
I'd tend to say the biker was responsible, if I had to choose just one of them. He was being an idiot, the accident simply shouldn't have happened.
But, she has to take some of the blame.
Legally I think you're both correct. He may well get prosecuted. Fine by me.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:48, closed)
If they crossed after the lights had changed then that's different, I agree.
I didn't get that from the original post though, I thought they were just being slow.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:51, closed)
I didn't get that from the original post though, I thought they were just being slow.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:51, closed)
I'm not sure
whether she did or not - it's a 3 lane road, but she'd have to have been crossing very slowly to have started out with a green man and not got across before the lights changed.
On balance I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that she was in the road when she shouldn't have been. Legally speaking I know that isn't carte blanche to splat her, but then the biker didn't do it on purpose.
Interestingly, as a witness, I am invited to give an opinion on what action should be taken. I said the biker should be sent on a driving imporovement course.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:59, closed)
whether she did or not - it's a 3 lane road, but she'd have to have been crossing very slowly to have started out with a green man and not got across before the lights changed.
On balance I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that she was in the road when she shouldn't have been. Legally speaking I know that isn't carte blanche to splat her, but then the biker didn't do it on purpose.
Interestingly, as a witness, I am invited to give an opinion on what action should be taken. I said the biker should be sent on a driving imporovement course.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 11:59, closed)
Indeed this.
Pedestrians have right of way everywhere except motorways, whatever the status of the lights.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 13:20, closed)
Pedestrians have right of way everywhere except motorways, whatever the status of the lights.
( , Thu 26 Jan 2012, 13:20, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread