Who's At Fault Here? - Car Vs Cyclist (Video)
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
Countdown said:
I'm not sure what your point is. If a kid (or anybody) stepped out onto the road in front of a moving vehicle, resulting in them being hit by the vehicle, it would be their own fault.
Not as a child it wouldn't. LoonR1 said:
Car driver. End of thread.
The use of a mobile phone isn't banned on a bike and even it were, it would be a "motoring" offence and have no bearing on the liability outcome. It might be possible to argue some contributory negligence, but it would be very small and quite unlikely given the way the car emerges.
Wasn't really the end of the thread at all, was it?The use of a mobile phone isn't banned on a bike and even it were, it would be a "motoring" offence and have no bearing on the liability outcome. It might be possible to argue some contributory negligence, but it would be very small and quite unlikely given the way the car emerges.
And not just because, inexplicably, you went on to continue the thread in the very same post!
iphonedyou said:
Wasn't really the end of the thread at all, was it?
And not just because, inexplicably, you went on to continue the thread in the very same post!
It should've been and in insurance terms it would be. However, this being PH everyone has to try to blame the cyclist for whatever spurious reasons they can come up with. And not just because, inexplicably, you went on to continue the thread in the very same post!
LoonR1 said:
Let's take the cyclist out and replace him with you in your car (aka everyone on here's pride and joy). Now tell me how many of you are happy to be held at fault fully or partially for the accident? You can even be on your phone too if you like.
Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
This thread should have ended with this post because it hits the nail on the head.Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
However, this being PH everyone has to try to blame the cyclist for whatever spurious reasons they can come up with.
...Which you're determined to prove by any meansAs Loon pointed out early on in the thread, had it been a car and not a bicycle there would be no debate at all.
e8_pack said:
If you read all the Facebook comments it's the cyclists fault. When this goes viral the result will no doubt be the same. Not just PH.
If you read facebook you will find that people think vaccines give kids autism, GM crops are evil, Gluten is evil and that Marijuana cures cancer. What people on facebook think counts for f
k all.Countdown said:
LoonR1 said:
Countdown said:
I'm not sure what your point is. If a kid (or anybody) stepped out onto the road in front of a moving vehicle, resulting in them being hit by the vehicle, it would be their own fault.
Not as a child it wouldn't. walm said:
5-year-olds aren't responsible for anything because they are 5 years old.
But if you are driving along in a 20 or 30 within the limit and a 5-year-old runs out in front of you and you can't avoid him then you aren't responsible for hitting him. That's obvious.
So the (moral/ethical) question is whether the cyclist could have / should have avoided the car.
And I still don't think that's possible.
He might have been able to slow a little but not much.
And since the driver is most likely over 5 years old - he is responsible.
But if you are driving along in a 20 or 30 within the limit and a 5-year-old runs out in front of you and you can't avoid him then you aren't responsible for hitting him. That's obvious.
So the (moral/ethical) question is whether the cyclist could have / should have avoided the car.
And I still don't think that's possible.
He might have been able to slow a little but not much.
And since the driver is most likely over 5 years old - he is responsible.
Devil2575 said:
LoonR1 said:
Let's take the cyclist out and replace him with you in your car (aka everyone on here's pride and joy). Now tell me how many of you are happy to be held at fault fully or partially for the accident? You can even be on your phone too if you like.
Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
This thread should have ended with this post because it hits the nail on the head.Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
Devil2575 said:
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
However, this being PH everyone has to try to blame the cyclist for whatever spurious reasons they can come up with.
...Which you're determined to prove by any meansAs Loon pointed out early on in the thread, had it been a car and not a bicycle there would be no debate at all.
But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
LoonR1 said:
Already answered in the first sentence
Ok, I don't disagree with what Walm has posted. Perhaps if I'd used the example of "grown adult" stepping out in front of the cyclist - my point being there will be occasions when somebody driving along a main road, displaying due care and attention will STILL end up hitting somebody/something due to no fault of his own.walm said:
5-year-olds aren't responsible for anything because they are 5 years old.
But if you are driving along in a 20 or 30 within the limit and a 5-year-old runs out in front of you and you can't avoid him then you aren't responsible for hitting him. That's obvious.
So the (moral/ethical) question is whether the cyclist could have / should have avoided the car.
And I still don't think that's possible.
He might have been able to slow a little but not much.
And since the driver is most likely over 5 years old - he is responsible.
But if you are driving along in a 20 or 30 within the limit and a 5-year-old runs out in front of you and you can't avoid him then you aren't responsible for hitting him. That's obvious.
So the (moral/ethical) question is whether the cyclist could have / should have avoided the car.
And I still don't think that's possible.
He might have been able to slow a little but not much.
And since the driver is most likely over 5 years old - he is responsible.
Pete317 said:
Devil2575 said:
Pete317 said:
LoonR1 said:
However, this being PH everyone has to try to blame the cyclist for whatever spurious reasons they can come up with.
...Which you're determined to prove by any meansAs Loon pointed out early on in the thread, had it been a car and not a bicycle there would be no debate at all.
But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
Devil2575 said:
LoonR1 said:
Let's take the cyclist out and replace him with you in your car (aka everyone on here's pride and joy). Now tell me how many of you are happy to be held at fault fully or partially for the accident? You can even be on your phone too if you like.
Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
This thread should have ended with this post because it hits the nail on the head.Just for clarity you're all saying that if you're driving down a road and a car edges out into your path, you're happy to lose all or half of your excess and at least two years NCD, as well as having a partial or full fault claim to declare on your insurance for the next 3-5 years.
If anyone wants to try to be the car edging out and claim no liability for the accident due to the phone, then feel free. There is a key difference between motoring offences amd liability in accidents, so that negates any "he was on his phone, so it's not my fault" comments upfront.
If someone hits the car whilst is is edging out, then liability is shared.
So yes, I agree with Loons first paragraph. I'd be happy with split liability, although I expect he'd say that is disagreeing with him.
I also partially agree with his second paragraph. If the driver of the car edging out has done everything in his (ain't I sexist?) power to mitigate the risk, then his liability may be close to zero even though he is joining a major road from a minor.
Everything in his power would mean winding down the window to listen and edging out very very slowly, quite unlike the driver in the first vid.
Pete317 said:
He was trying to prove that PHers are a bunch of closed-minded individuals who refuse to accept any argument outside of their own narrow viewpoint.
But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
It was, I'm not subtle, never have been.But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
He is right though and plenty of people on PH become completely blinkered as soon as the word bicycle is mentioned.
Devil2575 said:
Pete317 said:
He was trying to prove that PHers are a bunch of closed-minded individuals who refuse to accept any argument outside of their own narrow viewpoint.
But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
It was, I'm not subtle, never have been.But perhaps the subtlety was lost on you.
He is right though and plenty of people on PH become completely blinkered as soon as the word bicycle is mentioned.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff