What happens if you take out a Pedestrian?

snailracer

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

They could only claim this if there was some sort of basis for doing so. For instance, they could not claim your lights were not BS approved if they were.

They could also claim they were not turned on, dim, dirty, badly fitted, not present at the time of the accident, etc. the laundry list that could be used to cast doubt is limited only by the solicitor's imagination.

And maybe the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Again, if you can show that they were perfectly well fitted, on, bright (if during lighting up time) then I am sure that you could turn this around and use it against them for false accusations. They will need to be careful that any speculation they have is based on reality, and not from a "shopping list". Perjury is a criminal offense.

The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

iain_j

Sadly too many people lack common sense. I'm forever having "invisible days" where I swear I must be invisible, the amount of people who walk into me - either walking straight at me in the street, or charging out of a shop doorway with no thoughts of anyone passing by.

I use the "assume the worst" rule - something I was told when I started cycling but now use it all the time - assume people are going to take the worst-case scenario (ie. that car waiting to turn out is going to do so in front of you, that pedestrian not paying attention is going to step out), ride accordingly (slower, covering the brakes, check you've got space to take evasive or else slow down even more), and then if it *does* happen it won't take you by surprise. If it doesn't happen, it's a bonus!

iain_j

Dubble post

iain_j

Triple post!

Wallace1492

snailracer wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

It is usually difficult to legally prove a pedestrian is at fault, even if you had witnesses. The ped (or, if it came to it, more likely their solicitor) could claim you were speeding on your Vespa, or driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions even if you weren't speeding, or had no lights on, or that your bike lights were not BS-approved, maladjusted brakes, failure to account for wet conditions, etc. so placing some or all of the blame back on you.

They could only claim this if there was some sort of basis for doing so. For instance, they could not claim your lights were not BS approved if they were.

They could also claim they were not turned on, dim, dirty, badly fitted, not present at the time of the accident, etc. the laundry list that could be used to cast doubt is limited only by the solicitor's imagination.

And maybe the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Again, if you can show that they were perfectly well fitted, on, bright (if during lighting up time) then I am sure that you could turn this around and use it against them for false accusations. They will need to be careful that any speculation they have is based on reality, and not from a "shopping list". Perjury is a criminal offense.

The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

Well, not being picky, but that is slightly different from what you said before when they could claim they were not turned on, dim, dirty, badly fitted etc. If you have perfectly acceptable lights, then you should have nothing to fear. I think that affirming while under oath that you lights were correctly fitted and working should be acceptable. As I said perjury is an offence with punishment, so will not be in your interests to lie.

spen666

snailracer wrote:

....The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

Not so- in a civil case, if the defendant is alleging plaintiff did not have lights on, it would be up to him to establish that fact- on a balance of probabilities.

In civil cases, there is a general maxim - let he who asserts prove"

Wallace1492

"Headhuunter wrote:

Unclipping may help you get a foot down but it ain't going to stop you hitting an errant ped!

That was not the point in the context. It was what happens post collision. If you are not clipped in, and it is a minor hit, then you will save yourself going down. I never said it would stop you hitting ped.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

....The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

Not so- in a civil case, if the defendant is alleging plaintiff did not have lights on, it would be up to him to establish that fact- on a balance of probabilities.

In civil cases, there is a general maxim - let he who asserts prove"

Thanks for correcting me on this.
I think it would be up to the defendant's counsel to cross examine witnesses, challenge facts and make spurious assertions, not the defendant himself.

number9

If you assume pedestrians are going to blunder about it's not a problem.

We are the superior road users, remember. Cyclists are the royalty of the road, we must endeavour to treat our subjects indulgently and remember their beguiling bovine stupidity.

Cycling past Liverpool Street in the morning is always fun, you have peds on a mobile, munching a Danish and weaving in and out of the road. Do not let them disturb your Zen-like serenity, they know not what they do.

always_tyred

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

....The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

Not so- in a civil case, if the defendant is alleging plaintiff did not have lights on, it would be up to him to establish that fact- on a balance of probabilities.

In civil cases, there is a general maxim - let he who asserts prove"

Thanks for correcting me on this.
I think it would be up to the defendant's counsel to cross examine witnesses, challenge facts and make spurious assertions, not the defendant himself.

I'm told that lawyers have to come to court with "clean hands" too. How do you manage if you get a puncture on the way to work? Crazy.

VespaTrek

Always Tyred wrote:

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

....The defendent isn't going to perjure themselves by claiming "You had no light". He will say, "Can you prove you had a working, approved light fitted and turned on when the collision happened?", which makes the plaintiff do all the hard work of collecting evidence, summoning witnesses, etc. which is not easy. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it should be.

Not so- in a civil case, if the defendant is alleging plaintiff did not have lights on, it would be up to him to establish that fact- on a balance of probabilities.

In civil cases, there is a general maxim - let he who asserts prove"

Thanks for correcting me on this.
I think it would be up to the defendant's counsel to cross examine witnesses, challenge facts and make spurious assertions, not the defendant himself.

I'm told that lawyers have to come to court with "clean hands" too. How do you manage if you get a puncture on the way to work? Crazy.

Usual method of jumping in a cab?

deptfordmarmoset

number9 wrote:

If you assume pedestrians are going to blunder about it's not a problem.

We are the superior road users, remember. Cyclists are the royalty of the road, we must endeavour to treat our subjects indulgently and remember their beguiling bovine stupidity.

Cycling past Liverpool Street in the morning is always fun, you have peds on a mobile, munching a Danish and weaving in and out of the road. Do not let them disturb your Zen-like serenity, they know not what they do.

Great post - well, I liked it, at least!

bradford

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

number9 wrote:

If you assume pedestrians are going to blunder about it's not a problem.

We are the superior road users, remember. Cyclists are the royalty of the road, we must endeavour to treat our subjects indulgently and remember their beguiling bovine stupidity.

Cycling past Liverpool Street in the morning is always fun, you have peds on a mobile, munching a Danish and weaving in and out of the road. Do not let them disturb your Zen-like serenity, they know not what they do.

Great post - well, I liked it, at least!

+1 right on!

snailracer

number9 wrote:

If you assume pedestrians are going to blunder about it's not a problem.

We are the superior road users, remember. Cyclists are the royalty of the road, we must endeavour to treat our subjects indulgently and remember their beguiling bovine stupidity.

Cycling past Liverpool Street in the morning is always fun, you have peds on a mobile, munching a Danish and weaving in and out of the road. Do not let them disturb your Zen-like serenity, they know not what they do.

I would charge them for "operating shoes without due care and attention".

N0bodyOfTheGoat

50 bonus SCR points

g00se

ESHER SHORE wrote:

he replied that as long as I was obeying the highway code, not racing or "cycling furiously", using approved lights (if at night) then the pedestrian would have no legal redress

The bit about 'approved lights' - is that in reference to the issue that the majority of all cycle lights sold in the UK are not compliant with the appropriate BS specs for bike lights? If it is, does your old man know if it's a common method to re-apportion blame?