This morning's commute and other commuting stories

No-one is talking about the pedestrian being legally in the wrong, just whether or not the driver/cyclist was at fault.

Well yeah that's basically for a court of law to prove. All I'm stating is the legal parameters of the outcome.

It can go either of two ways, the court deem that you were driving/cycling "with negligence" meaning that you could have dodged the ped or stopped in time to avoid a collision.
Or you were driving/cycling with "due care", you couldn't avoid the accident, it wasn't your fault, but because the ped hasn't broken any laws, even though they caused the accident, @jb000 unfortunately can't claim damages, but I'm glad you're ok mate.

Peds don't even pay road tacks!!!!111!!1!1!11111

Thats interesting. It doesnt stop the ped being a right twat though even if he was in the right in terms of the law. I guess it is quite reasuring that I wouldnt have had any right to compensation anyway, so the fact they told me to fuck off wasnt changing much!

For some similarly worthless anecdotal evidence for you, a friend of mine hit a kid on a residential road while driving between 15 and 20mph. The boy ran out on the road in between two parked cars, right in front of my friend. Thankfully he wasn't majorly injured, just some bruises. Police came, there were plenty of witnesses, friend was told it wasn't his fault, not to worry, and someone even brought out a cup of tea to him.

So while you may not blame the pedestrian, you don't always have to blame whoever hits them either, as @Rhodrich is suggesting.

& that's why the speed limit should be 20mph in all built up areas. Glad no one was (badly) hurt.

*edited to say 'badly'!

Long Lane, Southwark has a 20mph speed limit painted on the road. Drivers are oblivious to it.

It all depends on the situation.

Imagine a thin residential road that has parked cars on either side, maybe 50cm gap either side of your car.

With perfect timing a hypothetical child running out could be under your wheels such that you wouldn't be able to stop in time (given reaction times) unless you were going under 2mph or so. Even if you did stop you could still do them some impressive damage driving onto their foot/arm.

Does that mean you should not drive down such roads at more than 2mph? Ever? Of course not.

You can't eliminate risk, you can only bring it down to an acceptable level. (Unfortunately some people's interpretation of "acceptable" is a lot different from what society accepts.)

Snowing in Wimbledon right now. This evening's ride home is going to be interesting...

Long Lane, Southwark has a 20mph speed limit painted on the road. Drivers are oblivious to it.

Sticking to the 20mph limits while driving round my way regularly gets me beeped at or overtaken - the speed limits are painted on there too. Can't help but think signs would be more visible. Wouldn't stop some drivers from being twats though.

As a lawyer, I have to point out that almost all of this is total bollocks.

As a matter of criminal law, pedestrians cannot be prosecuted for walking without due care and attention, since there is no such criminal offence. Cyclists and car drivers can be prosecuted for cycling (RTA88 s. 29) or driving (RTA88, s.3) without due care and attention, but failing to stop for a pedestrian who leapt out in front of you with no warning, giving you no time to stop and no means by which you could avoid them could not be careless driving or cycling.

As far as the civil law is concerned, all road users owe other road users a duty of care to take reasonable care whether they are walking, cycling or driving. The fact that pedestrians are not insured makes absolutely no difference to whether or not they are liable in damages to another road user. If a pedestrian steps out into the road with no warning and without looking and as a result causes injury to another road user, then they are liable for the consequences of their actions and will be liable in damages.

Moral of the story - PE teachers probably aren't the best people to go to for legal advice.

^ Now that sounds like an explanation I can get behind...

So basically the ped is potentially liable for @jb000 wheel cost?

So if this happens to me and my bike gets damaged I should call the plod asap, and hope they don't run away?

Read my posts again very carefully. You have just repeated what I have said.

You said > pedestrians cannot be prosecuted for walking without due care and attention

I said > peds have absolutely no obligation to stay on the pavement when the red man light is on at a pedestrian crossing

Peds have right of way at all times, I fully understand this.

It can go either of two ways, the court deem that you were driving/cycling "with negligence" meaning that you could have dodged the ped or stopped in time to avoid a collision.
Or you were driving/cycling with "due care", you couldn't avoid the accident, it wasn't your fault, but because the ped hasn't broken any laws, even though they caused the accident, @jb000 unfortunately can't claim damages, but I'm glad you're ok mate.

Only motorists/cyclists are accountable if an accident occurs with a ped.

^ a recent(ish) case I was involved in as a witness was a motorcyclist/ped accident. The Motorcyclist was proved to be driving with due care, but no damages were brought against the ped even tho extensive damage was caused to the motorcycle/motorcyclist and I was knocked unconscious (which was shit)

I think you're mixing criminal and civil law - they would be separate cases.

My bad, I've read the conversation wrong

Was it @dancing James agreeing with you that made you realise your mistake?

Ahhhhhh. Ok, cheers. I stand corrected.

I'm going out drinking now and there'd better be snow for my ride home! :)

So basically the ped is potentially liable for @jb000 wheel cost?

So if this happens to me and my bike gets damaged I should call the plod asap, and hope they don't run away?

In theory, if the pedestrian has acted negligently (i.e. by walking out into the road without looking) then yes. In practice, suing pedestrians for the cost of a bust wheel is rarely worth it since the costs of bringing the claim would far exceed the damages you'd be entitled to recover. There is also the issue of finding out who the pedestrian is, and what their address is, so that you can issue proceedings against them.

No point ringing plod though - plod don't care about civil claims.

Cheers for clearing that up. Have some rep.

Dan know his stuff.

liable in damages

Thanks, I didn't know that 'in' was the preposition here.