Hitting someone with the car?

MyKeyG

We came to a t-junction today in town. My mother was driving and I was in the passenger seat. A lady stopped at the path coming from the left side of the T and nodded to give us right of way. My mam saw that she stopped and looked right to make sure nothing was coming that way. I gave the woman a smile then she smiled, waved and walked out in front of the car! I was a bit surprised because she gave us the beck then started walking. I turned my head to my mam who sure enough saw the all clear from the right and started to accelerate. I shouted at her to stop and the worst the woman got was a little nudge with the bumper.

The woman of course looked put out and I got out of the car to see that she was OK. Now I think my mam should have looked again to the left, and I told her so, but I also was a little surprised that the woman just walked straight out. So I told her that in future she should be more decisive when it comes to crossing the road since us hitting her would do more damage than vice versa. She looked at me in a 'you told me I could go kind of way' so I told her she waved at me but at no point had she been given the go ahead by my mother. Now I noticed she was French and it occurred to me later that she probably got confused for a second and thought I was driving sitting on the left hand side.

Long story short we were talking about it later and my sister maintains that even when someone just walks straight out onto the road then the driver is always at fault. Now as I said in our situation you could argue that my mam should have made sure the woman hadn't made a move but generally speaking is the jay walker at fault or is it the driver in a situation similar to keeping your distance behind cars?

Victor

If the pedestrian is at a particular point on the Earth's surface and the car tries to occupy that point, the driver is at fault.

The car was joining the main road, the pedestrian had the right of way.

Nodding is not becking. You don't know that she was nodding at **you**, the driver or someone across the road.

Never rely on anything, but an explicit signal, to suggest that you have gain the right of way. Nodding, flashing of lights etc. are not explicit signals - in many countries flashing of lights means " I'm coming through"

I told her she waved at me but at no point had she been given the go ahead by my mother.

How do you know? You were watch the pedestrian, giving confusing signals.

opinion guy

IF you're mum was the one driving why were you the one involved in the nodding and signalling etc ?!?!

FreudianSlippers

Eggshell kneecaps rule!

Marcusm

i think you'll be on to a loser here. Unfortunately, you seem to acknowledge that your mother didn't check the road was clear before moving off. That admission alone would see her lose in court (either for a damage claim or for driving without due care and attention).

Marcusm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Eggshell kneecaps rule!

Skull, shurely.

MyKeyG

opinion guy wrote: »

IF you're mum was the one driving why were you the one involved in the nodding and signalling etc ?!?!

As far as I was concerned we were just having a friendly wave. It occurred to me later that being French she was probably used to the driver being in the left hand seat and therefore got muddled thinking I was the driver and confused my friendly gesture for the beck to walk in front of me.

It happens quite a lot. A few years ago a friend of mine was involved in an accident with an American tourist. An ambulance was overtaking with siren on and while all the cars turned left to give way the American turned right into the opposite lane. She said it was pure instinct to turn right when she heard an emergency vehicle despite her eyes telling her otherwise.

aujopimur

The situation with Irish insurance is that a pedestrian, even if he drops out of the sky and lands on your car, will always get something in the form of compensation.

page1

MyKeyG wrote: »

opinion guy wrote: »

IF you're mum was the one driving why were you the one involved in the nodding and signalling etc ?!?!

As far as I was concerned we were just having a friendly wave. It occurred to me later that being French she was probably used to the driver being in the left hand seat and therefore got muddled thinking I was the driver and confused my friendly gesture for the beck to walk in front of me.

It happens quite a lot. A few years ago a friend of mine was involved in an accident with an American tourist. An ambulance was overtaking with siren on and while all the cars turned left to give way the American turned right into the opposite lane. She said it was pure instinct to turn right when she heard an emergency vehicle despite her eyes telling her otherwise.

As I was reading the post I was thinking I bet the woman is French. In France if a driver of a car flashes his lights at you it means ' I have the right of way and I'm
taking it' where in Ireland it means' you go ahead'. So it has the totally opposite meaning. I would imagine her nodding at you meant to her that she was going to step out, whereas to an Irish person her nod means she is letting you take the right of way.

Your mam is still at fault though.

IRL_Sinister

You should never be "signalling" or "nodding" at any point when driving a car. If you follow and abide by the rules of the road things like this won't happen. People know what to do and will do it. One of the first things you'd learn when you go onto the road when learning to drive is NEVER 'give the nod'. It's up to the person behind the wheel to make the right (correct) decision and follow the rules. People NOT doing that leads to sh*t like the OP.

Thanking them, afterward, however is just common courtesy.

EDIT: Guy above me said your mam is at fault - he is correct.
EDIT 2: even if the pedestrian is retarded and crossing where they shouldn't be they will probably still get compensation/right of way. They always come first.

MyKeyG

IRL_Sinister wrote: »

You should never be "signalling" or "nodding" at any point when driving a car. If you follow and abide by the rules of the road things like this won't happen. People know what to do and will do it. One of the first things you'd learn when you go onto the road when learning to drive is NEVER 'give the nod'. It's up to the person behind the wheel to make the right (correct) decision and follow the rules. People NOT doing that leads to sh*t like the OP.

Thanking them, afterward, however is just common courtesy.

EDIT: Guy above me said your mam is at fault - he is correct.
EDIT 2: even if the pedestrian is retarded and crossing where they shouldn't be they will probably still get compensation/right of way. They always come first.

I knows mam was wrong I said that myself a few times. Our situation aside I still find it hard to believe that some retard can just walk in front of your car and you're at fault. In America the pedestrian is fined.

Procrastastudy

MyKeyG wrote: »

I knows mam was wrong I said that myself a few times. Our situation aside I still find it hard to believe that some retard can just walk in front of your car and you're at fault. In America the pedestrian is fined.

YOU big metal box traveling at more than 50Kph. THEM squishy meat bag.

add to this

YOU probably not paying the attention you should be...

plus the results of

YOU small dent / minor loss of time THEM smeared over the road with massive injuries

= law in the position it should be on this matter in the VAST majority of cases. It always amazes me the complete lack of hazard perception amongst drivers. If someone is wobbling around on the path you should have your foot resting on the break not the accelerator... If you are unsure what a pedestrian is doing you wait.

Bear in mind that people have stated that this is the policy of insurance companies rather than the law. I doubt someone on CCTV throwing them self in front of a car with a sign around their neck saying "Looking 4 da Compo!" would win but I could be wrong. Having said that how many times out of all the car v pedestrian accidents is that going to have happened? Cheaper to just pay than investigate that this was one of those 0.1%.

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

MyKeyG wrote: »

I knows mam was wrong I said that myself a few times. Our situation aside I still find it hard to believe that some retard can just walk in front of your car and you're at fault. In America the pedestrian is fined.

YOU big metal box traveling at more than 50Kph. THEM squishy meat bag.

add to this

YOU probably not paying the attention you should be...

plus the results of

YOU small dent / minor loss of time THEM smeared over the road with massive injuries

= law in the position it should be on this matter in the VAST majority of cases. It always amazes me the complete lack of hazard perception amongst drivers. If someone is wobbling around on the path you should have your foot resting on the break not the accelerator... If you are unsure what a pedestrian is doing you wait.

Bear in mind that people have stated that this is the policy of insurance companies rather than the law. I doubt someone on CCTV throwing them self in front of a car with a sign around their neck saying "Looking 4 da Compo!" would win but I could be wrong. Having said that how many times out of all the car v pedestrian accidents is that going to have happened? Cheaper to just pay than investigate that this was one of those 0.1%.

In our situation perhaps but generally speaking the driver doesn't always see the pedestrian. I think you're also assuming too much that it's because the driver is paying insufficient attention that these things happen. And I'm speaking as a dozy pedestrian.

DanWall

Pedestrians have responsiblity also, I was parked alongside the curb in a row of cars when I wanted to drive out of the space I had to go back slightly and I nearly reversed in to a man pushing a kid in a wheel chair between my car and the car behind, there was a pedestrian crossing nearby, I consider this totally his fault for doing this and not seeing my reverse lights and observing my engine running.

Procrastastudy

I say it again... you big metal box v squishy bag of meat. If a driver hits a pedestrian he wasn't looking hard enough. If you couldn't see you shouldn't have parked there.

The presumption is that all pedestrians are dozy pedestrians hence the law as it stands any why you need a licence to drive a car to show you have the requisite skill in perceiving hazards and assessing driving conditions.

Are people suggesting that you should have to undergo instruction as to what the lights mean on a car before we let them out on the pavement.
(Personally I would.) Do we extend this to knowing the navigation lights on ships before you can go swimming?

DanWall

How do you see a kids wheel chair at your nearside rear bumper?

Procrastastudy

Your mirrors - if not you are one of the 0.1% and may have a defence of contributory negligence.

How you could miss the guy and the wheel chair in front of him is beyond me but perhaps they where very small.

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I say it again... you big metal box v squishy bag of meat. If a driver hits a pedestrian he wasn't looking hard enough. If you couldn't see you shouldn't have parked there.

The presumption is that all pedestrians are dozy pedestrians hence the law as it stands any why you need a licence to drive a car to show you have the requisite skill in perceiving hazards and assessing driving conditions.

Are people suggesting that you should have to undergo instruction as to what the lights mean on a car before we let them out on the pavement.
(Personally I would.) Do we extend this to knowing the navigation lights on ships before you can go swimming?

I think you're very much over complicating the issue. Your average human being has two eyes, your average car has three mirrors that the fault lies with the driver every time is nonsense of the highest order. The fact that the driver is in a big metal box and the pedestrian is 'squishy' to me means the pedestrian has a responsibility too.

As I said I'm speaking as a pedestrian I don't even have my theory test so I have no specific loyalty to drivers, I just think the supposition that it's always the drivers fault is ridiculous.

Procrastastudy

Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions putting all this aside for a moment there is another reason why it works like this.

Tortious damages (compo) are there to compensate the victim, to put them back in the position they were in. Insurance companies at basic principles distribute loss among the population. A driver has insurance where as a pedestrian does not - therefore it is arguably better for society as a whole for the party with insurance to pay.

I won't cloud this with my own personal opinion I merely state it for interest proposes, and the more times I do, the more likely I'll remember it in an exam.

MyKeyG

Fair enough opinions are a right and I respect them. I shouldn't have used the word nonsense. I just think it's ludicrous, considering the amount of times I've ludicrously walked out on the road, that the driver should be considered in the wrong as default.

DanWall

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Your mirrors - if not you are one of the 0.1% and may have a defence of contributory negligence.

How you could miss the guy and the wheel chair in front of him is beyond me but perhaps they where very small.

Guy was on the pavement wheelchair was behind the car, my car mirrors do not see behind the car, does yours?
Was he not negligent by not using the pedestrian crossing

Procrastastudy

The guy was facing the road on a pavement. That is basic hazard perception.

In this case it was a wheel chair - its not beyond the realm of possibility he had a push chair, or a dog, a small child or heaven forbid some beer in a trolley!

Yes of course he should have used the pedestrian crossing - that doesn't excuse drivers not paying due care and attention to whats going on around them. The onus is on them for the myriad of reasons both in, and not in, this topic.

castie

Theres due care and theres x ray vision...

MyKeyG

castie wrote: »

Theres due care and theres x ray vision...

I have to wonder if he's just being awkward. I mean you can have 20 mirrors, you still only have one pair of eyes.

Procrastastudy

The law has been better explained by others here. Given that I don't really understand why you fail to see why the driver is always at fault.

Given the instant scenario you really dont think its reasonable to look in your mirror and see a guy behind you and think "Hmm wonder what he's doing I better find out before I move toward him especially given I admit I cant see"?

If your answer is honestly no then thats fair enough, thank god we have insurance to deal with the injuries. Me - I prefer to play it as safe as I possibly can. I was taught "always assume the other person is an idiot and it going to do something you dont expect". I really hope they introduce a hazard perception test here sooner rather than later.

The irony of me having failed my test arguing with two people that have caused (or nearly caused) accidents isn't lost on me I have to admit.

MagicSean

DanWall wrote: »

Pedestrians have responsiblity also, I was parked alongside the curb in a row of cars when I wanted to drive out of the space I had to go back slightly and I nearly reversed in to a man pushing a kid in a wheel chair between my car and the car behind, there was a pedestrian crossing nearby, I consider this totally his fault for doing this and not seeing my reverse lights and observing my engine running.

I consider it your fault for not noticing a man pushing a wheelchair behind your car. You may not have been able to see the wheelchair when it was directly behind you but you should have seen it moving into that position.

Victor

DanWall wrote: »

Pedestrians have responsiblity also,

Sure, but a responsibility to themselves and their charges, not society at large. Motorists have a responsibility to society at large as they are bringing the dangerous part to the equation.

I was parked alongside the curb in a row of cars when I wanted to drive out of the space I had to go back slightly and I nearly reversed ...

You were going from stationery to moving = your responsibility.

You were reversing = your responsibility.

MyKeyG wrote: »

The fact that the driver is in a big metal box and the pedestrian is 'squishy' to me means the pedestrian has a responsibility too.

Replace car with gun - "the man ran in front of my gun as I was pulling the trigger" - the responsibility lies with the person in charge of the dangerous object. You aren't allowed fire your gun on main street or in a housing estate, why should you be allowed use a car in these places? Traffic kills a lot more people than guns do.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to victim blaming. Back in the 1800s, the railways in the UK were suffering 16,000 casualties per year amongst workers (not including 'indoor' workers). There were few safety precautions, e.g. lack of covers on moving parts and most of those were injured stemming from minor transgressions of the rules. There were relatively few amongst passengers. Why? Because if passengers saw the railway as dangerous, they wouldn't use it, hurting the railway's income. It took legislation to get the railway companies to implement even basic precautions.

DanWall wrote: »

Guy was on the pavement wheelchair was behind the car, my car mirrors do not see behind the car, does yours?

So you moved the vehicle in a direction that you couldn't see?

Was he not negligent by not using the pedestrian crossing

There may have been contributory negligence. It is not an offence to cross the road other than at a pedestrian crossing, unless you cross the road within 15m of a pedestrian crossing.

MyKeyG

Victor wrote: »

Replace car with gun - "the man ran in front of my gun as I was pulling the trigger" - the responsibility lies with the person in charge of the dangerous object. You aren't allowed fire your gun on main street or in a housing estate, why should you be allowed use a car in these places? Traffic kills a lot more people than guns do.

Legally maybe but if someone walks in front of a gun while it's being discharged then the idiot is going to get a bullet in as much as someone who walks in front of a car carelessly is going to get hit. There is NO victim as far as I'm concerned.

There isn't a single argument on this thread that comes even close to convincing me that an average human being with two eyes and and a head turn limit of 180 degrees is going to see every moron that decides to suddenly step off a path and cross the road.

thebiglad

MyKeyG wrote: »

Legally maybe but if someone walks in front of a gun while it's being discharged then the idiot is going to get a bullet in as much as someone who walks in front of a car carelessly is going to get hit. There is NO victim as far as I'm concerned.

There isn't a single argument on this thread that comes even close to convincing me that an average human being with two eyes and and a head turn limit of 180 degrees is going to see every moron that decides to suddenly step off a path and cross the road.

Hence contributory negligence will be applied - pedestrian will get 30% of their claim upwards depending on circs - Lawyers however will get 100% of their fees based on that settlement and hence it will not be economical to get into a court argument about it.

In short if the pedestrian makes a claim they will get something in most cases

MyKeyG

thebiglad wrote: »

Hence contributory negligence will be applied - pedestrian will get 30% of their claim upwards depending on circs - Lawyers however will get 100% of their fees based on that settlement and hence it will not be economical to get into a court argument about it.

In short if the pedestrian makes a claim they will get something in most cases

I don't dispute that but the thread has progressed to a debate on whether people think it's just or not that the blame should fall on the driver at all. It's more a moral than legal consideration now.

Funny thing is my mam just told me she actually physically walked into her in Dunnes this morning. Maybe my mam is just destined to kill the woman.

Procrastastudy

MyKeyG wrote: »

There isn't a single argument on this thread that comes even close to convincing me that an average human being with two eyes and and a head turn limit of 180 degrees is going to see every moron that decides to suddenly step off a path and cross the road.

You are confusing moral culpability with civil liability.

Take another scenario - Lorry overtakes your mam - driver pulls back in and your mam happens to be in the blind spot of the lorry. It clips her at 120Kph on the motorway and send her flying off into the verge.
(Heaven forbid all this by the way!)

You think it would be right that she should deal with injuries, or you shuld be left to deal with her death becuae the lorry driver says - well I only have one pair of eyes?!

Take this a little further - do we then haul the driver infront of the courts and charge him with manslaughter? No, although granted we may charge hime with dangerous driving, because it is recognised that accidents happen.

PS My spell check is broken so sorry for all the spelling mistakes.

Victor

MyKeyG wrote: »

Legally maybe but if someone walks in front of a gun while it's being discharged then the idiot is going to get a bullet in as much as someone who walks in front of a car carelessly is going to get hit. There is NO victim as far as I'm concerned.

But who expects there to be someone out shooting on main street?

MyKeyG

Victor wrote: »

But who expects there to be someone out shooting on main street?

You're combining unique examples. If you walked in front of a gun say for example at a shooting club. In fairness it was another posters analogy you should ask them.

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

You are confusing moral culpability with civil liability.

Take another scenario - Lorry overtakes your mam - driver pulls back in and your mam happens to be in the blind spot of the lorry. It clips her at 120Kph on the motorway and send her flying off into the verge.
(Heaven forbid all this by the way!)

You think it would be right that she should deal with injuries, or you shuld be left to deal with her death becuae the lorry driver says - well I only have one pair of eyes?!

Take this a little further - do we then haul the driver infront of the courts and charge him with manslaughter? No, although granted we may charge hime with dangerous driving, because it is recognised that accidents happen.

PS My spell check is broken so sorry for all the spelling mistakes.

I would say that in this situation my mother should be aware of the big lorry that just overtook her and is now moving at 120km (which is illegal for a lorry but for the sake of argument) and conduct herself on the road for any eventuality that would cause a collision. At the end of the day it's a big lorry my mother should be aware of it as much as a pedestrian should be aware that when crossing a road their is a responsibility on them to watch out for possible danger.

MagicSean

MyKeyG wrote: »

Legally maybe but if someone walks in front of a gun while it's being discharged then the idiot is going to get a bullet in as much as someone who walks in front of a car carelessly is going to get hit. There is NO victim as far as I'm concerned.

There isn't a single argument on this thread that comes even close to convincing me that an average human being with two eyes and and a head turn limit of 180 degrees is going to see every moron that decides to suddenly step off a path and cross the road.

I have to disagree. When travelling forwards a 180 degree view is more than sufficient to observe obstacles and potential obstacles if you are observant and know what dangers to look out for.

When travelling in reverse you move slower and have the benefit of three mirrors. In addition you can always stop and turn around and look out the back to make sure the way is clear. Anyone in a housing estate full of children would be well use to this.

Procrastastudy

I really shouldn't complain - with people around with the OP attitude atleast there will be plenty of work for PI lawyers

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I really shouldn't complain - with people around with the OP attitude atleast there will be plenty of work for PI lawyers

Ah the old 'I have nothing left to contribute so I'll go with arbitrary personal ribbing' chestnut.

Procrastastudy

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah the old 'I have nothing left to contribute so I'll go with arbitrary personal ribbing' chestnut.

Always end with a classic!

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Always end with a classic!

Lol well you can't argue with that.

FreudianSlippers

Enough with the handbagging please and thanks.

MyKeyG

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Enough with the handbagging please and thanks.

Ah it's only a bit of light hearted banter. Surely there are posters abusing each other elsewhere with activities more befitting a Mods attentions?

Procrastastudy

Good nataured joshing aside - appologies, BUT WHY are we all here at 2am on a Sunday morning!

MyKeyG

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Good nataured joshing aside - appologies, BUT WHY are we all here at 2am on a Sunday morning!

Ah I'm a bit passed the late night club scene. Too many people walking around town at risk of getting hit by cars lol!

FreudianSlippers

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ah I'm a bit passed the late night club scene. Too many people walking around town at risk of getting hit by cars lol!

Yeah, but whose fault would it be then?












:eek: I'm kidding... obviously

Procrastastudy

Ah I'm a bit passed the late night club scene. Too many people walking around town at risk of getting hit by cars lol!

At the risk of getting the wrists slapped by FS I have to give that one a lol before heading to bed!

MyKeyG

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah, but whose fault would it be then?

I blame the Greeks!