RTAs Involving Children
Posted by: velofellow on 11 September 2004
In today's Times there is an article regarding who should be liable if a child is injured in the road by a vehicle.It would appear that in Holland and some other countries the driver/rider of a vehicle which hits a child is held responsible regardless of who is at fault.The Dutch Supreme Court decided in 1988 "Children Under 14 could not be expected to observe traffic rules"There are moves afoot to adopt a similar law in the UK.
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Berlin Fritz
I think parents here take a certain amount of legal liability for their sprogs ?
Graham George Von Where'sthejustice
Graham George Von Where'sthejustice
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I think parents here take a certain amount of legal liability for their sprogs ?
Graham George Von Where'sthejustice
N.B. I would assume that the Laws as guides to Judges are interpreted deopending on each individual case ?
Velofellow rhymes nicely with mellowyellow dunnit !
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Just as an afterthought of which I have many, suprise suprise, I can take my own
local area as a good example of this question. Obviosly depending on what kind
of road such an incident happens culpbability can sometimes be more easily
proven. The immediate streets of my area are small and child friendly (in
theory) that is there's an official 25 k's speed limit, and an unofficial 7 k's
limit (signs put up by locals, as well as sleeping policeman all over the place,
and warnings. Wether the local car owners take any notice of them is another
matter, and there have been many an altercation here over the years on this very
subject, some ending tragically.
In my mind (?) the Dutch are well ahead of the
field Socially and responsibilty wise in Edukating folk, as to take Common Sense
for granted is a great mistake, (ask any Copper). The very prospect of this laws
implications will make people think (hopefully) in Urban area's especially as we
are mainly selfish animals, and are always right behind the wheel, especially
after a few beers (How many times have you heard it said, or even said it
yourselves ?). Cyclists (also being D.L. holders are often to blame) and here in
a City with bike lanes that are the the envy of the world are still abused by
idiotic selfish people, resulting in seríous injury and sometimes death to
unsuspecting kids, education allround (as part of Driving Test & Refresher
courses every 5 years or so - My Opinion) for the kids at school naturally as
well as always was the case in my day (Local Bobby and all that proficiency
stuff, obvious innit Tom ?), and Laws are cold and unfeeling made as a nessesary
result of such idiotic General lack of Common Sense by all parties taking for
granted their right to walk the street.
Graham George Of Teachyourchildrenwell
local area as a good example of this question. Obviosly depending on what kind
of road such an incident happens culpbability can sometimes be more easily
proven. The immediate streets of my area are small and child friendly (in
theory) that is there's an official 25 k's speed limit, and an unofficial 7 k's
limit (signs put up by locals, as well as sleeping policeman all over the place,
and warnings. Wether the local car owners take any notice of them is another
matter, and there have been many an altercation here over the years on this very
subject, some ending tragically.
In my mind (?) the Dutch are well ahead of the
field Socially and responsibilty wise in Edukating folk, as to take Common Sense
for granted is a great mistake, (ask any Copper). The very prospect of this laws
implications will make people think (hopefully) in Urban area's especially as we
are mainly selfish animals, and are always right behind the wheel, especially
after a few beers (How many times have you heard it said, or even said it
yourselves ?). Cyclists (also being D.L. holders are often to blame) and here in
a City with bike lanes that are the the envy of the world are still abused by
idiotic selfish people, resulting in seríous injury and sometimes death to
unsuspecting kids, education allround (as part of Driving Test & Refresher
courses every 5 years or so - My Opinion) for the kids at school naturally as
well as always was the case in my day (Local Bobby and all that proficiency
stuff, obvious innit Tom ?), and Laws are cold and unfeeling made as a nessesary
result of such idiotic General lack of Common Sense by all parties taking for
granted their right to walk the street.
Graham George Of Teachyourchildrenwell
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Martin D
I completely despair at this nonsense; the responsibility of people’s actions in this country is being removed week by week. If it’s your error then it’s your fault, weather you ran in the road and caused the accident or you caused a collision by bad driving.
This comes from first hand experience were I was treated as a guilty criminal after a incident caused by a pedestrians actions, all the charges were later dropped when the twat admitted it was his fault later to the police.
Martin (nanny state moaner)
Fritz the last line of your comment is spot on. We could also start on about the breakdown of the family in this country, another thread perhaps
This comes from first hand experience were I was treated as a guilty criminal after a incident caused by a pedestrians actions, all the charges were later dropped when the twat admitted it was his fault later to the police.
Martin (nanny state moaner)
Fritz the last line of your comment is spot on. We could also start on about the breakdown of the family in this country, another thread perhaps
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by andy c
Hi,
Regardless of the age of the pedestrian it's taken into account how the actual colision was caused, and how long, for example, the motorist had before they saw/hit the pedestrian (If you get my meaning). Well it is in my neck of the woods anyway.
If it's pedestrian error then it is - and then factors such as age and parental supervision should take effect.
andy c!
Regardless of the age of the pedestrian it's taken into account how the actual colision was caused, and how long, for example, the motorist had before they saw/hit the pedestrian (If you get my meaning). Well it is in my neck of the woods anyway.
If it's pedestrian error then it is - and then factors such as age and parental supervision should take effect.
andy c!
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Brian OReilly
May I cut and paste my replies from another site ? May I ?
Thanx.
Yes. Good proposal. Removes a grey area of who is responsible in a collision and puts the emphasis on the motorist to take utmost care. Combined with the natural instincts of self-preservation of pedestrian this could lead to a reduction in death/injury.
The point is, Erich,
that it's not so much about proving who is at fault but about emphasisng the responsibility motorists have.
Children/teenagers don't always have the ability/experience to always stay out of trouble/danger. The onus is on the motorist, in effect to think for them.
Taking the easier part first: we do indeed wait for the green man even if the road is clear for a mile in each direction. This is somewhat embarrasing for us as we're not sure if we should do the logical thing and cross or abide by the rules and wait pointlessly...
Part II: A kid here DID step to the kerb, look right, then cross in front of me at point blank range. Spot the flaw ? It was pretty obvious that this was a possibility so I had already taken avoiding action. Although I am particularly great, I'll assume the vast majority here would also have been sharp enough to see what was about to unfold - this is primarily due to our predominant view of our driving as a skill to be honed, to be improved, to be proud of. We are, however, a minority. The general public see driving as a means of getting from A to B, sometimes as a chore.
The view that children and adults even, never make mistakes is somewhat utopisch - see example above. When we rely on the other party, the pedestrian or cyclist to never make an error of judgement and we leave no safety margin in our driving, then at some point there will be a coming together.
It may technically be someone else's fault, but with the privelidge of using our 1-2 tonne vehicles on a shared road, comes the additional responsibilty to, in effect think and plan for the failure of other users.
As I write this, my 4yr old sleeps on the sofa, The Blue Nile are playing on my hifi and I've got a cheeky weissbier inside me. For me to think a bit harder when I'm driving seems a pretty small price to pay to avoid ruining some family's life.
regards,
mellow bor
Thanx.
Yes. Good proposal. Removes a grey area of who is responsible in a collision and puts the emphasis on the motorist to take utmost care. Combined with the natural instincts of self-preservation of pedestrian this could lead to a reduction in death/injury.
The point is, Erich,
that it's not so much about proving who is at fault but about emphasisng the responsibility motorists have.
Children/teenagers don't always have the ability/experience to always stay out of trouble/danger. The onus is on the motorist, in effect to think for them.
quote:
nonegreen said:
His only defense is that he lives in Germany. People do not run willy nilly accross the roads there. Everyone obeys the crossing lights even if nothing is coming.
Taking the easier part first: we do indeed wait for the green man even if the road is clear for a mile in each direction. This is somewhat embarrasing for us as we're not sure if we should do the logical thing and cross or abide by the rules and wait pointlessly...
Part II: A kid here DID step to the kerb, look right, then cross in front of me at point blank range. Spot the flaw ? It was pretty obvious that this was a possibility so I had already taken avoiding action. Although I am particularly great, I'll assume the vast majority here would also have been sharp enough to see what was about to unfold - this is primarily due to our predominant view of our driving as a skill to be honed, to be improved, to be proud of. We are, however, a minority. The general public see driving as a means of getting from A to B, sometimes as a chore.
The view that children and adults even, never make mistakes is somewhat utopisch - see example above. When we rely on the other party, the pedestrian or cyclist to never make an error of judgement and we leave no safety margin in our driving, then at some point there will be a coming together.
It may technically be someone else's fault, but with the privelidge of using our 1-2 tonne vehicles on a shared road, comes the additional responsibilty to, in effect think and plan for the failure of other users.
As I write this, my 4yr old sleeps on the sofa, The Blue Nile are playing on my hifi and I've got a cheeky weissbier inside me. For me to think a bit harder when I'm driving seems a pretty small price to pay to avoid ruining some family's life.
regards,
mellow bor
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by velofellow
The case which gave rise to the decision in Holland involved a 13 year old cyclist emerging from a minor road into the path of a car travelling along a major road.Whilst not in possession of a detailed report on the incident,I do feel that any person using a road, whether on foot or a cycle must be supervised or have sufficient awareness/training to be aware of potential risk.If either of my kids caused an accident which resulted in injury (physical or mental),to other road users I would feel a sense of failure as a parent.
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Martin D
How is it possible to on one hand “remove a grey area” and on the other “put the emphasis on the motorist” These two things are at odds. How about removing the grey area and automatically blaming the pedestrian, clearly this incorrect also. If someone ran in the road, which happened to me, and you can’t even take evasive action, then it’s the pedestrian’s fault. What pedestrians (and cyclists) can’t seem to comprehend is that they are road users just the same as motorists and motorcyclists. We all have responsibility to use the road correctly and not just pass the buck to the motorist if they are at fault.
PS before we get onto the speed thing again, I get bloody hell from other idiot motorists when driving correctly and with great care through our small village, it has a tucked away school and a fairly young population.
Martin
PS before we get onto the speed thing again, I get bloody hell from other idiot motorists when driving correctly and with great care through our small village, it has a tucked away school and a fairly young population.
Martin
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Brian OReilly
Martin,
what I mean is that in situations where it may not be clear who has the right of way or who must exercise judgement, that there would be an advantage in saying the motorist is by default in the wrong, or, alternatively, the pedestrian is always in the wrong. Making pedestrians under 14yrs wrong by default is flawed, because children will by definition, make mistakes no matter how well they've been drilled.
It's not so much a case of assigning blame either, but of emphasising the additional responsibility that comes with the use of a vehicle that has the potential to seriously injure/kill other road users.
Brian OReilly
what I mean is that in situations where it may not be clear who has the right of way or who must exercise judgement, that there would be an advantage in saying the motorist is by default in the wrong, or, alternatively, the pedestrian is always in the wrong. Making pedestrians under 14yrs wrong by default is flawed, because children will by definition, make mistakes no matter how well they've been drilled.
It's not so much a case of assigning blame either, but of emphasising the additional responsibility that comes with the use of a vehicle that has the potential to seriously injure/kill other road users.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
What pedestrians (and cyclists) can’t seem to comprehend is that they are road users just the same as motorists and motorcyclists.
well it would be damn nice if we (cyclists) were treated as such on the odd occasion. The difference in attitude between the idiots on this island (although not confined just to this island) and the continent are staggering beyond belief. Whereas here every second twat is trying his/her best to kill you (intentionally or otherwise), over there they're all to happy to wave you through and share the road. So if anyone has any better suggestions for educating the masses then speak up, until then maybe it's time I brushed up my French and moved east.
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
well it would be damn nice if we (cyclists) were treated as such on the odd occasion. The difference in attitude between the idiots on this island (although not confined just to this island) and the continent are staggering beyond belief. Whereas here every second twat is trying his/her best to kill you (intentionally or otherwise), over there they're all to happy to wave you through and share the road. So if anyone has any better suggestions for educating the masses then speak up, until then maybe it's time I brushed up my French and moved east.
Couldn't agree more.
As a motorist and a bike user, I try to behave well in both situations, but many do not.
Anyway, lets not lose sight of the original post, which was about children.
As motorists we should take absolute responsibility in these cases, in my view. Accidents are usually avoidable, and are almost always due to errors on both sides. Many accidents that are in law attributed to one party or another, are often equally to be blamed on the party deemed not at fault.
We don't expect (or even allow!) children responsibility over all their actions in many areas of life, parents and all adults should take responsibility for their welfare.
Andy.
Posted on: 11 September 2004 by Martin D
Brian
Fair comment, i do see your point.
Martin
Fair comment, i do see your point.
Martin