Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Witnessed a minor rti this morning, who is at fault for a wing mirror clipping a pedestrian walking on the the edge of the pavement. I dont think the pedestrian was seriously hurt but the open bed transit type van with the extending wing mirrors clipped an old boy on the side of the head, would assume the motorist but he wasnt speeding or doing anything illegal i could see from vehicle behind.
Show More
Defnitely the pedestrian's fault, WTF was he doing walking on the pavement?
Who fault it is depends on who can afford the best solicitor
think its a tough one to blame someone thats all.
Why? If he doesn't know how wide his vehicle is he shouldn't be driving it, if it was his wheel on the pavement rather than his wing mirror would you even be asking the question?
It's not a tough one. The transit driver is at fault.
yeah but nothing was on the pavement, i know it was overhanging but ? As crisp said a good solicitor would probably get you off.
would agree with m'learned friends that the driver of the vehicle is at fault.
Driver. It isnt the pedestrians responsibility (legally) to check every moving vehicle approaching doesnt have any apparatus or part of vehicle overhanging the pavement.
The lawyer will come in regarding the extent of the pedestrian's injuries, there's no argument about who's fault it is. More like whether it's careless or reckless driving although seems reasonable to assume it's careless rather than reckless.
The old fella who got clipped was facing the on coming traffic and was shielding his eyes from the sun which was in his eyes, had to sidestep a double buggy in his way, next thing he was on the deck.
But he was still on the pavement, so the driver was too close to the pavement given the size of his wing mirrors. If he had sidestepped the buggy by walking onto the road then it's fair enough to blame the pedestrian, but he was still on the pavement.
"Official vocab guidelines state we no longer refer to these incidents as accidents. They're now collisions. Accident implies there's nobody to blame."
old boy could / would get compensation if he pursues a claim, unless he put himself into the path of the van the driver is liable
RTC is now correct HH, doubt ill ever know the outcome.
The pedestrian was walking on the pavement legally and with priority to walk there. The driver must by law allow sufficient clearance so as not to inflict damage on a cyclist, car or pedestrian. The driver is 100% guilty not having allowed sufficient clearance of the pavement. If there was Sharia Law in the country, he would have his pedals cut off.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539