Churchill Say Ohhhh No!

[Most Easterly Pandas]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-high-visibility-jacket.html#axzz2K8fjQHQZ

Discuss.

I'm personally in agreement with the insurance company, the girl is partly to blame.

 

[scout]

Personally I agree with the insurance company. I live in a town and still insist on my son wearing a high vis jacket and helmet when riding his bike. It's common sense that when in low visibility you do everything possible to make sure your seen. There are too many people wandering into the road in very dark clothing and then getting upset when they are nearly hit because they just haven't been seen. I am always aware that there may be an idiot ready and willing to throw themselves in front of my car but if I hit them and they haven't taken enough steps to be seen then surely they are partialy culpable.

This story is typical of the culture we live in today "I'm hurt, it must be someone else's fault" A lot of the lanes around Silverstone have high hedges and on a cloudy night I can understand why a driver could not see a person in the road until it was too late.

 

[AndyRKett]

I have to disagree although I can see what they are saying a 13 year old girl is dependent on parents providing for them if she doesn't have the high viz jackets then she can hardly go and buy one also we all get caught out from time to time.

She's 13 and what would happen if we made every 13 year old in the country culpable for their actions ?

The other thing to consider which the courts did is that the driver was not driving in an appropriate manor for the conditions and too fast for the lane that he was driving on.

I think picking a 13 year old was pretty low move for Churchill to have made there are plenty of adult cases which would have been better to have taken to court to test

 

[dave]

they are not disputing full blame just the payout amount, saying that the girl is partly to blame,

no only could she not be seen she was also wearing headphones so couldn't hear any traffic

 

[ChrisUK]

People are dumb, teenagers are dumber. A 13 year old could not be held culpable for this. It's going to be damaging for their PR that's for sure.

 

[AndyRKett]

not only could she not be seen she was also wearing headphones so couldn't hear any traffic

And wasn't even walking on the road

Seconds later, he clipped Bethany as she walked on the grass verge - sending her flying into a nearby hedgerow.

 

[Andy Monty]

What type of high vis did churchill want to see her in?

Are they going by street work act?

as even street workers cant seem to get their head round what class of vest / jacket/ trousers to wear in a given situation...

im sat in a class 1 high vis vest right now....... but under the street work act thats only suitable for areas with a speed limit upto and including 30mph.....


most horse riders usually use something like this

which in the eyes of the law is not high vis......

would that keep them quiet?


how about if its been washed more than say the stated 25x and has become slightly faded or the reflective crystles that make up the belt and braces had become to be degraded....


How many road workers do you see in high vis coats that look like this?

And just for John what if she was wearing this what excuse could they make :

(still class 2 and class 3 rated ((motorway))

 

[Andy Monty]

Personally I agree with the insurance company. I live in a town and still insist on my son wearing a high vis jacket and helmet when riding his bike. It's common sense that when in low visibility you do everything possible to make sure your seen. There are too many people wandering into the road in very dark clothing and then getting upset when they are nearly hit because they just haven't been seen. I am always aware that there may be an idiot ready and willing to throw themselves in front of my car but if I hit them and they haven't taken enough steps to be seen then surely they are partialy culpable.

This story is typical of the culture we live in today "I'm hurt, it must be someone else's fault" A lot of the lanes around Silverstone have high hedges and on a cloudy night I can understand why a driver could not see a person in the road until it was too late.

Make sure any bike lights you fit comply with the law 100% (good luck finding a legal set if you do let me know)

If they are successful in their counter claim it could have serious repercussions for all road users...

 

[dave]

(still class 2 and class 3 rated ((motorway))

that last bloke works at brooklands don't he?

 

[dave]

mate i was at school with and drove scooters with got killed on the road He was wearing a reflective coat, white traffic officer's hat and carrying a flashing blue light. he was putting cones out for a broken down car on an 2 lane off slip road on the A12. the car driver didn't get prosecuted for any thing

oh plus his police car with flashing blue lights was parked not far from him so cars should have slowed ready for a problem.

If he can get run over with all that......

 

[Kier]

I've been present when dealing with something at the side of the road and seen officers in hivis nearly getting knocked over. Its all very well being lit up my a Xmas tree, but if they aren't looking anyway, its no good.

I know some people have nearly been hit at night, wearing hivis, and having the police lights on.

 

[scout]

However, if someone plows into a person wearing a hi vis then at least when it goes to court they can say they did everything possible to avoid being hit. In the cases you describe above the motorist/insurance company would have no excuse

 

[jnoiles]

Consider this:

Mrs Probert, 51, sued Mr Moore for compensation to sustain care costs for the rest of Bethany’s life. Last August, at the High Court in London Bethany was cleared of any contributory negligence and Churchill was held to be fully liable.

Then consider this:

Instead of waiting for her mother to collect her, she decided to walk home down the narrow, bending, unlit lane. She was listening to music on earphones.

The article mentions the judge commenting on the darkness of the conditions. I think it's probably fair to say that by walking home, in darkness, with earphones on down a narrow bending unlit lane she was being a cavalier about the danger.

It pains me to admit this because because obviously a young girls life has been quite significantly impacted by this but I'm siding with the insurance company here.

In all honesty, at 16 I think it's probably reasonable that you know doing the above is quite stupid.

And she's a horse rider so understanding risk around moving objects, judging conditions the countryside and acting appropriately are not unknown concepts to her.

I think it's bizarre that Churchill has fixated on the high visibility clothing rather than a more general approach but if that's what gets the concept of children being able to judge decisions like this decided in a legal sense then it probably needs to be done.

From another weird and wilfully argumentative point of view, if the court upholds the decision that the girl can't be held to account for contributing to the accident and the payout stands, does that mean the court has also by default proved that her parents are negligent for not affording her the proper care and attention?

 

[Ziggy122]

the issues is - if a case of this was passed

How many more cases of pedestrians who weren't easily spottable been hit and claiming, when its not the drivers fault?

Its gonna be a case of everybody is now wearing high-vis's
H+ S gone mad before we know it

Ziggy

 

[Andy Monty]

Consider this:



Then consider this:



The article mentions the judge commenting on the darkness of the conditions. I think it's probably fair to say that by walking home, in darkness, with earphones on down a narrow bending unlit lane she was being a cavalier about the danger.

It pains me to admit this because because obviously a young girls life has been quite significantly impacted by this but I'm siding with the insurance company here.

In all honesty, at 16 I think it's probably reasonable that you know doing the above is quite stupid.

And she's a horse rider so understanding risk around moving objects, judging conditions the countryside and acting appropriately are not unknown concepts to her.

I think it's bizarre that Churchill has fixated on the high visibility clothing rather than a more general approach but if that's what gets the concept of children being able to judge decisions like this decided in a legal sense then it probably needs to be done.

From another weird and wilfully argumentative point of view, if the court upholds the decision that the girl can't be held to account for contributing to the accident and the payout stands, does that mean the court has also by default proved that her parents are negligent for not affording her the proper care and attention?

But she was on the verge not the road itself.........

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

the issues is - if a case of this was passed

How many more cases of pedestrians who weren't easily spottable been hit and claiming, when its not the drivers fault?

Its gonna be a case of everybody is now wearing high-vis's
H+ S gone mad before we know it

Ziggy

Don't forget, they're not trying to get it changed to her fault, just trying to get some of the blame assigned to her actions.

But she was on the verge not the road itself.........

Define verge

 

[Andy Monty]

Define verge

None metaled part that runs alongside the carriageway in my eyes anyways

 

[dave]

the issues is - if a case of this was passed

How many more cases of pedestrians who weren't easily spottable been hit and claiming, when its not the drivers fault?

Its gonna be a case of everybody is now wearing high-vis's
H+ S gone mad before we know it

Ziggy

it used to be common sense ( or parent taught sense) to try and make your self seen if walking on unlit roads, carrying a torch, or even a news paper or white bag. there were public information adverts on tv telling them that didn't have common sense.
i them days hi vis vests weren't cheap like they are now.

when you can get things to help you be seen for less than a quid its stupid not to have some thing.

Parents don't teach kids to be safe on the road no more, we get whole families all dressed in dark clothes walking all over the road in the dark around here.
Go to town and you will see parents dragging their kids across the road infront of traffic instead of walking a few feet to a crossing, no kids are taught the green cross code....

 

[chr1s]

Consider this:
In all honesty, at 16 I think it's probably reasonable that you know doing the above is quite stupid.

And she's a horse rider so understanding risk around moving objects, judging conditions the countryside and acting appropriately are not unknown concepts to her.

Aged 16 now - aged 13 at the time of the accident.

According to the more detailed information on Jeremy Vine last week, she only road horses in a field.

Define verge

Report states "grass verge", which suggests that she was not walking in the road, where cars are expected to drive.

Again according to the discussion on Jeremy Vine, other motorists witnessed that they were able to see Bethany, but then they were driving more slowly, to suit the conditions.

 

[Ziggy122]

how many country lanes that are verges are no longer verges, but a general land slide putting cars closer in the middle of the road and pedestrians thinking they can work now on the ""new"" path?

Ziggy