‘So I guess you must be in favour of rapists then?’
That's the third time you've asserted that now despite me explicitly telling you it's not what I meant. Give over.
Being under the speed limit and saying, ‘He came out of nowhere’ would not be enough. He would have to be able to prove it was impossible for him to have been aware the kid was there and travelling at a speed was appropriate for the conditions (note I didn’t say at or below the speed limit).
We've had this discussion before and I agree with you here. If a kid "comes out of nowhere" and you can't stop in time, you were either driving too fast for the conditions or not paying sufficient attention. Nothing comes out of nowhere unless they're in a TARDIS.
There's a compromise to be had of course. You can't drive everywhere at walking pace just in case. I blogged about risk management recently, essentially you're choosing a speed you think is an Acceptable risk against the likelihood of things running out in front of you with little warning. If something happens, you got it wrong.
Not sure that the legality of parking makes a difference
This is what I was, ahem, driving at earlier. They've parked unlawfully but surely that shouldn't matter? The car hanging over the junction that CZ posted earlier is parked dangerously which is far more relevant than a parking infraction to my mind.
There is a difference in the eyes of the law between beating up a burglar, and doing so if they're running at you with a kitchen knife. But the burglar is acting illegally so why isn't it fine in both cases? He should have been more careful whose house he was in.
That’s the third time you’ve asserted that now despite me explicitly telling you it’s not what I meant. Give over.
Yes, you did. But you immediately followed it up with
There was one round here a few years back with a penchant for arson, amongst other things she burned down a paint factory. The cheeky little scamp.
so I didn't really think you'd taken on board just how ridiculous this line of attack really is.
Just to reiterate (again). Accidental damage is accidental. Deliberate damage is deliberate. Constantly trying to introduce deliberate damage into the discussion is not helpful.
Most of the world accepts that accidents are going to happen around kids. Lack of coordination, awareness, judgment, etc. It's just an accepted fact.
The difference in the UK is that instead of accepting this fact it's felt the best way forward is to simply assume children will behave like small adults. And if they fail to behave like small adults then it is clearly the fault of the parents for not being literally right on top of them at all times ready to intervene the moment an accident might occur.
I strongly believe that children learn by observing the actions of adults rather than having adults telling them how they should act. Kids grow up seeing adults not being responsible for their own possessions and those of others and instead simply blaming people who don't necessarily have the capacity to avoid the very valuable objects adults choose to place near the areas they play in.
No wonder people grow up with such a warped sense of entitlement. Once they graduate from being kids and into the adult phase they are finally allowed to blame others for everything and they take full advantage.
The driver was not charged for the very obvious reason that he wasn’t speeding and nobody could have stopped in time.
interesting case here - the driver was under the speed limit, on a green light, and still is being considered as driving too fast, and 60% responsible for the accident, whereas the kid (who stepped out on a red (for them) light) is 40% responsible.
interesting case here
Comments are 100% what I would expect.
Not sure that the legality of parking makes a difference ,isn’t it still a hit and run offence if you hit a parked car with yours and drive off ?
Interestingly it is NOT a hit and run offence (under s170 of the road traffic act) if you hit a car with your bike and cycle off! Bizarrely if the vehicle driver then failed to report that to the police within 24hrs they would have committed an offence! its almost like they thought the rules for cars and bikes didn't need to be identical when drafting the road traffic act!
The council has the ability to prohibit parking, but as far as I’m aware they actually have to actively do it (and ideally, enforce it), it doesn’t just happen automatically. I think.
Oh its a real mess. There are some places/circumstanced where it would be expressly illegal without any specific order being imposed. Some areas only become designated parking areas if they are actively labelled/recorded as such by the roads authority.
Does your view change if the car was there before the child started practicing on her driveway OR if the car arrived afterwards and it would have been apparent to the driver that either she was not being supervised or was not being so actively supervised that a parents could stop a run away child?
amazing the number of people who think that a speed limit is in fact a minimum target 🤔 Especially in adverse weather. (both facts pointed out by the judge!)interesting case here – the driver was under the speed limit, on a green light, and still is being considered as driving too fast
it is specifically mentioned in the HC that you should drive at an appropriate speed when children are around as they have a habit of stepping off the pavement unexpectedly! If anything this is why we need 20 mph limits in built up areas.and 60% responsible for the accident, whereas the kid (who stepped out on a red (for them) light) is 40% responsible.
If you look at the average commuter bike that has been taken on trains and parked outside on the street multiple times it is usually covers in dings and scratches. Yet the commuter cyclist just accepts that and gets on with it… surely it’s the same when you store a car on the street? Sh1t happens if you leave stuff unattended in a public place.
