Forum menu
If the girl was deaf, as opposed to wearing headphones listening to music, it would be an entirely different matter.
Really? What do you think she might have done differently to avoid the accident had she not been wearing headphones?
Whenever I drive along the road in the dark, I always think "What if a black cow was standing in the road?"
IMO most drivers drive far to fast in the dark, especially on unlit rural roads. Fools doing 80mph plus in the dark on the A9 when the weather is poor, driving the deer out of the hills, are crazy.
No matter how good your lights, they do not illuminate sufficiently your stopping distance. I use Osram Nightbreaker Plus bulbs on all our vehicles which output "Up to 90% more light than standard halogen lamps, illuminating 50-75 metres on the road in front of your vehicle." However, at 70mph stopping distance is 96m...
Still thinking about that black cow? I am.
I think part of the insurers argument is that as a horse rider, despite her age, she knew that she and the horse had to be visible on the road at night, but failed to apply that to herself.
And courts do deal in guestimates - experts for each side will put forward their views, and the judge will decide which is the most likely outcome. Despite a few cock ups along the way, it's worked fairly well for centuries.
If the girl was deaf, as opposed to wearing headphones listening to music, it would be an entirely different matter.
Really? What do you think she might have done differently to avoid the accident had she not been wearing headphones?
She was walking [b]on the grass verge[/b]. If she had been walking on a Tarmac footpath, and been clipped by a car, in the dark, driving too fast, would all you lot [i]still[/i] think she was partially responsible?
Please, by all means, explain, in simple terms, how a pedestrian can be walking off the road in both cases, but be partially responsible in one case, but, presumably, not be partially responsible in the other, by virtue of being on Tarmac instead of grass.