I'd just say;
"They are kids and you, the adult, didn't stop in the distance you could see to be clear. Why are you expecting them to accept responsibility?"
I broke my wrist on the Bristol to Bath cyclepath in 1990 when some random kid decided to do a u-turn as I went past him. Clearly his fault but I wasn't going to make threats to him or write to his parents about it.
Could you involve the police, saying a strange man forced your children to give them his address, and you now fear for their safety?
I was about to reverse out of a spot one afternoon and noticed and elderly gent walking behind so moved nowhere, waited for him to pass and started my manoeuvre, the old guy jumped on the floor like he'd been shot, he said I scared him!!!??? unluckily for me he was with his family who said that they would report me to the police saying I drove into the man then drove off, If I didn't agree to a new pair of troos! some people are just dickheads.
If it had been the OP's dog that jumped out, would all the answers be the same?
If the dog had bitten the cyclist no . If the dog was in a place where one would expect it to be on a lead no if the dog had chased and "worried" the cyclist no. If the dog had just jumped out or come upon the cyclist and surprised him yes.
He couldn't stop in the distance he could see so was riding too fast for the conditions. Ask him when he last had an eye test.
In all seriousness, I think I'd be referring him to the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
I think Samuri's post hits the nail on the head.
do they have the same Injury-Lawyers-Where-Theres-Blame-Theres-a-Claim-4-U culture in Germany? Maybe that's his game... pillock.
Accidents happen, get over it. We didn't win 2 world wars to put up with this sort of behaviour. (etc.)
Germany is totally different from the UK in this regard. Over here, we'd be shocked that someone would be doing this and tell them where they can shove it.
In Germany, you have to have personal insurance which means that people sue for absolutely everything. Stand on someones toe on the train and you might get a letter claiming for damaged shoes and broken nails. Pretty standard practice, the idea being you pass this on to your insurance and they pay out - no hard feelings and nothing personal etc.
(I'd still be in a mind to tell him to shove it, he lost control and fell off.)
Write back to him saying that your kids told you he'd stopped his bike normally, exposed himself to them and then ridden off and that if you don't stop harrassing them, they'll be going to the police.
I would speak to him to get his address.
He sounds like an Arschloch.
Then go go the police claiming he's a kiddy fiddler.
Get him locked up for a couple of weeks.
End of claim.
He couldn't stop in the distance he could see so was riding too fast for the conditions
If this was true everytime someone hit someone it would be their fault
You could jump into the road and claim this for example
Would I be expected to go at 2 mph past every driveway in case they drove out and if I dont it is my fault?
If this was true everytime someone hit someone it would be their fault
Odd how the kids managed to remain upright. If he couldn't stop safely, he was either riding too fast, beyond his ability or with his eyes closed.
Would I be expected to go at 2 mph past every driveway in case they drove out and if I dont it is my fault?
You'd be expected to ride / drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions. If you're unable to stop in time for someone pulling out of a driveway when you're in excess of 2mph, I'd suggest you take the bus.
yeah - and his post was going so well upto that point, ah well.Classic Internet tough guy!
was thinking something similar the other day, you drive to what is appropriate to the road layout (and weather etc) but there's only these pesky "rules" about giving way, not suddenly swapping which side of the road you are driving on or pulling out of a side street without looking. We already know most humans are fairly choosy about the rules that they follow. Driving is pretty risky business when you think about it.You'd be expected to ride / drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
I'd ignore it. Tempting to get stuck into the guy but at the end of the day he's taken a fall for your kids, so he deserves a little slack maybe.
But i'd also be making sure the kids are more careful and avoid causing any more crashes- ride in front of a cyclist and get away with it, fine, next time maybe they get hurt or the other person gets hurt worse.
Oh and yes not to give out their details to people!
Odd how the kids managed to remain upright.
They pulled out slowly from a side road into his path and he had to avoid them and they had to do nothing. That is why the stayed upright. I gues she could have ploughed into them instead??
If he couldn't stop safely, he was either riding too fast, beyond his ability or with his eyes closed.
WTF?
If you're unable to stop in time for someone pulling out of a driveway when you're in excess of 2mph, I'd suggest you take the bus.
I suggest you avail your self of the rules of the highway and give way in particular. Better still post up your route home and I will pull out on you and you can pay out.
TBH who was at fault here we dont really know but blanket statements like if you cannot stop it was your fault are silly.
I would have to go at walking speed past every pedestrian in case they jumped into the road ....I would not want to be not able to stop now would I and it would always be my fault no matter what happens 😕
It's just weird that STWers are all indignant and outraged when a Daily Mail columnist suggests that cycling isn't real commuting and a risky extreme sports offroad activity, and that cycling is perfectly normal, yet suddenly when it's a child's face involved, no-one thinks it's the parents' responsibility to cough up for the damage their kids have caused.
What makes this different from kids kicking a ball through a window? No-one's really interested in moral blame, but at the end of the day why should the guy on the bike who was JRA on his way home have to fork out for the loss that the OP's kids caused? (Apart from, perhaps, he's a bit of a douche for yelling at little kids).
They pulled out slowly from a side road into his path and he had to avoid them and they had to do nothing. That is why the stayed upright.
So he couldn't avoid [i]slow-moving[/i] children without falling off? That's even worse, good gods what sort of speed must he have been doing?
I suggest you avail your self of the rules of the highway and give way in particular.
Yes yes. But if someone does pull out on you, you don't just go "well, I have right of way" and righteously smash into the back of them, or have a duck fit and throw your car into the nearest wall in a panic, do you.
I would have to go at walking speed past every pedestrian in case they jumped into the road
You could try looking where you're going and anticipating hazards instead. Generally, pedestrians don't spontaneously teleport five feet to the right, in my experience.
If visibility is reduced - trucks, high walls next to the road - then you might well have to travel at walking pace. But generally, paying attention and driving / riding appropriately for the conditions should be sufficient. It's worked for me for twenty-odd years, people pull out in front of me practically daily and I've thus far managed to avoid colliding into them.
no-one thinks it's the parents' responsibility to cough up for the damage their kids have caused.
From the limited information available, it would seem the kids didn't cause anything. "it seems to me knowing where it happened it's quite and open patch of track with plenty of notice to see if someone is coming"
Google Map link perhaps, OP?
Totally with Junkyard on this - I can't decide if you're trolling Cougar, or just not really thinking it through.
You could try looking where you're going and anticipating hazards instead. Generally, pedestrians don't spontaneously teleport five feet to the right, in my experience.
It's not about teleporting - I reckon I could jump 3 foot from the pavement into the path of a car in about 1 second. If a car is doing 20mph, it's covering 30ft/second - if I chose to jump when that car was 5 feet away, you have a fraction of a second to react and stop.
Does that mean that cars doing 20mph are being reckless!?
It's not about teleporting - I reckon I could jump 3 foot from the pavement into the path of a car in about 1 second. If a car is doing 20mph, it's covering 30ft/second - if I chose to jump when that car was 5 feet away, you have a fraction of a second to react and stop.
Weren't they on bikes? suddenly jumping five feet sideways in front of a car might be ok for Danny Mac, but I don't see your average 11yo doing it.
I reckon I could jump 3 foot from the pavement into the path of a car in about 1 second.
Is that something you're prone to doing?
I could probably swerve if I couldn't brake sufficiently. But sure, if you're going to deliberately go out of your way to create an unnatural situation in order to throw yourself under my wheels then there's probably not a lot I could do.
That said; in your example, if I was travelling 30ft/sec and you can jump three feet from the kerb in about a second when I'm five feet away, I'll be 25 feet farther down the road past you by the time you get there.
Anyway, all this is academic. I'm not saying it's always black and white; just that in most cases there's plenty you can do to minimise the risk without requiring a bloke with a red flag to walk in front of you. Read the OP again; it's an open patch of track with good visibility, and the guy was so shocked by the sudden presence of two kids exiting a football ground that he lost control of his bike. What other circumstances could cause this other than he was going recklessly fast through a junction and / or not paying attention? Even if we assume that the kids should have given way and failed to do so, that's something you should readily be able to anticipate. If I see kids or animals on a trail I cover the brakes or scrub speed and adjust my weight ready to take evasive action because I know they're bloody unpredictable.
So he couldn't avoid slow-moving children without falling off? That's even worse, good gods what sort of speed must he have been doing?
Do you ride a bike?
How awesome are you at going sideways on it? Anyway your argument was that he should always have to stop and it is still not correct hence we have GIVE WAY
Yes yes. But if someone does pull out on you, you don't just go "well, I have right of way" and righteously smash into the back of them, or have a duck fit and throw your car into the nearest wall in a panic, do you.
No you swerve to avoid them and crash in the process
You could try looking where you're going and anticipating hazards instead. Generally, pedestrians don't spontaneously teleport five feet to the right, in my experience.
I agree but if they did jump that distance it would be your fault for not anticipating etc which is a very poor argument still
But generally, paying attention and driving / riding appropriately for the conditions should be sufficient. It's worked for me for twenty-odd years, people pull out in front of me practically daily and I've thus far managed to avoid colliding into them.
And if i pull out in front of you at say a roundabout where i should stop and give way its your fault
FWIW I have never crashed in this manner though I narrowally avoided an unbraked cyclist last week who shot out in front of me from a side street without looking or giving way. I am pretty sure had their been a collison I would not be the one in trouble[ Oh I was doing 10 mph FWIW
suddenly jumping five feet sideways in front of a car might be ok for Danny Mac, but I don't see your average 11yo doing it.
They were moving their bikes fwd which was sideways to the other cyclists so 5 foot is about 1 bike length or 1 second at 3.5 mph and 1/2 second at 7.
Are you all really claiming that you drive at such a speed and with such control it would be impossible for someone to pull out on you and hit you and even if they did it was your fault?
I doubt you are trolling but you are wrong and the law is clear about this
[i]In Germany, you have to have personal insurance which means that people sue for absolutely everything[/i]
Unless the law has changed since we lived there, you don't have to.
And tbh I'd go and take some photos/measurements of where it happened - since if you run into the back of someone/car it's your fault, so here too?
Anyway your argument was that he should always have to stop and it is still not correct hence we have GIVE WAY
I didn't say that at all. I said he should be [i]able [/i]to. You can be in the right and still avoid accidents.
No you swerve to avoid them and crash in the process
Eh, perhaps. I'd try not to be in that position in the first place, it's not always possible but I like to have escape routes.
if they did jump that distance it would be your fault for not anticipating etc which is a very poor argument still
...
And if i pull out in front of you at say a roundabout where i should stop and give way its your fault
You seem to have invented something you think I've said or meant in order to argue against it. If someone pulls out on you and there's a collision then they're at fault for not giving way, of course. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't have done something to minimise that risk or avoid it completely. Observation, anticipation, appropriate speed.
I narrowally avoided an unbraked cyclist last week who shot out in front of me from a side street without looking or giving way.
I had one of those recently too, ran a red light on a lights-controlled roundabout. The lights went to green, I set off to move onto the roundabout, but even though the lights were in my favour I checked right before actually moving onto it. As such, I saw him and braked in time to allow him to shoot in front of me. I shouldn't have to check there, I had right of way, and a collision wouldn't have been my fault. However, by anticipating that red light jumpers are a higher risk on roundabouts due to the lights going red and green at the same time rather than on the normal delay, I managed to avoid killing an idiot.
Are you all really claiming that you drive at such a speed and with such control it would be impossible for someone to pull out on you and hit you
Impossible? No. I'd say it's reasonably unlikely though.
Not really following your thoughts anymore you started off with and now we are at
He couldn't stop in the distance he could see so was riding too fast for the conditions
it's not always possible but I like to have escape routes.
Is it your fault still when you dont have an escape route
Basically you seemed to suggest it was his fault though you now seem to accept there can be times when it is not "his " fault as he had no escape route.
The roundabout /giveways and others were only examples of someone [ you may have even seen] doing the unexpected to highlight it is not always your fault if there is a crash. Not saying they are identical to this
Impossible? No. I'd say it's reasonably unlikely though.
Aye fair point it would be possibel but it is never going to happenIt could be either at fault to be fair perhaps he was tearing down a road for a strava KOM or perhaps he was doing 10 mph on gravel my only point is that is not necessarily always his fault which is what you originally suggested. Discussing other hypotheticals seems to have just confused this further
If you haven't already settled this/told him to swivel.
I he has gone out and bought clothing all ready i would suggest he has been a little hasty if he thinks your paying for them. If you do decide to replace them insist on the old clothes in exchange for a like for like product that you have purchased for him,this way you can find the best deal,and make sure he'snot trying to con you out of some rapha for his aldi special.
