>>>His behaviour was just as abhorrent as those who throw objects from mway bridges onto traffic below. No doubt the do-gooders will disagree of course....
Horrible situation for all involved, kids often do not think about the consequences of their actions though.
I think the biker was the victim here and it could have been so much worse: What if the van driver saw the child and swerved off the road, putting his and his passengers (if any) life at risk.
|
I'm with the motorcyclist in this instance, sad though the death is for the boy's family and friends.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
I think a tough call but I can see why he should be allowed to claim compensation. He had some pretty bad injuries and could have been killed himself. He was not to blame but has suffered physically and mentally. One of the posters is right to say he might question himself for the rest of his life along the lines "could I have avoided the boy" and this too is part of how he has suffered. Why should he be put through this because of some silly game of chicken.
Money won't help him get over this but I think he's entitled to something.
|
|
I'm with the biker. The boy knew he was taking a risk, though perhaps not how big it was.
|
|
I'm with the biker too.
|
to be honest i think we should start locking people up for the worst cases of jay walking
same with cyclists
the number of people who think they can walk in front of you and force an emergency stop is outrageous
as are the militant anti car cyclists who think they have god given rights to jump red lights
more dead stupid pedestrians is good for us all, will cut down on future accidents
and if the motor cyclist can get some money from his estate/insurance/criminal injuires board then good luck to him
|
more dead stupid pedestrians is good for us all, will cut down on future accidents
In London something like 50% of dead stupid cyclists have been in the blind spots (mostly nearside) of an HGV. Not much sign of the victim stock being reduced!
|
|
|
|
I'm with the biker in this case too.
It is accepted in this day and age that you are entitled to compensation when you receive injuries through another persons negligence, and despite the rather emotional dilema that this case may cause people, why should he not be compensated for his painful misfortune?
Suffering in silence will not bring the unfortunate child back, and if the blame had been the other way round the poor biker could now be facing a prison sentence of up to fourteen years.
--
|
He not *suing* anyone - he's making a claim to the CICA.
I would imagine he could sue the boy's parents though - their household insurance (if they've got any) should cover them under liability to third parties. There might be an issue if the negigent act was held to be deliberate.
|
Just think what the biker has been through - like could I have missed the child etc. - even though he could not. It must be a living nightmare, I couldn't imagine how I would feel if I'd killed a child through playing chicken.... I really feel for the biker.
We have a lot of kids, locally, who run out in front of cars, usually deliberately. Just a couple of weeks ago, I went out training on my pedal bike (no I'm not a red light jumper - I am a proper cyclist), when upon descending a local main road at the speed limit, a group of teenage girls started to cross - all could see me and were watching my rapid approach - just didn't care - I ended up close to the opposite pavement just to avoid the group - fortunately no oncoming traffic. On my return, just half a mile further up the hill, another set of kids run out, not in front of me, but in front of a Landrover Discovery. The driver slammed on, but the kids thought it a laugh....
What the hell are they all thinking..............
|
Darwin sorts it out - eventually.
madf
|
Darwin sorts it out - eventually. madf
Yup.
I'm surprised that there is any sympathy whatsoever shown towards the 12-year-old. What he did was reprehensible, and I don't care how young he was -- he was a little scumbag.
I am personally of the view that an idiot like this is fair game for target practice should drivers be so inclined, but how tragic that it had to be a bike that hit him.
Jase - you're last para has raised a few complaints, but as you have clearly stated it is your personal view I'm going to leave it alone. However, your "target practice" quote in my opinion places you not so very far away from the young lad in the scumbag stakes.
And on that point. you are also making a character judgement which might be totally wrong. I know I took risks - maybe not quite *that* risky - when I was young, but I would never have considered myself a scumbag..... Also I still take risks, some of which probably put other people at some degree of risk too. I haven't grown up to be a scumbag either. smokie, BR Moderator
|
|
You can bet that the young lads friends have learnt a very valuable lesson.
|
We have a lot of kids, locally, who run out in front of cars, usually deliberately.
another set of kids run out, not in front of me, but in front of a Landrover Discovery. The driver slammed on, but the kids thought it a laugh.... What the hell are they all thinking..............
Our local 'darlings' don't even bother to run out in front of you, they just amble into and across the road while looking straight at you, almost daring you to run into them or stop and say something. Most of these children are from the local upper secondary school, so year 9 and above, 14+ in other words, so they are definitely not ignorant of roads, it is blatantly deliberate.
The school is on one side of an A road dual carriageway with a 40 limit, in what was green belt with all the houses on the other side of the road, wonderful bit of planning that, the local council then built a footbridge over the road almost straight to the school's front gate so they didn't need to cross the road, did the kids use it?
No, of course not, they continued to cross the busy road right on a roundabout exit/entry.
To try and make the kids go over the bridge the council then put half a mile of fence down the middle of the central reservation to make crossing the road more difficult, do the kids now use the bridge?
No, they would rather cross one carriageway, scale a 4 foot high fence and then cross the other carriageway.
The headteacher took to standing at the roadside every morning to make sure the children use the bridge, do they now use the bridge?
No, they now walk half a mile to the other end of the fence, cross the dual carriageway and walk half a mile back down the grass verge to avoid the headteacher rather than use the bridge!
The school is now campaigning for the limit to be reduced to 30 as the risk to the children from 'dangerous, speeding motorists' is putting the children at risk on this 'dangerous, busy, fast road'. Thus far the council, to their credit, have resisted, pointing out that they have expended large sums of council taxpayers' money to separate the children from the risk of any needless contact with traffic on this stretch of road to avoid any risk to the children. However, should some unfortunate driver, perhaps a stranger to the area, or perhaps not quite aware one morning have the misfortune to come off the roundabout just as a child ambles across the road listening to his/her iPod or on the phone then the clamour will become deafening.
That poor person will end up feeling just like the motorcyclist from the original story but will probably end up being prosecuted and hung out to dry by the PC brigade so I feel it is about time that the balance was restored slightly to demonstrate that all road users have a responsibility to each other to ensure safety on the roads not just those of us who happen to be in control of a powered vehicle.
|
Our local 'darlings' don't even bother to run out in front of you, they just amble into and across the road while looking straight at you, almost daring you to run into them or stop and say something.
I'm glad it's not only me that's noticed this!
Sadly, I don't think that this accident will change any kids' behaviour
|
|
He not *suing* anyone - he's making a claim to the CICA. I would imagine he could sue the boy's parents though - their household insurance (if they've got any) should cover them under liability to third parties.
Thanks BP, was about to make same point. I'd conclude that his insurers have advised him he has little chance of success against the child's estate or parents and that the statutory compensation scheme for criminal injury is his last resort. Will be an interesting test case.
|
I can't comment on the rights & wrongs of whether he should claim., not knowing all the facts. I would consider that if he has suffered a loss he is entitled to persue a case, and let the legal people decide, which after all is what they are there to do.
I do have first-hand experience though of a personal injury claim resulting from a motor accident. Forget about the £1K settlement for a bang up the boot - it's nothing like that whatsoever. It took best part of 7 years to resolve, and every conceivable obcstacle was put in our way by the defending insurance company and their agents.This included personal surveilance (4 days being followed and video'd), referrals to tame experts who sailed so close to the wind they caught themselves out in the end. It is stressful, messy, illogical, invasive, and an all-consuming procedure where the 'victim's' interests are the last to be considered along the way (won the case eventually).
|
|
I am with the biker as long as it is the gov criminal comp scheme that is paying and the young lad is not posthumously slated as a criminal to the detriment of his family, and that his family are not penalised or deemed to be responsible in anyway so as to facilitate the pay out.
|
>the young lad is not posthumously slated as a criminal to the detriment of his family>>
The biker, as has clearly been made known, was blameless in this case. His life has been torn apart through someone else's stupidity - why should he suffer in silence?
If the biker had been at fault I'm sure that you and many others would have been amongst the first to express the view that the young lad should receive compensation if he had survived the incident.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Injured yes, but has his life been torn apart?
I don't understand how playing chicken is an act of violence. Surely the whole point of the game is that you give yourself and anorther a fright but escape harm.
|
I am with the biker as long as it is the gov criminal comp scheme that is paying and the young lad is not posthumously slated as a criminal to the detriment of his family, and that his family are not penalised or deemed to be responsible in anyway so as to facilitate the pay out.
Why not if he'd been a driver or a rider he'd be on a charge of Careless, does that not make him a criminal?
Also hitting the family hard in the pocket just might make some of these horrors parents realise that THEY are responsible for their little angels actions.
|
>I don't understand how playing chicken is an act of violence. Surely the whole point of the game is that you give yourself and another a fright but escape harm.
You only win at chicken if you both survive unharmed.
The lad lost........
|
As far as I am concerned we should be allowed to shoot idiots walking in front of cars on purpose trying to cause an accident, for the good of society, and you should get a special commendation from the queen if you kill a cyclist who has just driven through a red light
Lets face it the criminal justice joke of a system encourages them in the belief its all the nasty car drivers fault if anything happens
|
|
So long as the same applies to car drivers who jump the lights and travel through junctions when pedestrians have the lights in their favour. But the snag is that bikes rarely kill, whereas cars undoubtedlty do.
|
But losing doesn't make it an act of violence. Someone throwing a brick off a bridge which kills someone is clearly undertaking a violent act even if he genuinely only meant to scare someone, the culprit could clearly see there was a real risk of serious danger to someone else but none to himself. This is very different unless you can prove that the kid set out to injure or kill himself.
I don't condone the kid's actions, it was stupid and reckless and I wouldn't wish the biker's fate on anyone, but how many of us have never done something stupid knowing it was stupid and then realised afterwards just how dangerous it was and how it was only by chance that someone wasn't hurt.
I nearly got myself and my mates killed as a kid when we walked onto a frozen lake and the ice broke all around us. We were egging each other on and we nearly paid the price. Was I being violent towards my friends in egging them on? Were they being violent to me in egging me on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
