Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Hitting a pedestrian

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Kaer, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. Say I hit a pedestrian with my bike, and the ped was in the wrong (i.e. crossing not at the lights around a blind corner). Would the ped be liable for all damage to the bike and me?

    Why do I say that? I just missed two of the dopey bastards who, dressed completely in black, in the dark, while pissing rain, tried to cross at a blind corner.

    Luckily due to the fact it was so wet, I had taken the corner at only 30 klicks instead of the usual 60 or so. Saw them just in time to slow down a little more and swerve.
  2. How could you say that if you hit them in that situation they are at fault? They could say that because you are also coming from a blind corner you should take all the precautions not to hit pedestrians.

    It will be hard to prove that they are at fault.
  3. Depends on the situation, courts will look at your speed, riding conditions, pedestrian behaviour and other factors to determine if the pedestrian was contributory negligent to the accident. They will than decide the % that was the fault of the pedestrian and that is how much they will have to pay/how much less they will get paid out.

    Thats a very basic version of what could happen.
  4. i was under the impression 'the pedestrian is always right'. wouldn't like to test it...from either side !
  5. Pedestrian is not always right. One of my old bosses got his ass sued off because one of his kids ran across a road (between parked cars) and got hit by a car. he had to pay damages to the car and trauma etc.
    Luckily, his household insurance covered it.

    Regards, Andrew.
  6. Well in my experience the pedestrian is always in the right, whether they are breaking the law or not as it states cars must give way to pedestrian and bicycles at all times.

    I know this because i have been unfortunate enough to have been involved in this type of accident, thankfully while only doing around 20-25km/h. The pedestrian was definately crossing illegally at an intersection, yet the driver was charged with "not giving way to a pedestrian".

    No i'm not going to go into anymore detail about the ordeal here so don't ask. Those that know me personally can talk to me personally about it if they wish to do so.
  7. fk me. that sucks.

    ...proving once again the law is an ass.....
  8. proves the law is rational and the public isn't, what's wrong with that judgement?
  9. Why an arse (not american ass)

    The guy is putting down the road, minding his own bees wax and then some snotty nosed kid who has no road sense (hence should not be unattended) does damage to a vehilcle and cuases truama

    Reasonable outcome I would have thought. And the rebuttle of the car owners insurance would have picked up the tab surely can't wash becuase the drivers premiums would go up and then he would be out of pocket in the long run.

    Cheers :cool:
  10. i'd shake your hand but i can see it's busy.

    firstly, i was quoting: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.” CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist - Hence 'ass', not 'arse'.

    secondly this whole "i'll sue you for making a stupid mistake in which you got substantially hurt and probably already learnt a bloody sizable lesson t'boot, but fk me dead, i feel a little emotionally shaken over it and it's a damn good opportunity for m'self and m'lawyer to make a sh*tload of easy money at your expense" i personally don't find a solid basis for a legal system that doesn't even pretend to offer something approximating justice any more.

    end of rant.
  11. AFAIK crossing the road within 15 meters of the traffic lights (not at the crossing) constitutes jay walking, they'd have to be apportioned some if not all blame.
  12. One of my Dads employees hit a guy riding a pushbike across a pedestrian crossing.
    Bike rider was held at fault from the start, riding bike across crossing is illegal.

    Pedestrians are often held at fault, all depends on the circumstances of course.

    You wont get easy money out of it ever, just the damage to the car.
    Whats the problem with that? Why should the driver have to pay because someone damaged their car?
  13. I wouldn't want to get myself in that situation in the first place - hopefully it will never happen *touch wood*
  14. ok. fair call. i stand corrected. but trauma??? get over it - do i get to sue my mother and ex-hubbie while we're at it :LOL:
  15. How would the pedestrian not be at fault, in the above instance? The motorcyclist is travelling at an appropriate speed, he has his lights on, he's making noise, and it's a corner in which he's required by all the laws of nature to assume that nobody would be twit enough to be crossing it while there is a glow of light and noise coming from around the corner.

    Conversely, the pedestrian is not taking due care because he's for some reason not hearing the noise of the bike - does he have headphones in? This is not due care. He's dressed inappropriately for night time travel (in the same way that a cylist will wear reflective gear), and there would in all likelihood be some other indication of the oncoming bike, such as the glow of the light (even with it being a corner, there should be some glow off whatever objects are on the opposite side of the corner).

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    But then I suppose the law has of late gone out of its way to ignore common sense in its rulings.
  16. I remember a few years ago that RACV tried to take the family of a deceased pedestrian to court for the damage to an insured driver's vehicle. The backlash was amazing to the point it was front page news and they withdrew the claim admitting it was a mistake and against policy.
  17. Different to damages though - if you are insured your insurance company will go the pedestrian. You can be charged but they will be still liable for some % of the damages as it becomes a civil case with different criteria for determining the outcomes.

    Bicycles will be charged if they are in the wrong. Section 253 states that they must not cause a safety problem to cars or pedestrians... Cyclists are fully liable if they cause damage under those circumstances - the same as any other road user.

    From the VicRoads Road Rules for Bicycles web site...

    253. Bicycle riders not to cause a traffic hazard
    The rider of a bicycle must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver or pedestrian.

    Penalty: 1 penalty unit.
  18. What the shit is a penalty unit?
  19. With respect to ped. laws, etc., in one of the latest rounds of road rules updates, riders/drivers in Victoria now do not require to give way to pedestrians at round-abouts.
  20. It's the level of fine. It lets them put up all the fines easily in one go by just changing the level once. :roll:

    I can't remember what the exact value is at present but it went up recently.