View Full Version : hi viz
i was listen to a chat show on the radio yesterday . They were talking about people being hit by cars while out walking in country roads, it now appears some insurance company will not pay out for your injury, even if it was not your fault if hit by a car if you was not wearing a hi viz jacket /vest or if on a push bike and not wearing a cycle helmet.just a word of warning as i for one have been out walking on roads and have had a near miss.
I to have almost hit three teenagers in a group all walking along the side of the road, (not towards traffic) in hoodies... this may be o.k. in town but on these roads with no light they should have at least been walking towards the headlamps... it's worse when its raining or there is no moon... I have driven past my own cottage (and its white) when the Ha's in...
No cool to wear hi viz but it makes sence!
Angel...
I to have almost hit three teenagers in a group all walking along the side of the road, (not towards traffic) in hoodies... this may be o.k. in town but on these roads with no light they should have at least been walking towards the headlamps... it's worse when its raining or there is no moon... I have driven past my own cottage (and its white) when the Ha's in...
No cool to wear hi viz but it makes sence!
Angel...
I agree, it is alright to hit teenagers in town.
its Churchill who are claiming that a speeding driver (unproven but he was known to speed along the lanes regularly) hit a young girl at the side of the road when apparently pulling in to let a car pass (no other driver was at the scene or saw the accident nor have the police found any trace of the alleged other driver). Churchill are now saying that the girl is at fault and are trying to wriggle out of the payout. The girl is in intensive care, with brain damage and will be crippled for life. As she was a horse rider and worked at a stable and frequently rode horses on the local roads and at evening time, Churchill claim she should have known better and therefore put herself at risk by not wearing hi-viz clothing when walking down the lane at night. If by some miniscule chance Churchill win this case, then what is to stop the girl from being sued by the driver for damages and indeed Churchill could well do the same for all their costs and appeal court costs.
The case of Bethany Probert is a tragedy, the High Court judge found the driver Paul Moore was entirely to blame for hitting Bethany while driving down a narrow winding lane at speed. Bethany was absolved of any blame. However before proceeds for a settlement which could be as high as £5M could go ahead, Churchill Insurance appealed the decision arguing that as a horse rider Bethany should have known to wear a Hi-Viz jacket. IMO if Churchill win this case it would be a travesty.
Having said all that I’m surprised there aren’t as many accidents as there already are hereabouts given the state of some drivers on our roads, people’s penchant for wearing dark coloured coats and children in black school uniforms.
If you have to walk down a road and don't maximise the chances to ensure you are going to be seen then you are a muppet. Making out its all the drivers fault when you have not taken measures to ensure your own safety is no excuse, ALL parties using roads have to ensure they are acting responsibly. I almost hit a young lad the other night who was cycling in the dark wearing dark clothes and not a light on his bicycle. Would it have been entirely my fault ??
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 00:43
I almost mowed down a black guy in a black outfit on a black bike without lights a few weeks ago. He was saved by the whites of his eyes - literally!
I was shaken by the experience.
I thought bike lights (front and back)were compulsory after street lights were on /dusk for cyclists?
Correct me if wrong.
Hi vis is just an extra precautionary measure .....but recommended..
Reminds of the blind guys in a dark cellar, looking for a black cat that's not there.
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 00:50
I thought bike lights (front and back)were compulsory after street lights were on /dusk for cyclists?
Correct me if wrong.You are right.
The guy I almost squashed had no lights and no bright clothing.
If you have to walk down a road and don't maximise the chances to ensure you are going to be seen then you are a muppet. Making out its all the drivers fault when you have not taken measures to ensure your own safety is no excuse, ALL parties using roads have to ensure they are acting responsibly. I almost hit a young lad the other night who was cycling in the dark wearing dark clothes and not a light on his bicycle. Would it have been entirely my fault ??
It is 100% the drivers' fault if they hit a pedestrian. Drivers are supposed to be paying 100% attention to the road in front of them, and driving at a speed suitable for the road and weather conditions, IE, driving at a speed where their stopping distance does not exceed the coverage of their dipped headlamps or the amount of road they can see in front of them.
Blaming pedestrians and cyclists for not wearing hi-vis is victim-blaming. There is currently a boycott of Churchill Insurance being organised. If they win this appeal it will remove the onus of safety from those in charge of two-tons of metal on four wheels and place it on their victims. That cannot be permitted to happen.
Here are the court details of the incident in the OP:
BETHANY PROBERT (A CHILD BY HER MOTHER & LITIGATION FRIEND JOANNA PROBERT) v MOORE
[2012] EWHC 2324 (QB)
(David Pittaway QC)
Significance:
A driver who collided with a 13-year-old girl whilst she was walking along a narrow single-lane country road was liable for her injuries as he had been travelling at excessive speeds without sufficient regard to the possibility of other road users. Whilst it was ill-advised for the girl to have walked along the road at night without high visibility clothing, she was not considered contributorily negligent.
Facts:
M had been driving in winter on a narrow, unlit, single-lane country road which had a 60mph speed limit. He was rushing to work to begin a shift commencing at or around the same time as the accident occurred. As he manoeuvred to his nearside to allow oncoming vehicles to pass safely he collided with P who was walking in the same direction. She was wearing headphones and dark clothing. She sustained multiple injuries. M argued that if he was found to have acted negligently, P was contributorily negligent.
Held:
(1) A reasonably prudent driver would not have exceeded 40 or 45mph on the relevant section of road - M was travelling in excess of 50mph immediately prior to the impact.
The possibility of pedestrians being present should have been considered given that the school or working day had just finished and people were returning home. M should have had in mind the particular circumstances of the road, including its width, the visibility, proximity to stables and other buildings.
(2) In assessing contributory negligence, the applicable standard was the objective standard of an ordinary 13-year-old child. Such a child should not be expected to consider taking the same level of precautions as an adult. It would have been asking too much of P to say that she should not have started to walk home at all or without a high visibility jacket, or that she should have waited for her mother for a lift. P had been walking on the correct side of the road when the accident occurred and she had taken steps for her own safety: another driver had observed her climb onto the verge as she approached. Her use of headphones made no material difference. It was not just and equitable to find P contributorily negligent when no positive act on her part had caused the accident.
Judgment for Claimant
Here is a summary of the earlier case:
http://www.wbw.co.uk/news/12-08-15/schoolgirl-run-down-negligent-motorist-due-massive-compensation?department=85
Here is the news story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/9849788/Insurer-in-court-appeal-against-teenager-hit-by-claimants-car.html
It is 100% the drivers' fault if they hit a pedestrian. Drivers are supposed to be paying 100% attention to the road in front of them, and driving at a speed suitable for the road and weather conditions, IE, driving at a speed where their stopping distance does not exceed their headlamp coverage or the amount of road they can see in front of them.
Blaming pedestrians and cyclists for not wearing hi-vis is victim-blaming. There is currently a boycott of Churchill Insurance being organised. If they win this appeal it will remove the onus of safety from those in charge of two-tons of metal on four wheels and place it on their victims. That cannot be permitted to happen.
Yes! Lets not start a culture of having to be responsible for our own behaviour! :mad:
Yes! Lets not start a culture of having to be responsible for our own behaviour! :mad:
What about the responsibility of the person operating the dangerous machinery in a public place? The onus of care is always on the operator of the dangerous machinery. In this case the operator of the motor vehicle.
pig whisperer
09-Feb-13, 10:42
Driving out of Thurso, it was dark, two horse riders trotting along the road without any reflective clothing either on them or their horses, there is plenty of hi viz that you can buy for yourself or horse. If you must ride in the dark make sure you can be seen, PLEASE
Driving out of Thurso, it was dark, two horse riders trotting along the road without any reflective clothing either on them or their horses, there is plenty of hi viz that you can buy for yourself or horse. If you must ride in the dark make sure you can be seen, PLEASE
Seems to me you still saw them, or you would not be commenting on them.
Flynn is correct the responsibility lies with the motorist, churchill will lose the case
pig whisperer
09-Feb-13, 11:17
obviously i saw them, but i still feel that as road users, riders must have some responsibilty fot there own safety,
obviously i saw them, but i still feel that as road users, riders must have some responsibilty fot there own safety,
All road users have a duty of care to other road users. those driving vehicles on unlit roads must take this into account, be prepared that they might encounter pedestrians, cyclists, or horse riders and be able to safely avoid them. The failure to wear hi-vis does not create responsibility of the pedestrian/cyclist/horse-rider for carelessness of the driver.
There can be almost anything obstructing a road. For instance, a black wrapped bale. You just can't argue against driving at a speed and in a manner which allows you to see obstructions (and people) in time to stop or avoid them.
Lets separate this to make it easier.
The driver is responsible for their vehicle, actions, safety and safety of others using the road. They due to being suitably tested and assumed to have had lessons to obtain the privilege of a drivers licence *1. will be aware of the risks associated with driving on the public highway.
For pedestrians (especially, but not limited to, roads without pavements), it would be wise to wear clothing that helps others see you. There is common sense that needs to be applied.
And it doesn't take much, many jackets now come with piping that is reflective. Small armbands with reflective strips etc. it doesn't need a hi viz tabard. Just the smallest reflective item or light clothing is more than enough for any observant driver to see you, or that there is something ahead that they need to be aware of.
However, if someone is head to toe in dark clothing with a hood up or hat on it becomes difficult for drivers to see them. Whilst it is the drivers responsibility, it does start to reduce the margins for error (i.e. you safety). And in many cases there are a number of factors that lead to an accident, not always a single specific cause.
(Parents, please consider what your kids are wearing and check they have lights on their bikes! And scooters!)
Whilst distasteful, I can see the insurers reasoning for their claim of contributory negligence, they are in my opinion wrong and I do hope they loose.
*1 One of the problems with the current driving test / learning system is there is no mandatory minimum training from a professional instructor nor the requirement to have any lessons at night or in bad weather. But that is thread drift and there is another thread for that.
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 15:12
There are many situations in which drivers can't avoid pedestrians, for example when a pedestrian runs into the road from behind a parked van.
There are many situations in which drivers can't avoid pedestrians, for example when a pedestrian runs into the road from behind a parked van.
In which case the driver should be thinking, "There's a van parked there, better be careful in case someone walks out from behind it…"
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 17:31
In which case the driver should be thinking, "There's a van parked there, better be careful in case someone walks out from behind it…"Sure, but it's difficult on a busy street with lots of parked vans - and it's impossible to stop if you're close enough.
The trick there is to be looking under the vehicles for sets of feet .
If people are coming out from behind vans / vehicles etc. without looking then there is 'contributory negligence'. And wearing or not of any hi viz is irrelevant.
But again the driver should be maintaining an appropriate distance from parked vehicles and a suitable speed to minimise the risk.
Sure, but it's difficult on a busy street with lots of parked vans - and it's impossible to stop if you're close enough.
Impossible?
How many have you run over?
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 18:06
Impossible?Yes, by Newton II.
Sure, but it's difficult on a busy street with lots of parked vans - and it's impossible to stop if you're close enough.
Again, you should be moving at a suitably slow speed so you can stop if need be.
Do children still get road safety training at school?
Remember The Green Cross Code? The Tufty Club?
Also... Why can't there just be "Accidents" anymore instead of the constant "Blame Game" that we get these days....
secrets in symmetry
09-Feb-13, 19:46
Again, you should be moving at a suitably slow speed so you can stop if need be.In principle, yes. In practice, it's impossible if they run out right in front of you.
Do children still get road safety training at school? Remember The Green Cross Code? The Tufty Club?Also... Why can't there just be "Accidents" anymore instead of the constant "Blame Game" that we get these days....
No such thing as an accident, someone has made an error somewhere along the line.
Do children still get road safety training at school? Remember The Green Cross Code? The Tufty Club?Also... Why can't there just be "Accidents" anymore instead of the constant "Blame Game" that we get these days.... The word 'accident' implies there was no-one at fault. In reality, especially where roads and drivers are concerned, there is almost always someone at fault. Failure to look, failure to slow down, loss of control, failure to properly maintain the vehicle, driving under the influence etc. That's why the police no longer say accident and instead refer to incidents or collisions.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 09:28
Do you drive Flynn?
Do you drive Flynn?
I drive for a living. Your point?
Would I trust the judgment of strangers driving cars, HGV's or motorbikes while I was walking on a road out with a village, town or city? Not a chance. The best precaution in my opinion is to stay off the roads high viz or not. I would find no comfort in saying "it was the drivers fault" after i had been run over, if I survived that is.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 11:38
Merely asked.
I agree mostly with this thread, but don't agree with people being entirely blameless by putting themselves in situations of risk without taking precautions. I think an element of blame in some situations can be on both sides.
I don't agree it's fair that a driver IS GUILTY regardless of situation. Which is the way things seem these days.
But that's MY opinion, no one else's.
I drive for a living. Your point? And he has Never, ever broke any motoring laws. Like ever!!!
Would I trust the judgment of strangers driving cars, HGV's or motorbikes while I was walking on a road out with a village, town or city? Not a chance.
Which says an enormous amount about the general lack of care by drivers. No-one should be afraid to use the roads.
And he has Never, ever broke any motoring laws. Like ever!!!
Something I am quite proud of. But then that's the difference between a good driver and a bad driver. Good drivers take pride in not breaking the law.
Merely asked.
I don't agree it's fair that a driver IS GUILTY regardless of situation. Which is the way things seem these days.
But that's MY opinion, no one else's.
The person in control of the dangerous machinery in a public place is always responsible for the safety of those around them.
The person in control of the dangerous machinery in a public place is always responsible for the safety of those around them.
So... If I decide to throw myself in front of a passing train (don't get over excited, not planning to... lol) then the driver would be at fault?
Mmmmm grey area. I'm sure it is illegal to place yourself on a railway line unless you are at a level crossing (with the barriers up and alarm light off) or you are a rail worker with permission to do so. That said do you remember the female twins that flung themselves into oncoming traffic on a motorway? There was nothing the drivers could have done about that.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when all motorised vehicles on the road had to have someone walking in front of them waving a flag to warn people of their presence....
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when all motorised vehicles on the road had to have someone walking in front of them waving a flag to warn people of their presence....If you would like to volunteer to stand in front of vehicles waving flags then horse on Mcduff.
Maybe we should go back to the good old days when all motorised vehicles on the road had to have someone walking in front of them waving a flag to warn people of their presence....
That might be going a little far, but then blanket urban 20mph speed limits are on the way, and a reduction of the national speed limit on rural lanes to 40mph is also coming.
Southern-Gal
10-Feb-13, 16:28
That might be going a little far, but then blanket urban 20mph speed limits are on the way, and a reduction of the national speed limit on rural lanes to 40mph is also coming.
How do you know this?
How do you know this?
He heard it on his Russian radio.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 18:28
The person in control of the dangerous machinery in a public place is always responsible for the safety of those around them.
And what about a person, are they not responsible for the safety of themselves?
I'd say a persons common sense (or lack of) can be just as or often more dangerous as machinery sometimes
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 18:35
Mmmmm grey area. I'm sure it is illegal to place yourself on a railway line unless you are at a level crossing (with the barriers up and alarm light off) or you are a rail worker with permission to do so. That said do you remember the female twins that flung themselves into oncoming traffic on a motorway? There was nothing the drivers could have done about that.
Yes I seen that with the twins, nothing the drivers could have done at all! Yet under flynns ideal they would have been charged.....
How do you know this?
I read the news, keep up with traffic law etc.
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk
http://www.highwaysindustry.com/Feature/Local-Authorities-Roll-Out-New-Speed-Limit-112604/
http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/2976-country-roads-could-slow-to-40-mph
(http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/2976-country-roads-could-slow-to-40-mph)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9399135/Quiet-rural-roads-face-40mph-limits.html
You see there's this wonderful thing called the 'internet', where you can research news, keep up to date with what's going on in the world.
And what about a person, are they not responsible for the safety of themselves?
I'd say a persons common sense (or lack of) can be just as or often more dangerous as machinery sometimes
So if I was using a hedge trimmer on my front hedge, and you were walking by on the pavement, and I was waving the hedge trimmer around in a careless fashion, and it sliced through your neck, you'd be happy with me saying, "That's their own fault for not wearing body armour…"
He heard it on his Russian radio.
Actually, as I just said, there's this amazing invention called the 'internet', and with it you can find out about stuff that's happening in the world. You should try it.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 21:59
So if I was using a hedge trimmer on my front hedge, and you were walking by on the pavement, and I was waving the hedge trimmer around in a careless fashion, and it sliced through your neck, you'd be happy with me saying, "That's their own fault for not wearing body armour…"
No, but being the person walking by, hearing the trimmer and seeing the leaves flying everywhere, I wouldn't walk so close to the hedge. ;)
No, but being the person walking by, hearing the trimmer and seeing the leaves flying everywhere, I wouldn't walk so close to the hedge. ;)
And if you had no choice but to walk there?
MerlinScot
10-Feb-13, 22:01
So if I was using a hedge trimmer on my front hedge, and you were walking by on the pavement, and I was waving the hedge trimmer around in a careless fashion, and it sliced through your neck, you'd be happy with me saying, "That's their own fault for not wearing body armour…"Flynn you can't generalise so much.... I never ran over anyone but I had so many car accidents that honestly I lost the count of them... and it is very easy to blame 'someone' from the outside, less clear when you're involved in one...
Flynn you can't generalise so much.... I never ran over anyone but I had so many car accidents that honestly I lost the count of them... and it is very easy to blame 'someone' from the outside, less clear when you're involved in one...
I'm not generalising. The duty of care is on the operator of the machinery.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 22:05
If I felt it dangerous i wouldn't pass.
There's always a choice.
If I felt it dangerous i wouldn't pass.There's always a choice.Cross the road to escape the crazed hedge cutter and get hit by a car.
annemarie482
10-Feb-13, 22:35
Cross the road to escape the crazed hedge cutter and get hit by a car.
Lol just a world full of maniacs! ;)
Lol just a world full of maniacs! ;)
therealducati doesn't let me out without my helmet (because I'm special) so I should be alright.
...and it is very easy to blame 'someone' from the outside, less clear when you're involved in one...If the accident is involving people then yes, someone is to blame. Not always easy to clearly identify who but 'someone' is to blame. A large chunk of responsibility lies with the driver, operator, pilot, organ grinder or cyclist of whatever piece of kit that is involved.
There is, without doubt a possible degree of contributory negligence of 'someone' who may not be the driver etc. Providing the driver was doing all they should to operate things in a safe and proper manner and they applied their duty of care then the other 'someone' responsible will be identified.
Lol just a world full of maniacs! ;)I've already sent letters to Messrs Salmond & Cameron re banning hedge trimmers!
therealducati doesn't let me out without my helmet (because I'm special) so I should be alright.Errm, the tin foil hat isn't a helmet as such.... :confused
secrets in symmetry
11-Feb-13, 01:08
So if I was using a hedge trimmer on my front hedge, and you were walking by on the pavement, and I was waving the hedge trimmer around in a careless fashion, and it sliced through your neck, you'd be happy with me saying, "That's their own fault for not wearing body armour…"That's what happens when a hedge trimmer meets a straw man.
That's what happens when a hedge trimmer meets a straw man.
Are you referring to my comment? If so it wasn't a straw man, it was an analogy to demonstrate the idiocy of victim-blaming.
MerlinScot
11-Feb-13, 20:37
If the accident is involving people then yes, someone is to blame. I still have to see a car accident without involving people unless now cars crash by themselves.... That's blaming anyway. I know very well that it is not always someone's fault when an accident happens, but if your comment includes 'something', yes something is to blame for an accident.....
Without going into pedant mode, 98 times out of 100 it will be 'someone' ultimately.
Sometimes it will be a simple X pulled out in front of Y. Pedestrian A ran out in front of car B. Farmer P failed to secure their livestock and a coo charged out in front of car Q.
Contractors started roadworks without any / sufficient signage and leaving a layer of oil over a road and cyclist X ends up in hospital.
Or contributory factors all parties involved in an accident.
Part of fully understanding this should help to gain information to educate road users (and those who may impact on the roads) to enable them to prevent accidents.
MerlinScot
11-Feb-13, 22:28
Without going into pedant mode...
You actually are going there LOL
Tell me.... 'wind blowing, breaking trees and branches falling on a car and car ending up in a ditch'. Of course, in your understanding the driver is at fault because he couldn't avoid a one-ton tree trunk trashing his car while he was minding his business... Yeah, the road code probably expects you to do your best to avoid an accident but in all the car accidents I had I was never at fault... not because I'm this super-good driver but because someone (in 50% of the cases) bumped into my car or something else caused it (the other 50%).
So, I can be the best driver of the planet but it is not always possible to avoid an accident... therefore, no blame should be put on 'someone' at any cost, it is not always like that.
You actually are going there LOL
Tell me.... 'wind blowing, breaking trees and branches falling on a car and car ending up in a ditch'. Of course, in your understanding the driver is at fault because he couldn't avoid a one-ton tree trunk trashing his car while he was minding his business... Yeah, the road code probably expects you to do your best to avoid an accident but in all the car accidents I had I was never at fault... not because I'm this super-good driver but because someone (in 50% of the cases) bumped into my car or something else caused it (the other 50%).
So, I can be the best driver of the planet but it is not always possible to avoid an accident... therefore, no blame should be put on 'someone' at any cost, it is not always like that.
Actually an insurance company would probably ask, "Were there any weather warnings before you decided to drive that day?"
You actually are going there LOL Nah, that wasn't but seeing as you asked...... :D
Tell me.... 'wind blowing, breaking trees and branches falling on a car and car ending up in a ditch'. Of course, in your understanding the driver is at fault because he couldn't avoid a one-ton tree trunk trashing his car while he was minding his business... Yeah, the road code probably expects you to do your best to avoid an accident but in all the car accidents I had I was never at fault... not because I'm this super-good driver but because someone (in 50% of the cases) bumped into my car or something else caused it (the other 50%).
So, I can be the best driver of the planet but it is not always possible to avoid an accident... therefore, no blame should be put on 'someone' at any cost, it is not always like that.
I'm not saying it must be put on someone at any cost, but if you take everything into account often your 'something else' cause may be attributable to someone's action or inaction. Maybe your own. :eek:
But to try and write off a bump as just an accident is naive and prevents people from learning.
You actually are going there LOL
Tell me.... 'wind blowing, breaking trees and branches falling on a car and car ending up in a ditch'. Of course, in your understanding the driver is at fault because he couldn't avoid a one-ton tree trunk trashing his car while he was minding his business... Yeah, the road code probably expects you to do your best to avoid an accident but in all the car accidents I had I was never at fault... not because I'm this super-good driver but because someone (in 50% of the cases) bumped into my car or something else caused it (the other 50%).
So, I can be the best driver of the planet but it is not always possible to avoid an accident... therefore, no blame should be put on 'someone' at any cost, it is not always like that.
Would an insurance company not go for the old "act of god" clause there?
Would an insurance company not go for the old "act of god" clause there?
Could they prove in a court of law that God exists?
Could they prove in a court of law that God exists?
Actually, the way the law works, if enough people believe in him/her, then the balance of probabilities would be.....yes! :Razz
MerlinScot
12-Feb-13, 10:22
But to try and write off a bump as just an accident is naive and prevents people from learning.Good drivers don't need to be blamed anyway, they don't need useless blame to learn. There is also a share of drivers who won't care about any rules and they will do whatever, so to them an 'accident' isn't ever an accident. Flynn, I know very well that in law and insurance matters they have to find someone to blame at any costs. I wasn't taking into account that side of things. Of course... That is why you pay a lot more for your car insurance if your car is insured against natural disasters...
Actually, the way the law works, if enough people believe in him/her, then the balance of probabilities would be.....yes! :Razz
So.... If a court of law is going to recognise that the will of God could be the main contributing factor in an incident, then, going back to....
its Churchill who are claiming that a speeding driver (unproven but he was known to speed along the lanes regularly) hit a young girl at the side of the road when apparently pulling in to let a car pass (no other driver was at the scene or saw the accident nor have the police found any trace of the alleged other driver). Churchill are now saying that the girl is at fault and are trying to wriggle out of the payout. The girl is in intensive care, with brain damage and will be crippled for life. As she was a horse rider and worked at a stable and frequently rode horses on the local roads and at evening time, Churchill claim she should have known better and therefore put herself at risk by not wearing hi-viz clothing when walking down the lane at night. If by some miniscule chance Churchill win this case, then what is to stop the girl from being sued by the driver for damages and indeed Churchill could well do the same for all their costs and appeal court costs.
Could it not be argued that since God is all powerful & known to be a vengeful God, that maybe, just maybe, God put that child in the path of that oncoming car. For what reason we have no way of knowing as it is not our place to question the will of God but to just accept it.
The best advice for anyone which should always in the back of your mind when setting of behind the wheel should be the same as when I was handed a gun for the first time. This thing is capable of killing people and that's just what it will do if you're careless.
Having said that as a cyclist and runner I think the brightest high viz you can lay your hands on is more important even than a cycle helmet and headphones do nothing for your warning senses. Even if you find yourself unavoidably with the wrong clothing in poor light a newspaper is better than nothing. My nearest miss was a dusk encounter with one of the monks from Fort Augustus in his black habit but fortunately the hood was back and a bald spot caught the light.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.