Safe Speed Forums

The idea of liability insurance for pedestrians is worthy of some more consideration but it would not easily be enforceable. I'm sure if pedestrians were held responsible for their actions, insurance companies would offer the requisite policies, but it would not be possible to force insurance before allowing people to walk on the roads / pavements.

Are there any recorded instances of an "incident" (something that has caused an insurance company to pay out) to be wholly attributed to the actions of a pedestrian? Has any insurance company ever succesfully been able to recover their costs from a pedestrian?

I know when my car was attacked by a drunk pedestrian the insurance company tried to reclaim their costs (to recover their money, and to give me my no-claims bonus back) but the courts decided that the £300 fine he had been given was punishment enough (for £600 worth of damage to my car, £1000's to the other cars he attacked) and would not release his name and address. The fact that the insurance company were not "punishing" him but trying to get back their money didn't seem to occur to the court!

If courts regularly found pedestrians at fault and made them liable for all of the costs, insurance policies may become more popular / available.

Do any insurers offer a pedestrian based liability insurance?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

yeah, sorry, I meant to comment on that but in my excitement at copying & pasting some text from a spreadsheet into the post, I forgot!

IIRC some discussion took place a couple of years ago about revising the stopping differences - to reflect improvements in brakes (discs over drums, ABS, EBFD, stability control etc.) and even the fact that the HC stopping distances were based on radial tyres. The decision was taken by TPTB not to adjust them - but for what reason I can't recall. I'd be happy if they extended thinking distance / time by a couple of milliseconds if the stopping distance elements were revised based on real world evidence - not an average, but the upper limit of normal distribution, woud probably still be less than the highway code shows.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I don't know about any proven cases, but its very easy to see how an errant pedestrian could make someone drop a bike - imagine you're just committing to a corner and the ped is stood still on the kerb (you've already seen them and decided they're safe). Then they decide to step out into the road whilst you're cornering - you can't brake too well once you're leaned over and plastics can be extremely expensive to replace...

I know its a bit of a long-shot example, but you see the point I'm trying to make...I was knocked off a pushbike by someone doing just that whilst I was at uni.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Of course a table of stopping distances is COMPLETELY useless to a driver. The table cannot take account of conditions (wet / dry / uphill / downhill etc etc).

But much more than that - drivers can't measure the distance ahead of themselves when they are driving. In practice we become quite good at planning braking but the distance interstep is completely absent.

(when I say 'interstep' I'm thinking:

- see
- estimate distance < this is the interstep
- judge braking point
)

And beyond even that - where an interstep may sometimes be in use, I'm pretty sure that it's time, not distance.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think we've discussed this before - for a moving body, time and distance are inextricably linked.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

It's probably a distraction from the thread, but we're talking human judgement here - not physics. It seems to me that the whole driving process is about 'timing your arrival' at a hazard.

But it's a distraction from the point too. I'd rather see braking times in the Highway Code rather than braking distances. Emergency braking is around 20mph per second and the whole thing is just so easy.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

see, that's where you are missing the point. We ARE talking about physics, because that's what is going on all the time your driver is judging his timing. Time and distance are still inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other for a body in motion!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

See what you started Smeggy?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that pedestrians have become worse on their legs than drivers have in their cars. The driving test, although only a snapshot of ability, has nonetheless become much more intense, comprehensive and expensive - whereas pedestrians have regressed.

There's never been a pedestrian test of course but you did get more responsible parenting and a different attitude back in the ole' days. Dare I say it but how can a child get guidance from a mum who herself is a child. Whoa Tone! Don't open that box

In my day, if someone jumped in front of a car people would question the pedestrian firstly. These days it's my right to jump in front of your car, if I so choose, just like it's my right to break into your house and you can't slap me. (Reasonable force my arse).

I know it sounds like I've gone off track but it's all intrinsically connected and there's a fine balance, just like everything in nature. I have seen a total shift of responsibility and blame in my lifetime and the pedestrian verses road user is just an extension of today's prevailing attitude.

As a kid, if I got whacked by a teacher at school I wouldn't dare tell my mum cuz she'd tear me off a strip too, unless the teacher belted seven shades of s**t out of me.

The road issue is important to us all but we are looking at an elephant through a magnifying glass. The bigger picture is about how our world is rapidly changing and the whole road use/abuse is just a reflection of how we, as a society, are losing - have lost - our way.

Well that's what I think anyway.

Tone - a man of whom someone once said "who"?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

No, it's YOU that's missing the point.

OF COURSE time speed and distance are 'inextricably linked', however we have to be concerned with real world drivers' judgement and perception processes. I'm convinced that we work in speed and time and ignore distance (which follows along behind, like a faithfull puppy).

This has serious implications for communicating with drivers, and for skills development.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I did say "most vehicles". HGVs make up less than 3% of motor traffic.

The lie refers to the claim that VED is spent in this way. There is no mechanism for linking how money is raised with the way it is spent.
The Treasury also likes to pretend that NI is separate from income tax and pays for the NHS, benefits and pensions; which also isn't the case.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

New roads have the same rules as old roads. They also tend to be paid for the same way.
An old road converted to a motorway or runway would be covered by the rules relating to it's new status. (In some cases, that's probably unconstitutional.)

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Then I shall have to think of another example if I want to use a similar argument in future.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

What a great expression that is!



Absolutely Tone. Attitudes on the roads are merely a subset of our attitudes in general. We are fast becoming an isolationist society that has difficulty getting along with itself. Until the bigger picture gets sorted out people will still snarl at anyone driving 'too fast' through their bit of country, ownership being assumed by dint of residence and moral high ground adoption. And motorists will snarl at anyone who gets in their way on their road, ownership being assumed by dint of having a circle of paper stuck in the corner of their windscreen.
And the crazy thing is, the two groups are amorphous. Pedestrians and angry residents often drive cars, and motorists step out of the vehicles and become pedestrians.

Pedestrians are not obliged to carry third party insurance. If they did, the premiums would be low, probably even lower than 3rd party is for cyclists. Insurance is only required when the risks are high.
If a pedestrian causes an accident they are still liable and can be sued.

Serious road accidents involving horses and waggons were common in the days before cars. It might well be that the roads are much safer now than then.

If cars had never been invented (or allowed on the public highway), there would still be usable roads. There would still also be a lot more railway links left. Society would build for itself the communication system it required.

If two pedestrians collide very little harm is done. If a motorist and a pedestrian collide, death or serious injury is a likely result. The danger comes from the car, the driver is responsible for the presence of that danger.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

In theory maybe, in practice les likely - in my case, where I (or rather my car) was physically attacked by a drunk pedestrian as I drove along, the court found him guilty of criminal damage but actively denied me the chance to recover my excess and thus I suffer from increased insurance premiums

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I once read of a case where a pedestrian walked into the road and caused a motor cyclist to crash. The courts awarded some huge sum to the biker (brain damage) which the pedestrian could not possibly afford, so was required to make regular payments as long as they both lived.
A really prudent person would take out 3rd party in case of something like this happening.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

The driver of a dumper truck backed into my wife's car. He was seen doing it, and recognized. It was clear that he knew he'd done it. The bent panels of the car were marked with yellow paint from the dumper.
He drove away. He denied doing it. He denied being the driver of the truck (which was hired by his company.) Because we hoped to claim against his insurance we let our insurance company deal with it. But faced with his flat denials they got nowhere and now we've paid the excess and lost our no-claims bonus. The fact that he was insured was no help to us at all.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

slightly different case to mine - the identity of the scrote who kicked seven shades out of my car was proven beyond doubt - he changed his plea to guilty when he realised he had been identified, and was fined for the criminal damage.

It was the courts who denied me the chance to sue him directly. There was no denial to worry about.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

If a pedestrian causes an accident it is near impossible to sue them. More than likley if you can prove them 90% to blame thier reward from your insurance company will be reduced by 90%. when in reality they should be paying you and your claim should be reduced by 10% for your contribution to the accident.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

If pedestrians were blamed for accidents caused by them running into the road, and could be sued by the motorist for damage to the front bumper for instance, perhaps motorists would be a little bit less careful. I doubt if pedestrians would be any more careful.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.