speedking

Have done a search but haven't seen this mentioned anywhere.

In the papers is a suggestion that the law will be revised to make a driver absolutely responsible if involved in an accident with a child pedestrian.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/pri...259948,00.html

Irrespective of whether the child runs into the road unannounced. Mitigation like driving below the speed limit will not matter. The driver (or his insurance company) must pay compensation, and the driver will lose his no claims even if accepted to be blameless.

Apparently this bring us into line with some other European countries, e.g. Holland.

I think this is mad. Why not set up a fund to cover such incidents from the insurance pool, rather than penalising individuals. Surely that's the point of insurance?

Discuss.

Ringpeas

Hmmmmm, I can see a lot of 'traveller's' kids diving in front of cars

prodriva

One of the many reasons why I voted for the UK Independance Party, nuff said.

RayC

Why not change the law to make sense, like add more crossings and if you are in the road and not on a crossing a get hit, you pay for the damage on the car, if its a child, sting the parents.

drumsterphil

iTrader: (1)

Another ridiculous suggestion.

In much the same way as scameras have saved lives, eh? Presumption of innocence is fine as long as it's nto a motoring offence, eh?!

It's gonna get to the stage where every person who drives will be required by law to recite "Cars are evil, drivers are evil" 100 times every morning.

unclebuck

And there will be an electronic device to count each chant, with stiff fines for those who fail to comply. The Politically Correct loonies are poised to take over the asylum..... be afraid.

UB

ajm

You would think the government, if they are genuinely interested in producing and keeping alive as many kids as possible, would be more interested in making sure that those same kids turn into tax paying adults rather than dole bludging chavs but there we go... wacky anti driver laws will do instead...

what would scooby do

What if one drops off a bridge on to your car

ajm

In the Dutch example:

So if a child under 14 cannot be expected to observe traffic rules why the hell are they allowed on the road??? Why weren't the parents responsible for allowing the kid on the road????

Align with Europe my ****.

OllyK

And yet they can ride a push bike on the road?? Oh and give them another 2 years and they suddenly know it all because they can then ride a scooter!!

I remember the same thing being banded around for accidents involving cyclists a couple of years back, not sure what happened to that.

Diablo

Jeesus, that means once you hit the pedestrian, you have to "whack" any witnesses as well

Claudius

LOL

Not sure how old you need to be in the UK to drive a scooter, but in France you can get a 50cc from the age of 14. And they expect you to know the rules!

unclebuck

I thought the only rule in France was "there are no rules" (in Paris anyway)

UB

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Just more lunacy from Lying Loony Labour.

Let's just hope that ALL drivers remember this sort of ****e round the time of the next election....................

Alcazar

Freak

anyone who voted these tossers in, thanks a f*cking bunch

scoobynutta555

From the link:

"The Department for Transport commissioned a group of academics to study road safety policy in other European countries and identify any measures that might save children’s lives. "

I see no reference to it becoming Labour policy

The closest I see it: A DfT spokesman said: “We will consider this, but it would require quite a radical shift in the law.”
Hardly remotely likely to become policy.

Being among the highest numbers of child pedestrian deaths in Europe the UK should feel duty bound to search out what other countries are doing.

Whilst I do not agree with the reports recommendations that car drivers are automatically at fault, it seems to be bandwagon jumping to assume it will be labour policy come the next election.

Having not read the report, I'd say it was just one proposal to the problem, and that there would be other recommendations in it that are not as unfair to drivers such as this one.

But for the purposes of journalism these are not included due to lack of dramatic abhorrence.

Would you rather there was no report on lowering child deaths due to car accidents?

Leslie

Surely the answer is what used to be done years ago, and that is education. I don't remember having seen any kind of code being taught to children for years. It just seems to be easier to let them do what they want without any guidance these days, and look where that is getting us!

Half the time their parents set a seriously bad example anyway and just jaywalk all over the place expecting car drivers to miss them while they step onto the road without even bothering to look out first.

Car drivers have enough to cope with in towns with poor roads, multifarious signs badly sited all over the place, obstructions to be negotiated, without having to be responsible for an accident caused by a child running into the road without warning. I'm really impressed with the women who push their child in a wheelchair onto a road in front of them without looking for traffic first. Why should we have to second guess these idiots and then be held responsible for any accident they cause.

If anyone hits a child through their own fault then they deserve what they get, but this idea is well beyond the pale.

Put the responsibility where it belongs, at the feet of the parents.

Les

Jerome

As appalling as 79 children killed is for those involved, that doesn't seem like a very high number to me. And what about the country that doesn't have these laws that came in 3rd best in least number of children killed. Why don't we emulate them?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

When my cousin hit a young teenager who ran out between cars and head butted the windscreen and A-pillar of the car he was driving, he was crapping himself that he would be implicated in some way (as well as the shock, distress, etc). Even though there was nothing he could have done.

So, potentially, if this proposal ever came to being, he would be locked up, labelled as the scum of society and the cause of all of the UK's problems??

Ridiculous, if anyone deserves to be run over it's nutcases who think this up. No, actually it would be far more ironic if they ran over a kid whilst driving and got implicated by their own law I'd love to know what "herbs" they smoke....could do with some of that myself to take me away from the woes of the real world

ajm

I expect if they looked properly they would see that the top 3 countries have kids who are better disciplined, better educated about road safety and who have parents who take responsibility to make sure they are. This, however, wouldn't fit into Blair's nanny society where people who can't pay fines and taxes, e.g. children, are deemed to be unable to take responsibility for their own actions and therefore liability must fall on those who can pay.

What sort of a message does this send out to kids? It says "don't you worry about road safety, do what you like it will be the motorist's fault". By taking the emphasis off education in road safety they will end up killing MORE kids.... my satisfaction as their plan crashes and burns will come at a very high price.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

As my mind wanders into the stupidty of the Blair state....just think of the amount of taxpayers money that is wasted in investigating (??!!!?? more like spent nattering with their work collegues and playing solitaire) all of this and comming forward with this illogical proposal that has no hint of common sense.

And then think of what use that money would have been if it were used to create road safety campaigns in schools and on TV (like what they did when I was at school in the 80's).

Back in the 80's "Charlie" was a badly animated cat that had more road sense than the moggies round where I live....to the post '90's generations it's an old-school Prodigy classic

Sith

Bloody good one though. But I share the sentiments.

My brother got done when someone ran into the side of his car. He didn't run in to them. They ran into him He still got done. Even though he hadn't done anything wrong. :smacks head: Duh! being a motorist is enough now adays.

spufus

iTrader: (2)

That was also when "common sense" was actually common!