[Closed] (Self-entitled C0ckwomble in) car hits child....guess who is at fault

The cyclist?

They don’t even pay road tax.

I blame the parents.

I wondered if it might be GW but there's no mention of a BMW 330d

1: Has he driven the Batmobile

2: What is drop of time or is he just reaching for comedy by having the second f drop off?

3: Is he Bruce Lee?

Tell him you've forwarded the email to the police and that it is now a police matter.

another parent came over to tell me that he was shocked that I had managed to brake so hard

I find a child wedged under the front wheel reduces stopping distance quite a significant amount.

Email back saying that part of your business insures the drivers on a popular TV car show.
They are currently looking for a new driver to join their team and, based on his credentials, he would fit the bill perfectly.

Sounds like a pompous arse, but he is probably just trying to come to terms with his guilt so I'd cut him a bit of slack.

If only he’d had a dashcam then we’d all be able to see how he = AWESUM

sounds like a pompous **** but probably has a point.

children do stupid stuff near roads. if the child didn't run out into the road, how did he hit her?

I work for an insurer and have spent the day dealing with an injury claim for one of the world's vainest people, she wants plastic surgery for an injury where three independent plastic surgeons have said the risk of surgery far outweighs the small hardly noticeable scar she has from the accident, and that no way should she have surgery.

Her response, "you don't understand, i am beautiful, and i feel less stunning now with this scar (it is 3mm on her chest), i need to feel beautiful and everytime i look in the mirror, i will no longer think i'm perfect!"

I struggled to keep a straight face........

Calculate the number of children who have crossed that road daily for the number of years that the school has been open, vs the number of them that have been hit by cars. Point out that as he's the only person to have hit a child, it indicates that the solution may not be a crossing.

motorist (of a certain age)

Hang on... I thought Prince Philip had handed over his license already...

Was the child injured? Or just his Rover 400 damaged?

Just write back suggesting that he follows the example of our beloved Prince Philip and calls it a day.

On another note, what is the stopping distance for a slightly ambiguous driving thread these days? 🙂

I struggled to keep a straight face……..

You can get plastic surgery for that.

Corbyn.

Drac

Subscriber

Corbyn.

Has Binner's stolen Drac's iPad?

Ok the driver in question has built himself up to be a driving god, but other than that, what have they actually said that is that bad?
Was the child injured? I'm assuming that because someone actually came into contact with a moving car that the incident was reported to the police?
I'm assuming the OP works at the school that the child is attending?

scar (it is 3mm on her chest)

Pics or it didn't happen. Ahem.

so he didnt actually hit the child?

FIF the driving god..

Unfortunately for this child and her family it was me driving, I say this for three very good reasons:-

1: Despite having spent my entire life in the motor industry and driven almost every type of vehicle there is, I still lack awareness of a vehicles capabilities and unsure if it is being driven within them.

2: I am extremely aware of the obvious dangers whilst driving near schools, especially at drop off and collection time and appreciate that even 15mph is too fast.

3: I have always thought I had quick reactions, but another parent came over to tell me that he was shocked that I had hadn't managed to give enough space to brake safely in such a short space of time.

I’m confident I wouldn't have hit her if my vehicle had been driven less recklessly outside a school.

The reason for this email is for me to communicate in the strongest possible terms the need for me to exercise greater care on the road outside of the school as soon as possible.

C Ockwomble

Sorry to contradict most on here but a child is very capable of stepping out in a split second in front of a car as this guy has pretty much explained. You can drive to the conditions, you can take into account the weather etc but if a kid steps out from between 2 cars into the path of an alert motorist, driving at any speed in those conditions and is trying to be a safe driver and he hits the kid, the kid is too blame.

He even suggests a way of your school ensuring it limits the chances of this happening again, although tbh I can’t see how a crossing would help. More benefit getting all the lazy parents and kids to walk a bit further to school.

Calculate the number of children who have crossed that road daily for the number of years that the school has been open, vs the number of them that have been hit by cars. Point out that as he’s the only person to have hit a child, it indicates that the solution may not be a crossing.

This.

You could narrow it further by pointing out the child has crossed the road X times since starting at school, and only on this day was it an issue...

Email just comes across as a pre-emptive non admission of guilt.

the kid is too blame.

The kid is probably to blame for stepping out in front of the car.

The kid is absolutely not to blame for the drivers self aggrandising attitude.

Apart from the self-indulgent nature of the letter, he may have a point. He isn't blaming the child, he is simply saying that he thinks a crossing might be a good idea.

Or you could point out that if he was going faster he would have passed that point before the child stepped out.......... In the same that if he had never been born.........

Or just ask him for the police indecent number from when he reported hitting the lass.

impact was inevitable

Sounds like they did hit the kid then. In which case, I'd have to assume that some kind of injury (even a graze bruise) was sustained in which case it is the law to exchange details with other reasonably interested parties, and if that isn't done then the police.

I'd be reminding them of that. Other than that - I might give it a few days and then a call to the local police as well just to 'check if you need to do anything else having received the letter'

Sounds like a dick, but I give him points for driving at less than 15mph and taking extra care whilst driving past a school, a lot of the other parents at my Daughters school couldn’t boast that, even in snow. Well, once their own kids are safely past the gates anyway.

Kids appearing between parked cars is one of those nightmares anyone wants to avoid and if you take him at his word the he tried to mitigate the risk about as much as anyone does that I’ve witnessed.

Assuming that someone is always to blame is one of those really recent things. Accidents do happen, and again, if you take him at his gloriously pompous word, it’s ‘one of those things’ that could have been much worse.

Or just ask him for the police indecent number

Picking up a few bits from the responses:

* Yes, 'we' are the school

* Wasn't planning on getting an angry mob with torches to pay him a visit, but more to check I wasn't missing anything obvious before getting back to him

* New school site; relocated from other side of the village and only opened in January

* Access, parking, road signs & markings all been very recently scrutinised and agreed with highways authority, planning dept and plod. carriageway reduction & 'give way' features to allow for a segregated cycle lane has obviously proven popular with the local driving gods

* Yes he hit the child, no he didn't called plod

* Child thankfully not injured

* No witnesses to corroborate his tale, but child came from car parked on 'school side' of the road and was getting wellies out of the boot, so not (or shouldn't have been) crossing the road as he says

* EDIT - we also have a secure, covered cycle or scooter space for every child and encourage all to use them or walk as part of a shiny new travel plan

Man: -
- Writes dickish email
- Understands appropriate safely considerations and describes driving with consideration and caution

STW Massive: -
- Sharpen pitchforks
- Get the lynching rope handy

Somehow this seems just a little holier than thou. Blokes driven safely just written a letter that makes him look a bit of a dick. Cut him some slack FFS.

All very odd. A "extremely aware" driving god with "extremely quick reactions" doing "less than fifteen MPH" is somehow unable to spot a potential hazard until they are "no more than four or five feet in front" and "impact was inevitable".

Something doesn't quite fit there.

I mean, he is probably right in that the child was at fault for stepping into the road (and the parent/carer for letting them), but if he was half the omnipotent driving god he professes then there wouldn't have been an issue.

Man driving past school surprised to find child in road shocker.

It's really simple, is this. Kids do not teleport. He should be driving at a speed where he can stop in the distance he can see, including the off-chance of kids running out from between two cars. He may well be a driving god, an Eagle-Eye Action Man and "only" doing 15mph, but this was stll demonstrably too fast if he hit a kid outside a school.

He might have a point about requiring a crossing - which is a problem for the council not the school, no? - but it's unlikely to have solved the problem of either welly-wearing or running into the road.

Wasn’t planning on getting an angry mob with torches to pay him a visit,

Not trying to kick it off (we aren't near page 4 yet) but the title of the thread and this statement are not exactly consistent

* Yes he hit the child, no he didn’t called plod

Doesn't the school have a statutory responsibility to do so? After all he left the scene of an incident - that is an offence in itself, no?

but child came from car parked on ‘school side’ of the road and was getting wellies out of the boot, so not (or shouldn’t have been) crossing the road as he says

If driver wasn't driving on the pavement, how did the two meet? Something off about this part of the story.

Why is parking in the road outside schools still allowed? Just creates opportunities for kids to not be seen.

but this was stll demonstrably too fast if he hit a kid outside a school.

Kids can appear from between parked cars quickly enough that any speed can be too fast. So ban cars driving outside schools, or ban cars parking outside schools. Of course if you ban the former the latter becomes impossible.

Ban wellies. This all happened because of the wellies.

Kids can be dicks

Sometimes, shit happens. Little humans can be unpredictable.

I assume you live locally to surfmatt?

child came from car parked on ‘school side’ of the road and was getting wellies out of the boot

I struggle with this too - surely he'd have crushed the kid against the back of the car if this version is correct, though why he was driving straight at the rear of the car is also a mystery. I suspect mummy is protecting Tarquin by massaging the truth.

Truth, as ever, will be somewhere between the two versions but a parent ought to be supervising the (presumably excitable due to snow if you're in the bottom 2/3 of the nation) kid a bit more closely

Careful if ever you drive in France, Moose. In that exact situation you would be responsible even if a pedestrain crosses illegally. Even if the light is green at a pedestrian crossing the driver is expected to anticipate pedestrians crossing and be in a position to be able to stop. If the victim is under 16 or over 70 you will be liable for full damages unless you can prove the victim was committing suicide.

Little humans are predictably unpredictable.

I have a problem with this ego rather than his driving, to be honest. Several years of claims handling in my younger years taught me that drivers are not always at fault.

Fair cop, my personal view is he is a self-entitled cockwomble, not necessarily for his driving (although his claim of doing 15mph is of course his word) but more so for deciding to tell us what a driving god he was, how the girl he hit was lucky it was him and of course that despite everyone with a professional understanding of all the issues deciding otherwise he demands a zebra crossing / lollipop lady because he knows better.

Re cars parking near the school, I'm sure we all know the maximum length of 'SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR' zig-zags is 43metres per access, so despite having had an extra set added beyond what was mandated this still leaves beyond 20m either side of the access as not restricted for parents to park.........no matter how much we have done to make walking / cycling / scooting as easy as possible.

Not saying child didn't wander out from directly behind the car she had been in, we all know they haven't got the same roadcraft as adults but equally wouldn't bet against her having been startled by the sound of a skidding car as perhaps he jammed on the anchors realising the cars in front of him were stationary. Who knows?

Re notifying the rozzers, I got the email this afternoon and will be doing so tomorrow

Doesn’t the school have a statutory responsibility to do so? After all he left the scene of an incident – that is an offence in itself, no?

1. Not if he provided his details to anyone at the scene who may have needed them (the parent of said child being the most likely).
2. Not if (as the OP says*) nobody was injured (and no other vehicle or property was damaged).

How do we know he didn't provide his details to the police anyway?

*I'm amazed that there was no bruising at all.

Why is parking in the road outside schools still allowed? Just creates opportunities for kids to not be seen.

Whilst it would pain me to admit there might be a grain of validity behind the driver's letter - if yellow zig zags are not the solution perhaps double yellows are (even if restricted to 0830-0930 and 1500-1600 or whatever the times need to be).

Careful if ever you drive in France, Moose. In that exact situation you would be responsible even if a pedestrain crosses illegally. Even if the light is green at a pedestrian crossing the driver is expected to anticipate pedestrians crossing and be in a position to be able to stop. If the victim is under 16 or over 70 you will be liable for full damages unless you can prove the victim was committing suicide.

Little humans are predictably unpredictable.

Meh, that's what I pay insurance for, can only do so much not to endanger others. Some are just oblivious to it through stupidity or in the little humans case, inexperience.

I am of the opinion that it would be difficult to imagine a car and a person coming together and not resulting in a bruise/scrape even minor.
Still should be reported within 24 hours though even when no damage injury, technically?

Indeed. Other places do this much better. You can park (legally) anywhere near a school. Doesn't stop all the parents do IIIng it on the grounds of "safety" but at least they can be moved on.

. In that exact situation you would be responsible even if a pedestrain crosses illegally

Not saying this is wrong but it seems at odds with the laws about yeilding. How can you be a fault if you have the right of way?

1): "Tout conducteur est tenu de céder le passage aux piétons régulièrement engagés dans la traversée d'une chaussée" (any driver has to give right of way to pedestrians regularly engaged in the crossing of a road). That meant that once you had started crossing, cars had to slow down or stop, but it did not mean that cars had to slow down or stop if you were still on the pavement waiting to pass.

This article was changed on the 12 November 2010 to say: "Tout conducteur est tenu de céder le passage, au besoin en s'arrêtant, au piéton s'engageant régulièrement dans la traversée d'une chaussée ou manifestant clairement l'intention de le faire" (any driver has to give right of way, if necessary by stopping, to pedestrians regularly engaged in the crossing of a road or clearly showing the intention to do it).Unless within 50 metres of a marked crossing

Re: scud’s claimant with the scar that’s disfigured her outstanding beauty - it wasn’t this woman, was it...

Holy shit!

Still should be reported within 24 hours though even when no damage injury, technically?

No.

RTA s170. Says (paraphrased):
1. If your car causes:
(a) An injury or
(b) Damage to another car, certain type of animal, or property on or near the road
2. The driver must stop, and if asked to do so provide their details to anyone with reasonable cause to request it.
3. If they don't / can't do 2 - they must report it to the police.
4. Failing to do either 2 or 3 are separate offences
5. If someone was injured and you didn't produce the certificate of insurance at the scene you must do so to the police.*
6. If 3 or 5 apply you must report as soon as practical and always within 24 hrs.
7. If you report because of 5, but don't have the certificate you will be allowed 7 days to produce it.
8. The animals referred to in 1b are basically farm animals and dogs (not cats).

* The police can demand to see that in any case under s165, but here the obligation is on the driver to initiate the process.

I struggle with this too – surely he’d have crushed the kid against the back of the car if this version is correct,

I don't quite this either. Presumably it was hitting the child that stopped him running into the back of the car? Or the child walked out in front of the car.

Accident avec un piéton qui traverse au bonhomme rouge ?

Lorsque vous avez malheureusement un accident avec un piéton qui a traversé au feu bonhomme rouge (ou même en dehors d’un passage piéton), vous êtes redevable des indemnités liées aux dommages corporels dans la plupart des cas (sauf suicide ou faute inexcusable évoquée plus haut qu’il faudra prouver). Le piéton est en infraction, est responsable mais vous avez tort puisque vous deviez anticiper sa traversée. C’est une situation paradoxale dans le code de la route, souvent décriée mais bien réelle.

https://www.legipermis.com/blog/2015/05/18/pieton-qui-traverse-au-rouge-est-il-dans-son-droit/

I suspect many parents doing la conduite accompagnée learn more than their kids.

It’s really simple, is this. Kids do not teleport. He should be driving at a speed where he can stop in the distance he can see

There is the tiniest chink in your argument. What happens when people move themselves into your ‘thinking’ distance? You cannot drive slowly enough to totally remove the possibility hitting a pedestrian - should they choose to step in front of you.

There are two ways to reduce risk. Reduce or remove the impact and/or reduce the likelihood of occurrence. Driver seems to have reduced both but cannot remove both.

By your rationale, to eliminate risk cars would have to be small stationary sitting rooms, mounted on round rubber legs.

Interesting blog. They missed the bit about the pedestrian needing to make his)her intention to cross the road clear. I wonder if stepping into the road without looking is sufficiently egregious to qualify as an exemption.
That is some crazy law-making right there. It's not your fault, there is nothing you could do about it, but it is your responsibility.

Sounds like he was paying more attention than many of the school run drivers I have seen recently, they would have whooshed directly over the child.
If you have never caught a fleeting glimpse of a tiny child running along the pavement before they run out from between parked cars in front of you then think on it.
Why not write back thanking him for his letter and careful driving , including an explanation of why there is no pedestrian crossing or whatever, that driver cared enough to write to the school,
you could have been reading and writing a very different letter...

This is that video from above. Guess who is at fault!

That is some crazy law-making right there.

It's excellent.

On my last visit to the UK I went on foot to Whitlock's End Station. Google map it, use street view and tell me how I'm am legally supposed to cross the road to get to it when there is a continuous stream of commuter traffic (as you'll see from street view). I tried being polite for several minutes, walked to the top off the railway bridge where I could be seen from a long way both ways, lost patience and did it the way I'm familar with, arm up and walk, and to hell with the panik braking, waved fists etc.

British drivers hate pedestrians and cyclists, and in a way they didn't in the 70s. That was my verdict after a week.

If it’s anything like our local school he should run the parents over for their parking and chaotic behaviour behind the wheel whilst dropping off the little poppets as close to the gate as possible.

Anyhow the solution is obvious:

And that pic reminds me we're having trouble sorting out a route horse trek we'd like to because horses are banned in some Spanish towns.

i remember being taught how to cross the road in ho-chi-min city. if you waited for a gap you would be there for ever, take a leap of faith, step out into the stream of mopeds and they would part around you. don't stop and don't step back or you would get run over.

Fortunately for this child and her family it was me driving

That's my favourite line from the e-mail, although I do wonder if he hit the child on purpose just so he could boast about his driving prowess

ask him for the police indecent number

69?

It’s excellent.

Its French. They do have some interesting interpretations of individual vs collective responsibility.

Whitlock’s End Station...., tell me how I’m am legally supposed......to get to it

It's a train station, take the train obvs.

. That was my verdict after a week.

It's good that you took the time to really get to know the place and gather your data......

British drivers hate pedestrians and cyclists, and in a way they didn’t in the 70s. That was my verdict after a week

It's an unfair comparison to compare driving almost half a century ago with today. Beeching had only just finished closing the railways ffs. Many of today's roads were probably weed overgrown railway track then.

People can get a hate on about people that drive cars in this country, but statistics show that we have amongst the safest roads in the World. Fewer deaths in a country with a fairly high population density. We are safer than nearly every country that we can compare vehicle safety standards with in Europe, so it can't all be down to safer cars. In truth the UK has good driving laws on the whole and it may be unfashionable to say it but the general population follow those rules sensibly.

The OP's situation probably wouldn't have happened outside a Parisien school as there would have been no gap between the bumpers of the parked cars.

Kids do not teleport

You sir, do not have children.

They absolutely can, and do, teleport.

We are safer than nearly every country that we can compare vehicle safety standards with in Europe

Very true for car occupant safety, athgray. But with a high proportion of pedestrians among road accident victims and a poor record on cyclist deaths per km covered.

There would have been a 30kmh limit past the parisienne school and a manned crossing.

French road safety records are lousy, some aspects are really lousy, scooter deaths, Saturday night deaths (and drink/drugs in general), people dozing off on quiet autoroutes, overtaking on routes nationales.

Some rules though do make things more comfortable for pedstrians and cyclists and are generally well respected. The 1m (town) and 1.5m (country) cyclist pass rule, the idea that you always give way to the weakest road user even if they are doing something they shouldn't, the ability to cross a road anywhere once 50m from a pedestrian crossing.

But with a high proportion of pedestrians among road accident victims and a poor record on cyclist deaths per km covered

I just read an article following Froomes collision saying that 6% of road deaths in the UK are cyclists. This is a bit higher than 4% in France but lower than the 8% EU average.

I can't see stats for accidents and deaths per km cycled though. Do you have a source Edukator?

This very forum a couple of years back, athray, someone linked it in a helmet debate. Holland was about the lowest (despite virtually no helmet use) and the UK one of the highest.

Edit: and EU averages a heavily skewed by the old eastern block countires such as Romania where safety stats are like France in the 70s.

If he's so fantastic, how's he managed to run over someone?

There's sufficient signage near schools to ensure that if you hit a child, it should be your fault regardless of circumstances. This is just crap observation on his part (you'd think his superior skills would suggest that perhaps 15mph between parked cars outside a school is a bad idea...).

It’s really simple, is this. Kids do not teleport.

You’re quite right. They don’t. But sometimes it is absolutely impossible to avoid hitting someone.
I’ve done it, on a 125cc motorbike, whilst filtering through stationary traffic. I was going slow, maybe 10-15mph and I had my fingers on the brake. I saw him come from my right between two parked cars (single lane one way with cars parked either side) I literllay saw him dash away from his parents, and I braked before he’d done more than a step or so, and I’d probably just about stopped by the time he ran into my front wheel, tripped, and measured his length between the two cars to my left. Obviously I stopped and had an amicable chat with his dad. I was mortified. Thankfully he only had skinned hands and a huge tyre mark up his leg. I apologised profusely but his dad said no need and we parted on good terms. I think he got a telling off for it. I can still remember it well.....

But this guy is a right dick for sure.

I just read an article following Froomes collision saying that 6% of road deaths in the UK are cyclists. This is a bit higher than 4% in France but lower than the 8% EU average.

Those are very misleading statistics though, because they don't account for the percentage of road users that are cyclists.

i.e. if 6 in 100 road deaths are cyclists but only 1 in 100,000 road users are cyclists then you are obviously not doing as well as somewhere that 8 in 100 deaths are cyclists but 50% of road users are on a bike. Likewise banning cycling completely could get you to 0% of road deaths being cyclists, but it wouldn't make it a good place to cycle 🙂

Also the actual numbers of incidents matters too. e.g. 50% of deaths would sound a lot until you realised they were only two fatalities that year.

There’s sufficient signage near schools to ensure that if you hit a child, it should be your fault regardless of circumstances.

i knocked a child over outside my sons school once. i was walking mind and he ran in front of me. maybe we should ban walking in front of schools too...

What sort of speed were you walking at though? Did you have a helmet and high viz jacket on?

I just read an article following Froomes collision saying that 6% of road deaths in the UK are cyclists. This is a bit higher than 4% in France

I wouldn't describe 50% higher as "a bit".

I think if he were really anywhere near as good a driver as he makes out, he would have worked out that the solution is to avoid driving past the school if possible. Regardless of how recently thought out the access plans are, kids are sometimes going to run out into the road, this will happen more around schools.
Personally, I would pass it onto the police as they have a stake in ensuring the school access is safe, and if another child were fatally injured they may well be the ones telling the parents.
There's always a decent amount of dickish behaviour by drivers outside schools, someone deciding that their child is so important it's OK to park on the massive "SCHOOL" zig zags, etc. I'm glad that dealing with it doesn't form part of my job!

someone deciding that their child is so important it’s OK to park on the massive “SCHOOL” zig zags

Pretty sure it's not the child they feel is important but themselves. I love dropping my daughter off at school on the rare occasions I have time but I despair at the levels of idiocy I see from other parents.

I would pass it onto the police as they have a stake in ensuring the school access is safe, and if another child were fatally injured they may well be the ones telling the parents.

That's a good point actually. If there is a risk that could be mitigated before someone is seriously injured then there's merit in starting that ball rolling.