heresmo

Reading AnotherGareth's court case link (ta for that), it would seem that there wasn't a particular oncoming driver, but that the driver was ajudged to be concentrating on avoiding oncoming traffic generally, so was not aware (or was less aware) of his immediate foreground. Rate of travel @ 50mph = 73ft per second. Even 45mph is 66ft per second. If focussed on the road ahead (and apparently the driver was in a hurry so presumably a fairly constant focus), I reckon you'd have to have blinking good eyesight to swap to short-distance focus at side vision and react in time for an obstacle (even if lit up) and still be able to brake (or avoid) in time. Coming to a complete stop at 50 mph is some 175 ft apparently. Case versus principle again. In principle, I'd have everyone lit up like Christmas trees. I'd also have every driver paying attention and driving safely for the road conditions.

As I understand it, not having a tax disc is a criminal offence whereas not displaying one (or not displaying it in the right place) is a civil office. Policemen haven't bothered to check for tax discs or care if one is displayed or not as "not their problem" for as long as I can remember. Well, apart from if as part of a "suss" check, unless things have changed and maybe PCSOs check now? Probs best not go there with charging for paper bills yet freely sending multitudinous unsolicited advertising junk mail by some utility companies. TV Licence is different. They just sent a letter saying that this was the last piece of paper they'd send but will of course be carrying on the direct debit. Hmm.

As reported (such as reports are), the ins. appeal is centred on the girl, Bethany, with the third party, the oncoming driver, seemingly not figuring. If TOD did figure in the incident, I guess that must have been dealt with during the original trial and the ins. co. thought it infeasible (meritless) to include him/her in their appeal. The telling thing perhaps is that the ins. co. were given leave to appeal, so I wonder how much we don't know... It's hard not to equate this with personal experience of near misses of "invisble" people. In truth, if you live where "cool" people insist on being invisble, you do learn to look out for them. I'd imagine that on country roads the same is true, even if one might be looking out for animals, but basically looking out for anything. If it does become a precedent that people of all ages should be wearing or have worn hi-vis when it's dark, at least in insurance settlement claims terms, then gawd help peeps who'll be deemed fair game if they're not hi-vis.

@ Clunkclick: On cycling, I followed my mid-teens son as a kerb crawler whilst he was on his new bike. I was horrified and immediately booked him a one-to-one training session about £100/hr(!) at the time, covering traffic, roundabouts, right turns etc. He was so put off that he refused to ride it, in London that is, which many will tell you is not for the faint hearted, ho hum. I think some schools do run such courses for free for early teens, although some kids are "street" enough just to "geddit" and annoyingly weave in and out a bit like motorbikes do. Depends on the location as to how aware motorist are of cyclists, or bother to take notice of them. I've often thought that you need to be a cyclist to know how to drive a car, and know how to drive a car to be able to ride a bike.

I'm trying to figure out what Churchill Ins. hope to gain from what seems to be an almost frivolous attempt to ignore the causal facts in this case, being, apparently, that a vehicle travelling too quickly swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle. It seems unlikely to me that they will win the appeal in this case, which will presumably be determined on the facts of the case, so are they hoping that a glimmer of judicial acknowledgement will allow insurance companies to use it as a precedent to mitigate future claims? It's hard to separate this case from the principles that Churchill appear to be trying to set, or get recognised. For example, in this case, it would seem that even if Bethany were lit up like a Christmas tree, the driver would instinctively have swerved to avoid a head-on collision so could well still have clipped her, visible or not, in the split second he seems to have left himself. A case from ages ago was where a motorist tried to avoid a bill to pay for a damaged central island light. He contended that he wouldn't have run into it had it been lit so it was the council's fault because it was unlit. Needless to say, his defence was thrown out. The words were something like "don't be silly, it could have been a child". Luckily, it wasn't a child. In this case it is and one can only feel sad that it happened. Headphones - debatable. They don't blot out all sound, and given Bethany was seemingly walking expecting a lift, she'd probably have been on the lookout for her mum's car anyway and would likely have been aware of the headlights of the two cars (supposition and without knowing the road layout), but in principle alone, it's hard to see why any person should have to jump out of the way of a speeding car and should have every right in my opinion to assume that drivers knew what they were doing. Age (13) is a red herring, I reckon. I do wish people would be uncool and wear something white, be it trainers, hat/scarf whatever. I carry a white plastic shopping bag even in the high street after the rush hour when it's dark as some cars/motorbikes go at least 40mph, tsk. Anyway, Hi ScoobyChris and David 8. 'Tis I. Hope you and yours are all well

http://www.dailymail...l#axzz2KElhc8PM Should pedestrians be culpable if they don't make an effort at being visible? What do ye all think? Although I truly wish people would not wear head-to-toe black because they just can't be seen, would not wearing something white or reflective be seen as a readymade excuse for careless drivers who "couldn't be expected to see them". Interested in what people think on here.

I think this sort scam survives because of the "Someone (unspecified) from your company agreed during a phone call" and they say that therefore a verbal contract was formed, followed by "We sent you the confirmation contract documents with right to cancel" which of course one's ever received. Perhaps someone who's succeeded in fighting one could report their outcome? Clearly it helps when loadsapeeps are all saying "What?" and news gets around. Clearly one shouldn't pay any such invoice. It'd be nice to know the easiest way of "not" spending hours and money disputing them though whilst they typically will do the bailiffs and added costs thingy... Anyone? I know a bit about the law, but these scammers have got it down to a T of course. Mo

I know nothing. A hint of joy from your original post is: "Insurers have stated they hold neighbour responsible and have written requesting his insurance details," so implying that it is covered within your policy. Now to me, that means they haven't written off your claim offhandedly with a "Sorry mate, not covered - read the small print," which can happen with some exterior areas. On that basis, I'd say they should cover their own investigation costs and they can reclaim them later - or not if they are found liable to cover the damage, in which case they'll probably pass it back to you (with costs) as being not in a suitable state whatever. Which brings in the other question as to whether you would pay out anything if you are liable to finish up with a bill for for whole or partial reparation anyway. Running it past a suitable independent solicitor might be an idea. Boundary debates are hardly scarce so plenty around who specialise in them. Good luck.

:offchair: And just when I was thinking that I couldn't see the strings or "chocks". See I'd have put you down as an expert photshop-ist. Dunno why they bother with cgi when all you need is enough brains to fool peeps and no worries at all if all as daft as me for overthinking things. Collapses into giggles. Can I come and sign your cast please? Thinking of suitable signing in case you say yes. Mo

Blimey! I fell over immediately when I was given a pair - nearly cracking my head against a brick wall (but didn't, Superman to the rescue). If' I'd known they could stand up by themselves, I'd have told them off there and then Consequently decided I'd be better off with a walking stick and was forever hooking it over a door handle, then employing counter or furniture or wheely typist chair. Then having to hop around to remember where I'd left the darn thing. Playing one-legged hopscotch is easier said than done though when drops something. Perhaps better off sticking to daytime TV and invalid bell for now - or wearing a workman's pinafore with lots of pockets Amazing what one can still do. Dunno how the heck you got those to balance in the photograph, let alone getting self into position and taking a photo. :bowdown: Mo

So I guess for a contract phone, best to report both. I suppose they probably ask anyway. Would be good if the advantage of nicking them were removed - no doubt about that. Seemingly kids at bus stops with phones and laptops are targetted - probably been mentioned before, or peeps just lose them.

Well, mine is just my experience. I can get down to a kneeling position easily without pain and even remain there, but after a minute or so I know it will seize up and other leg not strong enough to get me up again so need arms on something to pull self up. I can kneel on good knee only and get up from there (by putting bad knee down and using good knee to get up). There seem to be bits around the knee bone now that are like the funny bone, i.e. inordinately painful for a slight tap, but they are "catch points" so ordinary bashing against something hurts only because I've obviously bashed it. The above is irrelevant really - you need to tell them what you are experiencing of course and how important it is for you to be able to kneel etc and how it is affecting your work/life.

Re the IMEI - serial number. *#06# means I've got mine now. If the idea of knowing it is to tell it to one's provider to report phone stolen, would they not cancel it (block usage) from just knowing the phone number? Thinking of danger if stolen if contract phone with "free" allowance but still have to pay for calls beyond allowance. I suppose it's a case of reading the small print but why would the serial number be more efficient than a phone's allocated number to block its use? :confused: Ta Mo

I had that knee ligament problem from a fall about 5(?) years ago. It was a problem (just from walking, so running or stairs was off the cards). They did a keyhole surgery op a few months later. From the Xray shown to me, it was to remove furry bits that had collected around it that would prevent natural lubrication to the knee joint that would normally occur from movement. I was worried about arthritis setting in if bone joints can't move properly so can't clear fluids trying to get past. Fine after op for normal things (within reason, as I'm hardly an athlete). I'm not a doctor so can't say whether gym is good or bad since could be forcing joints to do something they can't if "clogged up", thinking deffo not good to wear bones away against one another. My osteopath said to sit on a high stool and swing legs (to lubricate), which puts no stress on joint as gym exercises could well do. Back to the doc? Saying that because shouldn't have tender spots after it's been fixed unless something is in the wrong place or is becoming so, maybe "collecting" whatever not being flushed is making pressing on nerve or something which it shouldn't be if it were "right". Sorry for inarticulate post - not sure how else to describe it. Mo

I was delighted yesterday to learn that a relative who receives "spider" calls that say, e.g. "Press 9 if you do not want to receive further calls" confirmed that just puts the phone down and doesn't press anything. (Phew, breathes sigh of relief.) Not quite the same thing but me delighted anyway. They do look genuine. A letter I received snail mail looked genuine but had spelling mistakes that rose my hackles. Turns out it was genuine, lol, so no wonder scams get through. Mo