If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And the people who have done nothing wrong, do they deserve to be punished? The biker will have been financially penalised - likely a written off motorcycle, ruined protective clothing, helmet, boots, etc. And on top of that, he suffered some fairly awful injuries. Should he be punished? Just because the parents have had to deal with the death of their child, it isn't any kind of excuse for an innocent person to suffer from the actions of another.
If someone picks up a gun and kills someone, whether accidental or not, they deserve to be punished. How the hell can you rationalise that they shouldn't be punished? In my opinion, you're demonstrating a rather simplistic, child-like and naive view in all of this...
Where did I say he shouldn't be punished? I said that I don't care where the punishment comes from. If he feels guilty enough that his sleeping and waking life is haunted by what he did for years, he's punishing himself already so IMHO everyone else should keep their hands off.
And if the guy can't claim compensation for his injuries and loss from anywhere other than the parents, should he then have to go without?
Yes, IF they feel guilty enough about it that their life will never be the same.
Another example: Someone kills a close family member. Wanting revenge, I find him before the police does and I cut his arms off. Then the police catch both of us. I should be tried and put to jail for cutting off somebody's arms. He should go free, because having his arms cut off is more than he deserved.
No, I didn't. The innocent road user is either entitled to compensation, or he isn't. He did nothing wrong in this matter, and should not be punished - whether legally or financially. My point is this - if he has done nothing wrong, then no matter how you try to counterargue it, he is entitled to recover his losses, and be compensated for his injuries and trauma.
However unfair it may seem to the parents, the child was their responsibility and was either not under correct supervision, or had not been taught right from wrong. As such - no matter how unfair it may seem, the innocent party deserves to be reimbursed and compensated, and if it has to come from the parents, then it has to come from the parents. It's absolutely tragic that they have lost their son, it really, truly is. But it doesn't change the fact that an innocent party has been injured and punished financially, and this should absolutely not be the case.
That's very right as well. So I guess my opinion should be that (talking about the specific case) the biker has to be compensated, but if the compensation can come from an alternate route than the parents, they'll have to.
It was later discovered that the driver had no licence, no insurance, no MOT, and no tax. From the accounts of three eyewitnesses(I was one of them), the car was completely at fault.
Two and a half years on, the motorcyclist has still not been compensated by the MIB.
Don't hold your breath on the MIB/whoever dishing out compensation to the motorcyclist. This is why I'm making the point that the guy deserves to be reimbursed for his losses, no matter where the recompense comes from.
What did the parents do wrong then?
Exactly... the arguments agains the parents I can't even bothered to be respond to they are so flawed.. I will when I'm in work on Monday though! lol
Probably not taught the kid not to play near roads or something like that. I think this because then the boy would know the possible consquences of playing in the road and wouldn't be silly enough to do it.
Indrid - so where do you think the biker's compensation should come from if the parents shouldn't have to pay any?
Get real. Do you really think that a parent wouldn't have taught their child that it is dangerous to run into the road. FFS It's one of the first thing you drill into them when they are toddlers...
Besides the child was over 10 and therefore responsible for his own actions.
Didn't he have fully comp insurance? That would cover the bike and household insurance would cover his gear...
If he didn't have that then he took a risk and it has blown up in his face.
Why should the biker's insurance company have to pay out (meaning it might affect his insurance) when the biker has done nothing wrong?
Because that's why you insure yourself, so that you don't personally suffer a massive financial loss from something which wasn't you fault. The only person at fault here is a dead 12-y-o with no insurance, there is no-one else to sue, no-one else to blame.
Life sucks. Get used to it.
I think tha tthe bioker's lawyers are taking the correct route. NB They aren't going after the parents.
Again, assuming that compensation has to be paid, insurance is the answer. It's society's way of covering individuals from losses like this. You even get to choose what type of cover you get out by the amount you pay in. You want fully comp then you pay for it, if you don't then you pay less but may have to suffer some loss - it's a risk thing.
Yes this child took a risk, everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that the biker was overtaking at the time and so had also taken a risk and I'm still not sure if he was fully comp or not, so he may have taekn a risk there too.
Problem with life is that it is full of risks, you weigh them up eveyday, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Doesn't mean that you should get automatically get compensation - as you seem to think.
I always take the view that my insurance is there to pay for others in the event that I stuff it up, or make a mistake which results in the injury or suffering of someone else. I don't pay for insurance so some stupid little weasel can come along and play chicken with me. Why should I?
No, answered above. It isn't just the 12 year-old who is to blame here - he was doing something ridiculously stupid, and as he was a child, the blame falls at the feet of the parents IMO.
Insurance is NOT the answer. I pay for my insurance to cover damage to other people, if I make a mistake. It is my right to use the road in this manner - if someone else stuffs up, and causes injury to me, then it should come from their insurance. If they don't have any, then it should be sapped from their earnings. If they are a child, then it should be dealt with by the parents.
The child took a risk? He was being wholeheartedly stupid, and attempting to miss traffic by inches. That isn't stupid, it's a deathwish. Anyone overtaking makes an assessment of the circumstances based on what they can see, and what they can envisage happening. Nobody expects a child to run out and commit suicide and each opportunity, do they?
Indeed it is. But we must also follow through the convictions of our decisions - if we inflict pain, suffering, physcal and financial damage on an innocent person, then we should pay for their life to be returned to the standard it was at before we took it upon ourselves to ruin it. And at the same time, they should be compensated for what we've done to them.
If I came up to you, broke your foot and pulled your ear off, should I have to pay for your suffering? If your insurance doesn't cover such an eventuality, is that your fault? Should you have to live the rest of your life being disfigured, traumatised and financially penalised because you couldn't predict the random actions of everyone else?
Erm... because you have a financial interest?
What if you had been clipped by an unknown driver, or had your car stolen etc. Not your fault but covered by fully comp insurance. You may not see it in that way, but that it the reality.
Why?
No, you are required by law to carry third party insurance for that reason. That is all. Any additional cover you choose to take out is for your benefit, no-one else's.
Again, why?
Incidentally, I am my parents child. Should they be tapped up if I fuck up and die without relevant insurance cover? If not, why not?
No it isn't. It's taking a high risk, one which he may not have realised was so high. Children do stupid things. They don't realise that they are mortal.
They should, because it's all part of the risk. It may be small but it is always there, as this case highlights.
It's not just the risks which you can see which should be considered.
Difficult to do if you are a dead 12-y-o, wouldn't you say?
That is a criminal act and is covered by the route which the biker is taking. You seem to want to blame the parents and make then suffer a financial oss, on top of the loss of their child. It wasn't their fault either - unless you can prove otherwise. How do you think that you would prove that this accident was, in any way, their fault?
ETA: The premise that compensation should be paid is based on two thing. 1) That someone is always to blame, when accidents can happen regardless of the preventions measures you put in place and 2) That money makes up for any kind of loss. Gotta love our materialistic culture there...
That's a risk I choose to take by taking TPO insurance. I don't choose to risk the chance of some little rodent running out and playing chicken - accidents are one thing, the moronic behaviour of someone seeking an adrenaline rush is not.
Because parents are responsible for their children until such age as they are deemed adults, and are able to behave responsibly.
Fine, I'll rephrase it. We are all required by law to have protection for other people if our actions result in financial loss or physical injury to others on the road. If such a law didn't exist, we'd still be personally liable for the loss or injury we cause to others.
Because by having children, we take on the responsibility of bringing them up. Until they reach the point of becoming an adult, we must take responsibility for their behaviour. A parent can't just step back and claim it isn't their fault, or blame society/schools/blah.
I don't understand what you are referring to by 'tapped up', it is a term I am unfamiliar with.
Running out in front of speeding traffic isn't just taking a risk - it is beyond that. This happened on a stretch of 70mph road - which will either be a motorway, or a dual-carriageway with a central reservation, away from a built-up area. The 12-year-old has gone out with the sole purpose of running in front of traffic travelling at speed, and attempting to miss it by a narrow margin.
I don't know about you, or what you have attempted to teach your children, but I'm quite sure I knew at an age rather less than 12 that being hit by a moving vehicle was almost certainly death, and that deliberately trying to dodge it was a gamble not worth attempting.
Very true. But in the real world, nobody could be expected to base their road habits and decision-making on the possibility of a child attempting to dodge suicide by a fraction on a busy and high-speed road. We are all taught(rightly or wrongly) to expect pedestrians to step-out from between parked cars, or cross the road in a residential area. It is not possible to enforce such expectations on roads away from residences, where the speed-limit is higher. It isn't a risk anyone in their right mind would be willing to take, and the very basis of road use revolves around this.
Precisely why I said the line ends with the parents. The 12-year-old died as a result of stupid behaviour, which risked the lives of other people. As such, the buck has to stop with someone, and the people most responsible for the behaviour of a child are the parents. An accident is one thing, and I'd certainly not be taking such a strict line. But through a careless and stupid decision, this child has caused physical harm and financial loss to an innocent person. The innocent person should not be penalised for the parents lack of control over their child, nor the child's rather poor degree of common sense and sense of survival. The child should have had a greater understanding of simple physics and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong - these are basic requirements for life, and should be taught from a very early age by any parent.
It may not have been directly their fault, but they are more responsible for the actions of the child than anyone else. As for proof, what more do you need? The 12-year-old ran in front of moving traffic, whilst playing a 'game'. What greater proof is there that the parents:-
A. Failed to satisfactorily teach basic courtesy to their child
B. Failed to satisfactorily teach basic survival to their child
C. Failed to satisfactorily teach common sense to their child
D. Failed to satisfactorily teach their child to consider the impact of their decisions on innocent people surrounding them
Their son may have paid the ultimate price for his actions, but the innocent people who were injured and financially penalised as a result of his actions are still injured and financially penalised, and that should not be the case.
Compensation should be paid to anyone who has suffered a loss in their standard of living as a result of decisions or actions made by another party, to at least give them the opportunity to return their standard of living to that of before the decision or action.
In answer to:-
1. There is quite obviously blame here - it's with the child. As he isn't of the age where he is able to rectify the outcome of his actions, he should have been under better supervision by his parents, which ultimately means the root of the blame lies with them.
2. Money does not make up for any loss, but it will certainly bring the financial position of the victim to the standard they had before the loss was caused. Anything on top of the financial loss from damage to property, medical bills, and loss of earnings caused by this incident should go towards reimbursing the victim for the trauma endured. It won't make everything all better, but it can certainly help them achieve a similar level of life-satisfaction they enjoyed before having their life turned upside down.
Kerching. It's a risk which you choose to take.
That is part of the same risk as above. If you didn't realise it then bigger fool you. Chances are that you will have an accident which is not covered by any insurance.
No they aren't. For a start, criminal responsibilty starts at 10. There is no responsibilty on anyone at a younger age.
Actually they can. Unless you can point me to case law or act of parliament which states otherwise.
It means to be chased for omney.
No it isn't. It's a huge risk, but that is all.
Not to cause an accident though...
Indeed. Can I force them to listen?
In the real world I am very aware of what is happening in front of me. Anyone poses a risk to me whether pedestrian or other road user.
I have just driven home, passing several drunks and revellers. Each one could have stepped in front of me at any time and I was acutely aware of what they were doing. Those really unsteady got a very wide bearth.
It does. The child.
No they aren't. Especially when that child is outside their sphere of control.
There's more than one innocent party here. I can think of three.
What lack of control? Do you think that they condoned the child's actions? Don't you think that they would have been horrified at the risks, had they known?
... and therefore you cannot attirbute blame to them.
Prove that they failed in each of these. Children don't always listen you know. Sometime sthey even think that they know better. You really have an unrealistic idea of the parent/child relationship you know. It isn't one of total control and obedience you know.
I knwo, and they will be grieving for the rest of their lives. Don't you think that is punishment enough for them. Don't you think that they will aske themselves, everyday for the rest of their lives, whether they could have done something different?
But comepensation is not paid by another innocent party. Is it?
No it doesn't. It means that you are looking to blame anyone you can. As you say the responsibility lies with the child. Who is dead. I'd say that was enough suffering for the parents, wouldn't you?
The risk I choose to take is based on the driving habits of other road users, and my abilities. It isn't based on the potential decisions of every 12-year-old - it is based on the likelyhood of me being involved in an accident - and in my eyes, some little retard who doesn't have an understanding of risk, or believes themselves to be immortal, running out in front of me in a bid to narrowly avoid me is not likely to come into it. Why should it?
If I have an accident as a result of stupid behaviour on the part of someone else, then I shall seek recompense from them. Simple as. But if it's a genuine accident, then hey - shit happens. I'm not merciless, nor am I heartless. But I do believe in right and wrong - it is wrong that this lad died, but it doesn't make it right for an innocent victim, who had no control in this matter whatsoever - other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, to be punished.
Maybe I'm just different to you - if my child had caused such horrific problems for someone else, then I'd be putting my money where my mouth is and doing what I can to do the right thing. I guess we have different interpretations as to what the right thing is, here...
Then that flat-out stinks. I have enough disgust for the majority of the human race already - to know that something like this can happen, and the innocent person be left in the shit through no fault of their own just disgusts me further.
Cheers! To answer the original question, the children should not be 'tapped up' for the finances of the parents. The children were not created because they had a desire to be - they were created either because of the wishes or the actions of the parents. I still believe that the parents should be financially responsible for the actions of their children until such time as the children become financially independent - only at that point are they truly capable of behaving like an adult.
I think your view on this needs to be reversed. Running out in front of traffic on a 70mph road is not a huge risk - it's a deathwish, with a small risk that nothing will happen.
No - but to avoid one by the skin of his teeth. Which as near as damnit is intent to cause a collision, in my book. I don't overtake everything in sight on the basis that I can skim past the oncoming car each time - if I did, it would be a deathwish; I don't set out with 10-seconds to spare on each journey, hoping I'll get there each time - if I did, then I'd consistently be late. Just because I didn't skim the oncoming car, or just because I was late - it doesn't mean I wasn't the cause of it, and it doesn't make the situation any more of an accident.
Nope. But it is possible to try and put-right their mistakes - a mistake of this magnitude, no matter how unfair it all is to the parents, is just as unfair on the innocent person, if not more. Had the parents done things differently, then there is a good chance this incident wouldn't have happened. But for the road-user involved in the collision, he had no say in the thoughts, logic or behaviour demonstrated by that child.
Same here. Many years in many vehicles, and even more miles, and still a clean licence and zero accidents.
Indeed. But the difference is that at this time of year, driving where you likely were, everyone knows there is a high chance of stupid behaviour by drunken louts. It virtually goes without saying. But on a fast road - a 70mph road, which by definition will have more than one lane and a central-reservation - would you really be expecting that child to run out in front of you? Would you be expecting them at every opportunity - each time you cannot see the embankment, do you assume there is a 12-year-old suicide-dodger going to run out?
I disagree, but I figure I've said everything I could really say. I'm not trying to preach to you, or anyone else here, but I can't help thinking that if parents are not responsible for their children, the country is heading for a sorry state of affairs. Oh wait... it already is...
Well, going by the natural-selection demonstrated in this incident, the child shouldn't have been outside the sphere of the parents control should he - which, to me, still leaves blame on the parents.
Differing levels of innocence though - the only person who didn't have a say in the decisions the child was likely to make was the guy who hit him. The parents aren't as innocent, as they have the most control over the lad. They have also been responsible for the last 12 years of education for him - and I don't just mean schooling. We all have a basic idea of what is right and what is wrong - partly through our own observations of the world around us, and partly through the influence of our parents.
They may not have condoned it, but the fact that this incident happened at all is testament to the fact that there was a lack of control.
Global warming - am I blameless? I'm not directly responsible, but I've certainly played my part.
My dog runs off and bites a child - am I blameless? I'm not directly responsible, but I've certainly played my part.
The kid died, and did so whilst acting like a complete prick. He had no consideration for anyone else in the matter. Does this indicate success or failure on the parents part to satisfactorily teach basic courtesy, survival, common sense and the impact of decisions to their child?
Believe it or not, yes I do. Nobody should have to deal with the death of their child, it is something I cannot begin to imagine, and I can think of no harsher sentence. But it does not mean that the innocent victim should be punished - say the cost of the bike was £3-5k, and the time off work and compensation for his suffering cost an additional £5-7k, what exactly is £10,000? It's nothing compared to the loss of the child, but it's likely enough to put the innocent victim back to where he was before the child turned it all upside down for him.
It may seem unfair, but that doesn't stop it from being the right thing does it?
Again, levels of innocence. It was their son who caused this to happen to the motorist. As such they aren't as innocent at the motorist, are they?
I'm not trying to blame anyone I can - I'm trying to document what I believe to be right by the innocent people in this. The parents didn't set out to lose their son, or injure and financially penalise a man going about his everyday business. But the child is still the responsibility of the parents IMO, and - in my eyes - morally, the parents should inherit the responsibility for his actions. They brought him into this world, they have been the ones responsible for teaching him right and wrong, and had this been just an accident then that's where I'd stop. But it wasn't an accident, it was created purely by stupid decisions made by their child.
I'm going to back out of this now, I think. I don't really think there is any more I can say on the matter - I'd just be going over the same responses to your same points. Believe it or not I'm not trying to keep arguing with you
Everything I've said has been based on how I'd expect to act in this situation - both if it were my child who died, or if it were me who was injured on the road. I'm not trying to be heartless or cruel, just as fair as I could to the people who I believe deserve it.
Happy new year!
Nice choice of wording there, as MOK has said you really have some fucked up view of a child/parent relationship!
You don't know anything about this kid, I mean fucking hell I came from a very proper background for most of my childhood, until my parents broke up and I went off the rails, and I did a LOT of things they would of gone mental for, like being out smoking/drinking/smoking weed etc all at the age of 12/13, do you think my parents would condone that? Or that they didn't teach me otherwise? No! They did a great job but I went off the rails and guess what, sometimes kids do things they shouldn't, and heres the really amazing part... being a child it's no uncommon to realise the consequences of your actions! Jesus, it wasn't until my own son was born that I really realised how fragile life is and how careful you have to be...
Get real man.
12 year old kids do stupid things. I seriously doubt the child's parents taught him that playing chicken was a good idea. And at 12, you have a fair idea of the risks involved in your actions. Can anyone seriously say that they haven't been goaded into doing something stupid through peer pressure?
The kid did something stupid. And now he's dead. Maybe I'm a bit soft but they way he's being demonised doesn't sit well with me.
Suing the parents is a complete non sequitur. Why not sue his friends who were egging them on? Or sue the parents of the kids who were egging him on? Seems about as justifiable to me....