Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[vonhosen]

DonkeyApple said:

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

The first page was reasonable, until a couple of posters appeared who started banging on about the law to the exclusion of all else- and the rest of you just followed on like sheep.

We are referring to this case. She was already on the crossing, indeed she came from the other side of the road to the car so it's not even as though she stepped straight off the pavement in front of the car.

What the driver could or couldn't see is irrelevant. The only bit that matters is that he crossed the zebra without checking that it was clear to do so.

That's all there is to it.

That does seem a little disingenuous though. She wasn't near the crossing on his approach and I suspect that as she suddenly started to run as soon as the black Cayenne was crossing the other way the driver probably could have seen or imagined that the person walking to the crossing would have suddenly started running.

And then I don't think any driver could have predicted the runner would then veer into the direction of the car rather than stay on the crossing or alter course to pass behind the car.

The law may be against the driver, that's fine, but it does strike me as one of those absolutely bizarre actions from a pedestrian that really cannot be accounted for as it is so anomalous. I do feel sorry for the driver as I don't think they stood a chance however well they were driving.

I disagree, she could be clearly seen walking towards the crossing from when the car came into view & he was still some way from the crossing.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

DonkeyApple said:

Getting hit by a car is a pretty efficient education. But better for parents to educate their offspring in the first instance.

But when it was the others fault, you didn't do anything wrong, you have the right to do just as you did.

If you knew you're in the wrong, or at least partly to blame and not protected by the law, then you might just look more carefully.

Some pedestrians run across the road where there aren't crossings, where they have no legal protection, so making them responsible there doesn't stop them doing it.

By giving them a place to cross where they have priority it puts them in a place where drivers can anticipate them moving into the road in front of them & approach accordingly. It's also a method of crossing that doesn't unduly delay vehicles where it's a single crosser time after time.

Legal protection, what about legal obligation? Why do pedestrians not run out in front of trams, because there is no law to protect them and it's their duty to check it's safe.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

There is education already & that makes people fully aware of the potentially dire consequences in a collision with vehicles, fines will not concentrate the mind any further than that.

So why is it that drivers get fined? Surely peoples mind works the same, regardless if you are walking or driving?

No because driver's are cocooned & removed from it, they won't die when they hit the pedestrian, they care even less.
Drivers's also get points for failing to accord precedence, so they'll loose their ability to drive if they keep doing that (removing that problematic person).

But they die when they crash into something bigger at higher speed, surely that knowledge is enough to sharpen their concentration, so why fine them?

Because they don't think it will happen to them.
What you are suggesting is akin to rolling back car development so that there is no safety cell, disc brakes etc & drivers are more likely to die in any crash so that they'll be more responsible..

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

DonkeyApple said:

Getting hit by a car is a pretty efficient education. But better for parents to educate their offspring in the first instance.

But when it was the others fault, you didn't do anything wrong, you have the right to do just as you did.

If you knew you're in the wrong, or at least partly to blame and not protected by the law, then you might just look more carefully.

Some pedestrians run across the road where there aren't crossings, where they have no legal protection, so making them responsible there doesn't stop them doing it.

By giving them a place to cross where they have priority it puts them in a place where drivers can anticipate them moving into the road in front of them & approach accordingly. It's also a method of crossing that doesn't unduly delay vehicles where it's a single crosser time after time.

Legal protection, what about legal obligation? Why do pedestrians not run out in front of trams, because there is no law to protect them and it's their duty to check it's safe.

People do die being hit by trams (& trains).

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

There is education already & that makes people fully aware of the potentially dire consequences in a collision with vehicles, fines will not concentrate the mind any further than that.

So why is it that drivers get fined? Surely peoples mind works the same, regardless if you are walking or driving?

No because driver's are cocooned & removed from it, they won't die when they hit the pedestrian, they care even less.
Drivers's also get points for failing to accord precedence, so they'll loose their ability to drive if they keep doing that (removing that problematic person).

But they die when they crash into something bigger at higher speed, surely that knowledge is enough to sharpen their concentration, so why fine them?

Because they don't think it will happen to them.

Like pedestrians then? Why fine one but not the other?

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

DonkeyApple said:

Getting hit by a car is a pretty efficient education. But better for parents to educate their offspring in the first instance.

But when it was the others fault, you didn't do anything wrong, you have the right to do just as you did.

If you knew you're in the wrong, or at least partly to blame and not protected by the law, then you might just look more carefully.

Some pedestrians run across the road where there aren't crossings, where they have no legal protection, so making them responsible there doesn't stop them doing it.

By giving them a place to cross where they have priority it puts them in a place where drivers can anticipate them moving into the road in front of them & approach accordingly. It's also a method of crossing that doesn't unduly delay vehicles where it's a single crosser time after time.

Legal protection, what about legal obligation? Why do pedestrians not run out in front of trams, because there is no law to protect them and it's their duty to check it's safe.

People do die being hit by trams (& trains).

Yes, but very few challenge a tram by running out blindly in front of one, why?

[heebeegeetee]

Phatboy317 said:

No, that's what you think others think.
Because you don't read things properly, but instead take a snippet here, a word there, put them together the wrong way, and come to unsupported conclusions.
Your prejudice is showing.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 14th November 16:06

Care to take a look at these?

hora said:

Driver in the tracksuit bottoms? Looked like the Golf made to takeoff though even though it was firmly not his/her fault.

iva cosworth said:

I can't see how the Golf can be at fault for someone running into the side of their car.

rambo19 said:

FFS!

It's the peds fault.

Highway code states;
3. Crossings (18 to 30)
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)

19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

And so on.

These were on the other thread, posted the day before this 20 page thread began. There are similar comments throughout, all completely unambiguous, so I don't see how any of your statement is correct, phatboy.

[WinstonWolf]

Devil2575 said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

For the offence they committed of exceeding the limit.
There is no speed limit for pedestrians.

Or for cyclists for that matter, wonder why?

Because cyclists and pedestrians travelling at speed tend not to be able to do enough damage to warrant a limit. Also neither come with speed measuring devices from the factory.

And because setting off speed activated warning signs is immensely gratifying

[heebeegeetee]

vonhosen said:

I disagree, she could be clearly seen walking towards the crossing from when the car came into view & he was still some way from the crossing.

That's what I think.

Fact is, if the driver had a clear view of the crossing he would have seen the ped and should have stopped. If he couldn't see the crossing he should have slowed to all but a stop, and then stopped upon seeing the ped.

[Phatboy317]

heebeegeetee said:

Care to take a look at these?

...
...
...

And so on.

These were on the other thread, posted the day before this 20 page thread began. There are similar comments throughout, all completely unambiguous, so I don't see how any of your statement is correct, phatboy.

I was referring to this bit on your part:

heebeegeetee said:

...and seem to think that not being able to see clearly should not be any impediment to proceeding forward at whatever speed they think fit.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

For the offence they committed of exceeding the limit.
There is no speed limit for pedestrians.

Or for cyclists for that matter, wonder why?

Because cyclists and pedestrians travelling at speed tend not to be able to do enough damage to warrant a limit. Also neither come with speed measuring devices from the factory.

While this isn't a point about triggering GATSOs it's still relevant.

Speed is relative, we all know that. A pedestrian stepping/running off the verge or pavement in front of a car within the thinking distance for the car's spoeed, without looking and without warning, is in effect hurling their carcass at the car's windscreen at the speed of the car. The car in question could be and may well be travelling at a speed below the limit for the road and appropriate for the conditions, it makes little difference.

At any speed, certainly from 30mph upwards, this can and will do serious damage to the blameless driver or passenger sitting behind the windscreen. Clearly pedestrians can do serious harm and their behaviour does need regulating, if we apply the same principles that we apply to motorists.

However the idea of pedestrians and cyclists as part of the infallible victim industry is gathering pace so nothing will happen and blame will continue to be wrongly attributed from time to time as happens now.

[DonkeyApple]

vonhosen said:

DonkeyApple said:

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

The first page was reasonable, until a couple of posters appeared who started banging on about the law to the exclusion of all else- and the rest of you just followed on like sheep.

We are referring to this case. She was already on the crossing, indeed she came from the other side of the road to the car so it's not even as though she stepped straight off the pavement in front of the car.

What the driver could or couldn't see is irrelevant. The only bit that matters is that he crossed the zebra without checking that it was clear to do so.

That's all there is to it.

That does seem a little disingenuous though. She wasn't near the crossing on his approach and I suspect that as she suddenly started to run as soon as the black Cayenne was crossing the other way the driver probably could have seen or imagined that the person walking to the crossing would have suddenly started running.

And then I don't think any driver could have predicted the runner would then veer into the direction of the car rather than stay on the crossing or alter course to pass behind the car.

The law may be against the driver, that's fine, but it does strike me as one of those absolutely bizarre actions from a pedestrian that really cannot be accounted for as it is so anomalous. I do feel sorry for the driver as I don't think they stood a chance however well they were driving.

I disagree, she could be clearly seen walking towards the crossing from when the car came into view & he was still some way from the crossing.

I agree, her intent can be predicted. But at the speed she is walking at she would only just have reached the junction and be checking that vehicles had stopped etc. I appreciate the legality etc but looking at it practically as well as recognising this is London as opposed to calmer, more civilised environments the route is clear for the driver, there isn't any need to stop. London is London, if you stopped every time a pedestrian looked like they were going to be crossing some time after you had passed then the most likely incident would be at best being shunted in the back for stopping unexpectedly and at worst having someone returning to Kilburn try and give you a working over.

My current view would actually be different if this were outside London but all of us who live and drive in London know that you wouldn't stop at a crossing just because someone is a good few feet away from it. Personally, I would have slowed havin spotted her but I wouldn't have bet on her suddenly starting to run and appear from the back of the Cayenne.

Frankly, when I first saw the video I assumed it was an insurance scam gone wrong. Having been on the recieving end of one of those and only saved because a cabbie who recognised the lady got out and started kicking the her after she lamely rolled over my bonnet.

I can find faults in the approach of the driver but in reality he never stood a chance against someone who blindly runs out into the road.

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

DonkeyApple said:

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

The first page was reasonable, until a couple of posters appeared who started banging on about the law to the exclusion of all else- and the rest of you just followed on like sheep.

We are referring to this case. She was already on the crossing, indeed she came from the other side of the road to the car so it's not even as though she stepped straight off the pavement in front of the car.

What the driver could or couldn't see is irrelevant. The only bit that matters is that he crossed the zebra without checking that it was clear to do so.

That's all there is to it.

That does seem a little disingenuous though. She wasn't near the crossing on his approach and I suspect that as she suddenly started to run as soon as the black Cayenne was crossing the other way the driver probably could have seen or imagined that the person walking to the crossing would have suddenly started running.

And then I don't think any driver could have predicted the runner would then veer into the direction of the car rather than stay on the crossing or alter course to pass behind the car.

The law may be against the driver, that's fine, but it does strike me as one of those absolutely bizarre actions from a pedestrian that really cannot be accounted for as it is so anomalous. I do feel sorry for the driver as I don't think they stood a chance however well they were driving.

I disagree, she could be clearly seen walking towards the crossing from when the car came into view & he was still some way from the crossing.

Sadly, that's the view from the CCTV not the drivers eye view on the opposite side of the road, with larger vehicles travelling towards him, and prior to that a large monolith in the middle of the road at the junction. Also, the CCTV camera is set pretty high up, thus skewing our perspective.
Prior to the first of the two cars approaching the "driver at fault", there was no suggestion of the pedestrian running for a gap ! I don't think we are questioning that the driver made an error of judgement, more that he/she could have faced court action, and yet the pedestrian could get away "scott free" so to speak, and then presumably sue the hapless driver with the aid of the blood sucking "no win no fee" ambulance chasing brigade !!

[rambo19]

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

No, that's what you think others think.
Because you don't read things properly, but instead take a snippet here, a word there, put them together the wrong way, and come to unsupported conclusions.
Your prejudice is showing.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 14th November 16:06

Care to take a look at these?

hora said:

Driver in the tracksuit bottoms? Looked like the Golf made to takeoff though even though it was firmly not his/her fault.

iva cosworth said:

I can't see how the Golf can be at fault for someone running into the side of their car.

rambo19 said:

FFS!

It's the peds fault.

Highway code states;
3. Crossings (18 to 30)
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)

19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

And so on.

These were on the other thread, posted the day before this 20 page thread began. There are similar comments throughout, all completely unambiguous, so I don't see how any of your statement is correct, phatboy.

I stand by my comments.
What does 'phatboy' mean?

[DonkeyApple]

rambo19 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

No, that's what you think others think.
Because you don't read things properly, but instead take a snippet here, a word there, put them together the wrong way, and come to unsupported conclusions.
Your prejudice is showing.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 14th November 16:06

Care to take a look at these?

hora said:

Driver in the tracksuit bottoms? Looked like the Golf made to takeoff though even though it was firmly not his/her fault.

iva cosworth said:

I can't see how the Golf can be at fault for someone running into the side of their car.

rambo19 said:

FFS!

It's the peds fault.

Highway code states;
3. Crossings (18 to 30)
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)

19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

And so on.

These were on the other thread, posted the day before this 20 page thread began. There are similar comments throughout, all completely unambiguous, so I don't see how any of your statement is correct, phatboy.

I stand by my comments.
What does 'phatboy' mean?

'You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.'

Well, to be fair, even the most ardent of us arguers on PH would struggle to accuse her of ignoring that spot of guidance.

[turbobloke]

"At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing"

Exactly.

[WinstonWolf]

turbobloke said:

"At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing"

Exactly.

Von won't thank you for that

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

turbobloke said:

"At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing"

Exactly.

Von won't thank you for that

Why would I worry about him posting that?
It makes no difference to what was required by the driver. I haven't said at any time that she plays no contributory part. I'm objecting to people saying he is blameless when he clearly is not (legally or morally).

19
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.

Excactly.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th November 23:12

[DonkeyApple]

vonhosen said:

Why would I worry about him posting that?
It makes no difference to what was required by the driver. I haven't said at any time that she plays no contributory part. I'm objecting to people saying he is blameless when he clearly is not (legally or morally).

19
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.

Excactly.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th November 23:12

But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching.

How could the car have seen her suddenly break into a run when she does this pretty much obscured by the black Cayenne she runs behind as it is crossing.

I still don't think the driver stood a chance. I certainly don't get why she changes tack in the direction she does.

I do find it hard to blame the driver in this instance.

[vonhosen]

DonkeyApple said:

vonhosen said:

Why would I worry about him posting that?
It makes no difference to what was required by the driver. I haven't said at any time that she plays no contributory part. I'm objecting to people saying he is blameless when he clearly is not (legally or morally).

19
Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.

Excactly.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th November 23:12

But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching.

How could the car have seen her suddenly break into a run when she does this pretty much obscured by the black Cayenne she runs behind as it is crossing.

I still don't think the driver stood a chance. I certainly don't get why she changes tack in the direction she does.

I do find it hard to blame the driver in this instance.

He should have been coming to a stop before she got onto the crossing, it's because he wasn't on the brake approaching the crossing (as she was approaching the crossing) that he left himself high & dry. There was every chance she could have got onto the crossing before him from her position & then it becomes he MUST stop. He didn't cover that eventuality & left himself extremely vulnerable.