Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[vonhosen]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well the lemming chose to run in front of a car, he gave no chance for the driver to predict his actions when he started his sudden suicidal sprint, and he wasn't actually even on the crossing when it was hit, so game on. Perfectly legitimate pedestrian skittle. I hope the idiot got sued for damage to the car.

But the pedestrian did enter the limits of the crossing before the vehicle did, enough time ahead of the vehicle to get half way across the road.

Crossing regs said:

25. (1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 19:53

[mybrainhurts]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well the lemming chose to run in front of a car, he gave no chance for the driver to predict his actions when he started his sudden suicidal sprint, and he wasn't actually even on the crossing when it was hit, so game on. Perfectly legitimate pedestrian skittle. I hope the idiot got sued for damage to the car.

I think you'll find it bounced like a lady.

[Vipers]

,

vonhosen said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well the lemming chose to run in front of a car, he gave no chance for the driver to predict his actions when he started his sudden suicidal sprint, and he wasn't actually even on the crossing when it was hit, so game on. Perfectly legitimate pedestrian skittle. I hope the idiot got sued for damage to the car.

But the pedestrian did enter the limits of the crossing before the vehicle did, enough time ahead of the vehicle to get half way across the road.

Crossing regs said:

25. (1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 19:53

The pedestrian has a duty of care to check traffic before they run out in front of a moving vehicle. Its not only on the shoulders of the driver. There are rules in the HC as we all know

Its easy for us sitting here looking at the CCTV time and time again, in the real world things are not that clear cut. The pedestrian was an idiot, lucky she wasnt pushed underneath the car on the other carriagewy.


Rules for pedestrians, most of which she ignored.

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.

Edited by Vipers on Sunday 9th November 20:27

[vonhosen]

Vipers said:

vonhosen said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well the lemming chose to run in front of a car, he gave no chance for the driver to predict his actions when he started his sudden suicidal sprint, and he wasn't actually even on the crossing when it was hit, so game on. Perfectly legitimate pedestrian skittle. I hope the idiot got sued for damage to the car.

But the pedestrian did enter the limits of the crossing before the vehicle did, enough time ahead of the vehicle to get half way across the road.

Crossing regs said:

25. (1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 19:53

The pedestrian has a duty of care to check traffic before they run out in front of a moving vehicle. Its not only on the shoulders of the driver. There are rules in the HC as we all know

Its easy for us sitting here looking at the CCTV time and time again, in the real world things are not that clear cut. The pedestrian was an idiot, lucky she wasnt pushed underneath the car on the other carriagewy.

The law places the requirement on the driver in Reg 25

[Vipers]

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

vonhosen said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Well the lemming chose to run in front of a car, he gave no chance for the driver to predict his actions when he started his sudden suicidal sprint, and he wasn't actually even on the crossing when it was hit, so game on. Perfectly legitimate pedestrian skittle. I hope the idiot got sued for damage to the car.

But the pedestrian did enter the limits of the crossing before the vehicle did, enough time ahead of the vehicle to get half way across the road.

Crossing regs said:

25. (1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 19:53

The pedestrian has a duty of care to check traffic before they run out in front of a moving vehicle. Its not only on the shoulders of the driver. There are rules in the HC as we all know

Its easy for us sitting here looking at the CCTV time and time again, in the real world things are not that clear cut. The pedestrian was an idiot, lucky she wasnt pushed underneath the car on the other carriagewy.

The law places the requirement on the driver in Reg 25

So You are telling me if a pedestrian decides to jump out in front of my car and gets zapped, its my fault.

[Vipers]

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

[vonhosen]

Vipers said:

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

The crossing is clearly marked.
The law is clear.
The driver has a duty to comply with the law.
The driver should anticipate that pedestrians will enter the crossing.
If the driver can't see it's clear they should proceed on the basis it isn't clear, his approach speed should reflect that.
The pedestrian has clearly entered the limits of the crossing prior to the car, the driver has a legal duty to accord precedence.
If this had happened where there was no crossing, there would have been no such compunction.
The driver was not showing enough care in the proximity of the crossing, before it got the stage of 'having to react'.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 21:15

[Vipers]

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

The crossing is clearly marked.
The law is clear.
The driver has a duty to comply with the law.
The driver should anticipate that pedestrians will enter the crossing.
If the driver can't see it's clear they should proceed on the basis it isn't clear, his approach speed should reflect that.
The pedestrian has clearly entered the limits of the crossing prior to the car, the driver has a legal duty to accord precedence.
If this had happened where there was no crossing, there would have been no such compunction.
The driver was not showing enough care in the proximity of the crossing, before it got the stage of 'having to react'.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 21:15

So it seems to me the law doesnt put any responsibility on pedestrians, what you say is obviously right, worth noting the point of impact, she wasnt on the crossing.

Either way no point in debating it further. In my view, the HC clearly states what pedestrians should do when crossing a crossing, she failed to do so.

[vonhosen]

Vipers said:

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

The crossing is clearly marked.
The law is clear.
The driver has a duty to comply with the law.
The driver should anticipate that pedestrians will enter the crossing.
If the driver can't see it's clear they should proceed on the basis it isn't clear, his approach speed should reflect that.
The pedestrian has clearly entered the limits of the crossing prior to the car, the driver has a legal duty to accord precedence.
If this had happened where there was no crossing, there would have been no such compunction.
The driver was not showing enough care in the proximity of the crossing, before it got the stage of 'having to react'.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 21:15

So it seems to me the law doesnt put any responsibility on pedestrians, what you say is obviously right, worth noting the point of impact, she wasnt on the crossing.

Either way no point in debating it further. In my view, the HC clearly states what pedestrians should do when crossing a crossing, she failed to do so.

The highway code places no duty on the pedestrian in circumstances such as those that would mean they have committed an offence. It is advice for them.
The law does place such a duty on the driver.

[Vipers]

vonhosen said:

The highway code places no duty on the pedestrian in circumstances such as those that would mean they have committed an offence. It is advice for them.

The law does place such a duty on the driver.

Think I will go and study rocket science.

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

The crossing is clearly marked.
The law is clear.
The driver has a duty to comply with the law.
The driver should anticipate that pedestrians will enter the crossing.
If the driver can't see it's clear they should proceed on the basis it isn't clear, his approach speed should reflect that.
The pedestrian has clearly entered the limits of the crossing prior to the car, the driver has a legal duty to accord precedence.
If this had happened where there was no crossing, there would have been no such compunction.
The driver was not showing enough care in the proximity of the crossing, before it got the stage of 'having to react'.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 21:15

So it seems to me the law doesnt put any responsibility on pedestrians, what you say is obviously right, worth noting the point of impact, she wasnt on the crossing.

Either way no point in debating it further. In my view, the HC clearly states what pedestrians should do when crossing a crossing, she failed to do so.

The highway code places no duty on the pedestrian in circumstances such as those that would mean they have committed an offence. It is advice for them.
The law does place such a duty on the driver.

Jaywalking?? ie, not paying attention to traffic. Also, she didn't exactly just step out, she saw the car coming to to her right, and decided to run across without even a cursory glance to her left.
FFS, why can't we have the Green Cross Code adverts back on telly, and teach the youngsters to pay attention.
Oh yes, forgot, the motorist is an easier target...And Von views them as fair game.

[vonhosen]

delboy735 said:

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

Von, looking at the still vid you posted, I cant see how a car driver can react let alone stop in that time/distance.

The crossing is clearly marked.
The law is clear.
The driver has a duty to comply with the law.
The driver should anticipate that pedestrians will enter the crossing.
If the driver can't see it's clear they should proceed on the basis it isn't clear, his approach speed should reflect that.
The pedestrian has clearly entered the limits of the crossing prior to the car, the driver has a legal duty to accord precedence.
If this had happened where there was no crossing, there would have been no such compunction.
The driver was not showing enough care in the proximity of the crossing, before it got the stage of 'having to react'.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 21:15

So it seems to me the law doesnt put any responsibility on pedestrians, what you say is obviously right, worth noting the point of impact, she wasnt on the crossing.

Either way no point in debating it further. In my view, the HC clearly states what pedestrians should do when crossing a crossing, she failed to do so.

The highway code places no duty on the pedestrian in circumstances such as those that would mean they have committed an offence. It is advice for them.
The law does place such a duty on the driver.

Jaywalking?? ie, not paying attention to traffic. Also, she didn't exactly just step out, she saw the car coming to to her right, and decided to run across without even a cursory glance to her left.
FFS, why can't we have the Green Cross Code adverts back on telly, and teach the youngsters to pay attention.
Oh yes, forgot, the motorist is an easier target...And Von views them as fair game.

There is no jaywalking offence in the UK.
If she had done what she did where there was no crossing, what I've been saying would not apply.
The fact there is a crossing brings into play legal Regs for drivers in relation to according precedence to pedestrians, as such drivers have to take particular care around them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgxZ-l5pY8

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th November 23:20

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

There is no jaywalking offence in the UK.
If she had done what she did where there was no crossing, what I've been saying would not apply.
The fact there is a crossing brings into play legal Regs for drivers in relation to according precedence to pedestrians, as such drivers have to take particular care around them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgxZ-l5pY8

Blimey, von, didn't know you were into education...

There is clearly a defect in the law, which ought to hold pedestrians liable for their actions. I noted some time ago that 80%+ of pedestrian casualties get hurt through their own negligence.

Hell, she might have knocked a cyclist into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

[lbc]

The driver that hit the pedestrian appeared to speed up as they approached the crossing.

Clearly the drivers fault.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

The highway code places no duty on the pedestrian in circumstances such as those that would mean they have committed an offence. It is advice for them.
The law does place such a duty on the driver.

Yeah, we know what the law says.

But the question remains, given those exact circumstances, could a driver exercising a degree of care, attention and caution which could reasonably be expected of them, been able to avoid that collision?

An analysis of the video shows the car was doing about 18mph on the approach to the crossing.
Before the driver's view was blocked by the black car, the pedestrian had not yet entered the crossing, nor would the driver have had any reason to think that she was about to do what she did.
When the black car had passed and the driver could once more see the pedestrian, she was already on the crossing, and the car was around half a second from the crossing, and less than one second from the collision. This left insufficient space to stop, and the only hope of avoiding the collision was to speed up - which is what I believe the driver did.

Now we may argue about small fractions of a second and fractions of a metre, but could the driver reasonably have been expected to behave any differently?
You may say that he should have slowed down to, say, less than 10mph, but, particularly given that a car needs a certain amount of time to slow down, what stimulus would he have had to slow down at the point in time at which he would have had to start slowing down?

As an aside, as autonomous vehicles are soon to make an appearance on our roads, so you think a driverless car would have been able to avoid that collision, or are pedestrians going to have to start taking more care?

Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 10th November 01:04

[mybrainhurts]

Phatboy317 said:

Now we may argue about small fractions of a second and fractions of a metre, but could the driver reasonably have been expected to behave any differently?

von only does law. He doesn't do reasonableness It does not compute....

[Phatboy317]

mybrainhurts said:

von only does law. He doesn't do reasonableness It does not compute....

I do law as well, but the laws of physics.

And, given a clash between the laws of physics and the laws of man, the laws of physics are the only ones which are immutable.

[TheAngryDog]

I look forward to Von's thread when he claims a pedestrian ran out in front of him on and he hit them, and he's pn here looking for sympathy / help

[ging84]

I'd like to think crossing or no crossing, if a pedestrian runs out in front of your car, you would not be held to blame (except a crossing where there's a red light)

[threespires]

I think the VW driver has two clear views of the girl before the collision occurs. One before the Cayenne has finished clearing the crossing and then again after it's passed.
She was a bit silly doing what she did though. I hope she recovered without lasting injury.