Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
Phatboy317 said:
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.The law does place such a duty on the driver.
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?
He didn't look like he was showing sufficient care. If you can't see whether pedestrians aren't about to cross, treat it as there are until you can confirm there aren't.
A couple of weeks ago I was stuck in traffic in Leeds (again). I left a zebra crossing clear and a woman stepped out carefully in front of me. She had to wait in the centre of the road for five vehicles including a texting van driver to pass before someone finally noticed her and stopped. Just your normal, everyday, above average drivers 
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
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.The law does place such a duty on the driver.
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?
He didn't look like he was showing sufficient care. If you can't see whether pedestrians aren't about to cross, treat it as there are until you can confirm there aren't.
When I was a kid, it was hammered home to me about road safety, and also that should "I hit a car" ( not the other way round you'll note ) then it will hurt..a lot, so always make sure the road is clear before stepping out. I also taught my kids the same. Guess what, no of us has ever been involved in an incident like the video shown, which clearly shows a pedestrian not looking properly before "running" out !!
vonhosen said:
Yes he could have done more, he wasn't on the brake approaching a crossing he couldn't see clearly. That would have made a huge difference.
He didn't look like he was showing sufficient care. If you can't see whether pedestrians aren't about to cross, treat it as there are until you can confirm there aren't.
Yes, he could have done a bit more, which may or may not have made a difference - had he started braking then it might simply have served to provide a bit more time for the pedestrian to get in front of him, which may have made it even worse.He didn't look like he was showing sufficient care. If you can't see whether pedestrians aren't about to cross, treat it as there are until you can confirm there aren't.
But the point is one of reasonable expectation.
Everyone makes mistakes and misjudgements, and this is an example of what happens when such mistakes and misjudgements coincide with a high degree of carelessness on the part of a pedestrian.
The fact that the law places the onus on the driver should not give pedestrians licence to behave irresponsibly - the law serves as a tool which is intended to minimise such occurrences, but if people see it as an excuse to behave recklessly then the law is probably scoring an own-goal.
As you said yourself, that law doesn't apply away from the crossing.
And what of the car coming from the other side at the time of the collision? He braked hard and only came to a stop halfway across the intersection. Had the pedestrian walked slowly onto the crossing then there's no way he would have been able to stop in time, and he probably would have hit her instead.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 10th November 09:19
If you watch it again, she seems to spot the car at 10-11 seconds, changes the direction she runs and goes head long into the car.
Also as a driver they may have spotted the person whilst the black car was going past, but at that stage she was walking and the driver had plenty of time to get past as they were too close to stop at that stage.
What happened to looking both ways when using a zebra crossing to make sure its safe instead of just walking out and assuming the cars would just stop, because there will be one occasion when they don't, this was that one for her.
Also as a driver they may have spotted the person whilst the black car was going past, but at that stage she was walking and the driver had plenty of time to get past as they were too close to stop at that stage.
What happened to looking both ways when using a zebra crossing to make sure its safe instead of just walking out and assuming the cars would just stop, because there will be one occasion when they don't, this was that one for her.
lbc said:
The driver that hit the pedestrian appeared to speed up as they approached the crossing.
Clearly the drivers fault.
I agree. The driver does not seem to see the ped at all, and does not brake at ANY point prior to impact. They really ought to have seen the ped sooner, regardless of other traffic.Clearly the drivers fault.
Think I have sussed it out, to be squeeky clean, slow to 5 mph on approach to a crossing, so if some set on kamazi pedestrian decides to run out without looking, you may be able to stop.
Sorted.
Having said that even on approach at 30, which is acceptable as I can see, there is a point whereby you wont be able to stop before your on the crossing.
But I know we all know this, pity the law doesn't recognise common dog s
t.
Hopefully it smashed her ear phones which were more than likely to be stuck in her ears. And lets hope the text she was tapping out got sent before it smashed her phone as well
Sorted.
Having said that even on approach at 30, which is acceptable as I can see, there is a point whereby you wont be able to stop before your on the crossing.
But I know we all know this, pity the law doesn't recognise common dog s
t.Hopefully it smashed her ear phones which were more than likely to be stuck in her ears. And lets hope the text she was tapping out got sent before it smashed her phone as well
It's quite simple really.
Pedestrians shouldn't run out onto Zebra crossing whilst cars are coming but in the eyes of the law, if they do, the car driver is likely to be found liable.
That's why most cars stop to let people cross in case one of them runs out without warning.
The best method for car drivers to prevent themself from liability claims is to make sure no one is near the crossing if you want to continue at the speed limit.
If someone looks like they are close enough to use it, or you can't see if someone is about to use it because vision is obscured it's best to slow down just in case.
I'd rather my journey time increased by 10-30 seconds than risk a liability claim against me or worse, injuring / killing someone.
Pedestrians shouldn't run out onto Zebra crossing whilst cars are coming but in the eyes of the law, if they do, the car driver is likely to be found liable.
That's why most cars stop to let people cross in case one of them runs out without warning.
The best method for car drivers to prevent themself from liability claims is to make sure no one is near the crossing if you want to continue at the speed limit.
If someone looks like they are close enough to use it, or you can't see if someone is about to use it because vision is obscured it's best to slow down just in case.
I'd rather my journey time increased by 10-30 seconds than risk a liability claim against me or worse, injuring / killing someone.
I deleted my comments as I realised that I was doing what all eye witnesses do, ie making up what I saw in my mind from what I had only seen once in reality
By slowing down and stopping the video I can say that the girl is an idiot and I don't think the driver actually saw her until she had hit the car. If he had seen her why didn't he swerve away from her towards the pavement.
Also it looked like the black car had no intention of stopping even though it must have seen that she was still on the crossing, well sort of.
I believe you can't make way until the crossing is completely clear whilst black car must have thought that as she was not on his side he could continue. I think you can only do this if there is an island in the middle of the crossing.
By slowing down and stopping the video I can say that the girl is an idiot and I don't think the driver actually saw her until she had hit the car. If he had seen her why didn't he swerve away from her towards the pavement.
Also it looked like the black car had no intention of stopping even though it must have seen that she was still on the crossing, well sort of.
I believe you can't make way until the crossing is completely clear whilst black car must have thought that as she was not on his side he could continue. I think you can only do this if there is an island in the middle of the crossing.
When I'm a pedestrian I take responsibility for my own safety - I'd rather not end up in the right, but dead!
It doesn't stretch the imagination to think that it's by no means the first time she'd done that sort of thing, and if you're so careless on a regular basis then sooner or later your luck is going to run out - you can't rely on others having your back 100.0000% of the time.
As for the driver, perhaps he thought that as he was doing less than 20mph, he was already going slow enough and that he would have loads of time to react to any eventuality - badly wrong on both counts.
I reckon this video should be aired as much as possible to as many people as possible, particularly in schools and driving schools.
It doesn't stretch the imagination to think that it's by no means the first time she'd done that sort of thing, and if you're so careless on a regular basis then sooner or later your luck is going to run out - you can't rely on others having your back 100.0000% of the time.
As for the driver, perhaps he thought that as he was doing less than 20mph, he was already going slow enough and that he would have loads of time to react to any eventuality - badly wrong on both counts.
I reckon this video should be aired as much as possible to as many people as possible, particularly in schools and driving schools.
Just watched the live feed for 5 mins. Almost all the peds, and these look like people going about their daily business, walk straight out on to the crossing without waiting for the traffic to stop and....
also some instances of people doing the right thing and waiting to cross but many cars blast through before either someone stops or the ped thinks it's clear enough to cross.
also some instances of people doing the right thing and waiting to cross but many cars blast through before either someone stops or the ped thinks it's clear enough to cross.
From the POV of the driver, traffic appears to be flowing across the crossing on his right hand side. He can probably assume, as a result, that nobody is crossing from that side. His primary attention is probably to his left, in case someone steps on from that side in front of him.
Just my take on it, and I don't suggest that it absolves any party of their responsibilities.
Just my take on it, and I don't suggest that it absolves any party of their responsibilities.
croyde said:
.... also some instances of people doing the right thing and waiting to cross but many cars blast through before either someone stops or the ped thinks it's clear enough to cross.
I was always taught to put a foot on the crossing to 'claim' right of way, once you've done that then the drivers MUST stop.Poor observation and judgement by both parties.
It looks as though the VW driver does not even see the pedestrian, although why the sudden acceleration?
This just stinks of typical London mentality. I'm going to get to my destination as fast as possible. By both parties.
A moment's patience by either would've avoided the incident. 2 impatient people coming together will always cause issues, just so happens one is in control of the body and the other 1.2 tonnes of steel...
If I was the driver I would've been slowing and I would expect to stop. If I was the pedestrian, I would've walked across the road...
It looks as though the VW driver does not even see the pedestrian, although why the sudden acceleration?
This just stinks of typical London mentality. I'm going to get to my destination as fast as possible. By both parties.
A moment's patience by either would've avoided the incident. 2 impatient people coming together will always cause issues, just so happens one is in control of the body and the other 1.2 tonnes of steel...
If I was the driver I would've been slowing and I would expect to stop. If I was the pedestrian, I would've walked across the road...
vonhosen said:
The law places the requirement on the driver in Reg 25
The best way to watch these clips is by a series of freeze frames. When the time counter is on 11sec, the corner of the Cayenne is obscuring the Golf driver's line of sight to the girl (assuming the Golf is RHD).
Very early into 12s, the line of sight opens.
The collision happens just after the timer clicks to 13s.
So one second for the driver to see and react.
It appears that the driver didn't even see the girl though, based on the fact that the Golf looks to maintain speed and line, and the nose doesn't dip under braking. That's not good.
But the girl can see the car (the leading edge of the bonnet) before the driver can see her; yet she ends up doing her level best to run into the path of the car, off the zebra crossing: she tries to run round the front of the car rather than trying to stop.
Both can be criticised, but IMO the greater share of the responsibility (but not all of it) rests with the girl.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff