Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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.
But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching. 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
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.
What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
The
turbobloke said:
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.
How many people in cars are injured as a result of collisions with pedestrians?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 said:
vonhosen said:
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.
But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching. 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
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.
What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
WinstonWolf said:
DonkeyApple said:
vonhosen said:
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.
But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching. 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
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.
What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
vonhosen said:
He should have been coming to a stop before she got onto the crossing,
Total nonsense, if that were the case then nobody would pass any crossing at the travelling speed of the road at or below the limit.Lots of pedestrians including me walk or jog past crossings with no intention of using them, there must be a sign of intent to cross for a motorist to anticipate use of the crossing, and running out in a fraction of a second is insufficient notice for a car driver to react within the physiological and physical contraints of the real world.
Every police car I've seen driving down the local High St with two crossings has not moderated their speed with pavements full of people walking past. Like other cars they slow and stop within human physiological and vehicular stopping distance constraints when pedestrians signal an intent to cross. Darting out like a banshee is not signalling intent but a fait accompli and the person does so at their own risk due to the laws of science not the faulty judgements and laws of incompetents.
Anyone would think that merely painting white and black stripes and erecting a couple of poles beside the road can change reality. With the help of officialdumb clearly that's seen to be possible.
DonkeyApple said:
vonhosen said:
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.
But she isn't in the crossing, or waiting, but approaching as the car is also approaching. 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
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.
What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 10:38
turbobloke said:
Total nonsense, if that were the case then nobody would pass any crossing at the travelling speed of the road at or below the limit.
They can, where there is sufficient separation/distance between the crossing & any potential runner.Her direction of travel never changed violently, she was always heading towards the crossing, only her speed changed. It was entirely reasonable that she might step onto the crossing. The golf driver would have committed the offence of failing to accord precedence if she'd walked not run onto the crossing.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 10:39
DonkeyApple said:
1. As he is approaching there is no one in the crossing or actually near the crossing. I agree that there seems little sign of slowing and if question that but no way would a car in central London come to a stop because someone is near or approaching a zebra crossing.
2. What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
3. The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
I completely disagree with all you've said. Here's why:2. What skews this is the fact that she breaks into a run while hidden from view of the driver. We can try and say that all drivers should act on all statistical probabilities regardless of how insignificant but we all know that isn't logical, practical of humanly possible.
3. The one single fact that we do know for absolute sure is that the pedestrian suddenly, at the last minute, while obscured by passing traffic and without looking at all blindly ran out into a busy road. Good driver, bad driver, good driving, bad driving, when someone does something so insanely illogical and so statistically improbable you are pretty much screwed as a driver.
1. On the video I see there are pedestrians slap banfg in the middle of the crossing when the car comes into view. During all the time we see the car there are pedestrians on both sides of the zebra. Drivers in London may feel they have no need to obey the law but all that does is expose them to charges of careless or dangerous driving, but that's up to them.
2. That's completely irrelevant and skews nothing. The driver may or may not be able to see if the ped has run onto the crossing. If he can see, he has to stop. if he can't see, then he can't cross until he can see that it's clear to proceed.
3. 100% disagree. I would not have hit that pedestrian. I don't enter any crossing or any junction where I don't have priority without first being sure it's safe for me to go. I'm speaking as someone who likes to hoon, and who quite frankly has a pretty dreadful attitude to speed limits.
But there's a time and place. I'll drive well over the limit where I can see it's clear to do so, but I won't where I can't see clearly, and I simply can't comprehend how I (or anyone) would cross a zebra whilst not being able to see all of it.
turbobloke said:
Total nonsense, if that were the case then nobody would pass any crossing at the travelling speed of the road at or below the limit.
It's not total nonsense. I agree with Von, and I'll say again - I would not have collided with that pedestrian.Just yesterday I was zooming along a dual carraigeway approaching a roundabout. I'm in a hurry and I want to straight-line the roundabout if I can.
As I approach, I start to notice that my view of the roundabout is being restricted by the shrubbery in the centre reservation. This means I have to slow more than I would have liked, and then realise that the shrubbery is such that I'm not going to get a clear view of the roundabout until I'm right up to the white line as I enter the roundabout. This means that I have to come to a near halt before entering the empty roundabout, and I guess that is the exact purpose of that shrubbery being there - to slow the traffic down; perhaps there have been problems in the past with that roundabout.
Now, is anyone seriously going to suggest that I would have been justified in not slowing right down and entering that roundabout without being able to see if it was clear for me to do so? And had I done so and been T-boned as a result, should it transpired that cctv footage shows that the car that hit me wasn't indicating that it was turning right, or was travelling too fast etc, would that absolve me from having entered the roundabout without being able to see if it was clear to do?
No, of course I couldn't, and neither can the driver in this video either. The pedestrian was on the zebra, well on the zebra in fact. How she got there is irrelevant - the driver had to stop.
In this case you guys seem to be in full support of a SMIDSY. Not even a smidsy in fact, more of a "sorry mate I couldn't see you" as opposed to didn't.
heebeegeetee said:
turbobloke said:
Total nonsense, if that were the case then nobody would pass any crossing at the travelling speed of the road at or below the limit.
It's not total nonsense. I agree with Von, and I'll say again - I would not have collided with that pedestrian.Pedestrian walking along the footpath towards a crossing.
I approach, slow down to 20 just in case.
As I am a metre from the crossing pedestrian suddenly turns and steps on to the crossing, zap.
From what I have read so far, I am in the wrong! Or have I missed something.
Forget the Abbey Rd incident, read this as it's written.
Remember legally I could have been doing 30.
Vipers said:
heebeegeetee said:
turbobloke said:
Total nonsense, if that were the case then nobody would pass any crossing at the travelling speed of the road at or below the limit.
It's not total nonsense. I agree with Von, and I'll say again - I would not have collided with that pedestrian.Pedestrian walking along the footpath towards a crossing.
I approach, slow down to 20 just in case.
As I am a metre from the crossing pedestrian suddenly turns and steps on to the crossing, zap.
From what I have read so far, I am in the wrong! Or have I missed something.
Forget the Abbey Rd incident, read this as it's written.
Remember legally I could have been doing 30.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 11:25
Vipers said:
Von, as has been said before, if we all did this just in case, the towns and cities would come to a stop.
I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
Driving in towns & cities is supposed to be slow, by design.I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
Where you try to flout that then you get yourself into problems.
Vipers said:
Von, as has been said before, if we all did this just in case, the towns and cities would come to a stop.
I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
2 mph?I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
Hasn't the message yet gotten through to you that by driving at 20mph you have bags of time to react to whatever may happen, so if anyone does anything silly 1 metre ahead of you then it's entirely your own fault if you don't stop?
Oh hang on, he was doing less than 20!
Phatboy317 said:
Vipers said:
Von, as has been said before, if we all did this just in case, the towns and cities would come to a stop.
I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
2 mph?I am now wondering how slow I must drive at to be able to stop in a metre, just in case.
Hasn't the message yet gotten through to you that by driving at 20mph you have bags of time to react to whatever may happen, so if anyone does anything silly 1 metre ahead of you then it's entirely your own fault if you don't stop?
vonhosen said:
But people are still advocating he was in an impossible situation. HE WASN"T.
Saying things like you would personally be doing less than 20 one metre from the crossing and so be able to stop, casts serious doubts on your grasp of the laws of physics, leading me to believe that you're perhaps less than able to judge what is or isn't an impossible situation.Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
But people are still advocating he was in an impossible situation. HE WASN"T.
Saying things like you would personally be doing less than 20 one metre from the crossing and so be able to stop, casts serious doubts on your grasp of the laws of physics, leading me to believe that you're perhaps less than able to judge what is or isn't an impossible situation.vonhosen said:
I also said I'd have stopped even if they hadn't actually stepped on the crossing. That means I'd have been doing 'a lot' less than 20mph one metre from the crossing. I have a fine understanding of the physics, it's why I've been advocating what I have.
Be that as it may.My point is that you will always get drivers who fail to respond adequately to situations, for whatever reason, and the tighter the situation is the more likely that is to happen.
It's all well and good to punish drivers for not being compliant with the rules, but that doesn't bring back life and limb.
Pedestrians running onto a crossing without ascertaining whether it's safe to do so, place their lives and limbs in the hands of possibly less-than-perfect drivers, who may be tired, distracted, etc.
Some here have asserted that the threat to life and limb should be enough to make pedestrians take care, but they may think that the priority law removes that threat.
I'm not suggesting that the priority law be changed, but is it really such a big deal to ask that, additionally, pedestrians should take a bit more care when entering crossings?
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
I also said I'd have stopped even if they hadn't actually stepped on the crossing. That means I'd have been doing 'a lot' less than 20mph one metre from the crossing. I have a fine understanding of the physics, it's why I've been advocating what I have.
Be that as it may.My point is that you will always get drivers who fail to respond adequately to situations, for whatever reason, and the tighter the situation is the more likely that is to happen.
It's all well and good to punish drivers for not being compliant with the rules, but that doesn't bring back life and limb.
Pedestrians running onto a crossing without ascertaining whether it's safe to do so, place their lives and limbs in the hands of possibly less-than-perfect drivers, who may be tired, distracted, etc.
Some here have asserted that the threat to life and limb should be enough to make pedestrians take care, but they may think that the priority law removes that threat.
I'm not suggesting that the priority law be changed, but is it really such a big deal to ask that, additionally, pedestrians should take a bit more care when entering crossings?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff