Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

It's not too much to ask, the highway code asks them to.

But there's no legal requirement.
Or is being hit by a car punishment enough?

[Finlandia]

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

That's not true, we are talking about limited circumstances. If there had been crossing, no blame on driver, but the crossing being there changes the rules.

WE KNOW THAT!!!

But people are still advocating he was in an impossible situation. HE WASN"T.

She was walking whilst he could see her. She broke into a run whilst the driver was unsighted. The driver would have correctly assumed she wouldn't be near the crossing when he arrived.

Her mistake was not following the rules laid down to her in the Highway Code.

Personal responsibility, she took none.

[heebeegeetee]

Phatboy317 said:

But there's no legal requirement.
Or is being hit by a car punishment enough?

I asked you earlier if you'd put an age element in your legislation, and you didn't answer, possibly because we might find this ped would come under your age limit.

I just think all you've managed to do is spend 25 pages arguing your way back to square one.

---

I rather imagine the pedestrian has learned the folly of her ways, but given how so many on these threads think the driver did nothing wrong in crossing a zebra without being able to see if it's clear, I do think that he and the many on these threads will continue with their poor driving, and he and you guys are far more likely to hurt someone than the pedestrian is.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Relax. Neither you nor anyone else can stop every possible bad thing from happening.

[delboy735]

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Quick blast on the horn of the vehicle to warn every pedestrian within earshot, who may or may not be wanting to cross the road by the crossing that you are approaching them, and by doing so, you will have given them sufficient warning to slow down, and then allow them to make the correct judgemental call, as to whether they step out or not !!

It's black and white with Von. I'm going to change my driving style now, and come to a stop at every crossing with pedestrians close to ( or approaching ) them, and I'm also going to make a note of police vehicles marked and unmarked to see if they adopt the same attitude as Von, because he says he stops !! It'll be fun


My bad...Von doesn't stop, but he does slow down for every crossing.

Edited by delboy735 on Saturday 15th November 13:20

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Phatboy317 said:

But there's no legal requirement.
Or is being hit by a car punishment enough?

I asked you earlier if you'd put an age element in your legislation, and you didn't answer, possibly because we might find this ped would come under your age limit.

How do kids, mentally challenged, drunks and druggies act at a tram or train crossing? Run over it blindly, or check before?

[DonkeyApple]

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Hit them with a shovel if they're still moving?

Use Big Brother celebrities to do it so that it can be put on Twitter for all the fruit and veg to watch and learn?

[Finlandia]

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Relax. Neither you nor anyone else can stop every possible bad thing from happening.

No, but it would be really easy for the peds to have a quick look before running over a road, just like at a railway crossing, surely that can't be too much to ask?

delboy735 said:

Quick blast on the horn of the vehicle to warn every pedestrian within earshot, who may or may not be wanting to cross the road by the crossing that you are approaching them, and by doing so, you will have given them sufficient warning to slow down, and then allow them to make the correct judgemental call, as to whether they step out or not !!

That may just be the solution

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

How do kids, mentally challenged, drunks and druggies act at a tram or train crossing? Run over it blindly, or check before?

I have no idea what you're on about and have significantly less interest. I didn't read any of your posts about sweden or trams or st because it's got absolutely fk all to do with this situation or how I would have deal with zebra crossings and other junctions myself.

I do believe that there are campaigns to gate all level crossings in the uk because of the numbers of drivers who ignore lights signals.

[rb5er]

What a stupid girl. Unreal.

[heebeegeetee]

delboy735 said:

It's black and white with Von. I'm going to change my driving style now, and come to a stop at every crossing with pedestrians close to ( or approaching ) them, and I'm also going to make a note of police vehicles marked and unmarked to see if they adopt the same attitude as Von, because he says he stops !! It'll be fun

Is it just impossible for you to work out a good way to deal with zebra crossings?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

How do kids, mentally challenged, drunks and druggies act at a tram or train crossing? Run over it blindly, or check before?

I have no idea what you're on about and have significantly less interest. I didn't read any of your posts about sweden or trams or st because it's got absolutely fk all to do with this situation or how I would have deal with zebra crossings and other junctions myself.

I do believe that there are campaigns to gate all level crossings in the uk because of the numbers of drivers who ignore lights signals.

You keep going on about how kids and dumb people could be required to check if it's safe to cross a road or not, presumably these people cross rails too. So tell me, how do they act at a rail crossing?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

You keep going on about how kids and dumb people could be required to check if it's safe to cross a road or not, presumably these people cross rails too. So tell me, how do they act at a rail crossing?

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. I've never said "kids and dumb people could be required to check if it's safe to cross a road or not". I think it's phatboy who wants legislation to force kids and dumb people to obey the laws - the same laws that drivers ignore, presumably.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

You keep going on about how kids and dumb people could be required to check if it's safe to cross a road or not, presumably these people cross rails too. So tell me, how do they act at a rail crossing?

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. I've never said "kids and dumb people could be required to check if it's safe to cross a road or not". I think it's phatboy who wants legislation to force kids and dumb people to obey the laws - the same laws that drivers ignore, presumably.

Personal responsibility, you know the thing they must be thinking about before running over a rail crossing.

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

That's not true, we are talking about limited circumstances. If there had been crossing, no blame on driver, but the crossing being there changes the rules.

WE KNOW THAT!!!

But people are still advocating he was in an impossible situation. HE WASN"T.

She was walking whilst he could see her. She broke into a run whilst the driver was unsighted. The driver would have correctly assumed she wouldn't be near the crossing when he arrived.

Her mistake was not following the rules laid down to her in the Highway Code.

Personal responsibility, she took none.

She was at the crossing when she started to run, if she'd walked onto it he would still have committed the offence.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

She was at the crossing when she started to run, if she'd walked onto it

she wouldn't have ended up t-boning the car.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

She was at the crossing when she started to run, if she'd walked onto it he would still have committed the offence.

But she would not have been hit!

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

That's not true, we are talking about limited circumstances. If there had been crossing, no blame on driver, but the crossing being there changes the rules.

WE KNOW THAT!!!

But people are still advocating he was in an impossible situation. HE WASN"T.

She was walking whilst he could see her. She broke into a run whilst the driver was unsighted. The driver would have correctly assumed she wouldn't be near the crossing when he arrived.

Her mistake was not following the rules laid down to her in the Highway Code.

Personal responsibility, she took none.

She was at the crossing when she started to run, if she'd walked onto it he would still have committed the offence.

If she had carried on at the same speed he would have seen her and stopped. She ran into his path.

The Highway Code requires her to stop and make sure vehicles have stopped before beginning to cross.

[Phatboy317]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And if one party depends on another party to never make mistakes, regardless of what they themselves do, you're occasionally going to get two wrongs.

We don't live in a perfect world.