Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

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.

No he wouldn't, he showed no signs of stopping & you've just said he lost sight of her at the point she started running (which was at the crossing).

She would have stepped on the crossing, he would have not stopped & he'd have committed the offence.
The highway code says she 'should' stop (advice). The highway code & law says he 'must' stop (mandatory order).

[Finlandia]

Phatboy317 said:

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.

Exactly, and this is why there must be some duty put on the pedestrians too, just like on rail crossings.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

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.

That's why the collision happened, but there was a larger burden placed on him to avoid that because a legal duty is imposed at crossings. Elsewhere the incident would have been in his favour.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

Phatboy317 said:

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.

Exactly, and this is why there must be some duty put on the pedestrians too, just like on rail crossings.

On rail crossing the trains have priority.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

Exactly, and this is why there must be some duty put on the pedestrians too, just like on rail crossings.

There is, its in the highway code, its just that greater emphasis is placed on drivers and as a driver I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

That's why the collision happened, but there was a larger burden placed on him to avoid that because a legal duty is imposed at crossings. Elsewhere the incident would have been in his favour.

You see everything through law-coloured specs.

So you either accept the status quo, complete with a certain number of casualties, or you try to find ways of improving the situation.

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

WinstonWolf said:

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.

No he wouldn't, he showed no signs of stopping & you've just said he lost sight of her at the point she started running (which was at the crossing).

She would have stepped on the crossing, he would have not stopped & he'd have committed the offence.
The highway code says she 'should' stop (advice). The highway code & law says he 'must' stop (mandatory order).

She would not have arrived at the crossing in time for him to commit the offence if she had not run.

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

WinstonWolf said:

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.

No he wouldn't, he showed no signs of stopping & you've just said he lost sight of her at the point she started running (which was at the crossing).

She would have stepped on the crossing, he would have not stopped & he'd have committed the offence.
The highway code says she 'should' stop (advice). The highway code & law says he 'must' stop (mandatory order).

She would not have arrived at the crossing in time for him to commit the offence if she had not run.

Rubbish

She doesn't really start running until the first black car is past, she is effectively marking time. She manages to get half way across before the golf enters the crossing.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 14:58

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

That's why the collision happened, but there was a larger burden placed on him to avoid that because a legal duty is imposed at crossings. Elsewhere the incident would have been in his favour.

You see everything through law-coloured specs.

So you either accept the status quo, complete with a certain number of casualties, or you try to find ways of improving the situation.

There is something being done about it all the time, new initiatives are constantly being assessed/implemented to improve things.

[Phatboy317]

WinstonWolf said:

She would not have arrived at the crossing in time for him to commit the offence if she had not run.

If you mean if she had not been running towards the crossing, then possibly true.
However, then perhaps some other vehicle might have hit her instead - maybe a bus or something.
But probably not on that occasion, although sooner or later it probably would happen to her.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 15th November 14:58

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

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?

Most of the time, most of the people, no, some of the time, some of the people, yes.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

There is something being done about it all the time, new initiatives are constantly being assessed/implemented to improve things.

So we're in agreement then

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

There is something being done about it all the time, new initiatives are constantly being assessed/implemented to improve things.

So we're in agreement then

About striving for improvement, yes.

About this individual case, that depends what percentage you would hold each party responsible in the circumstances.

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

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.

Apologies if this is answered in the previous 22 pages.

What are the limits of a crossing?

On the video as the pedestrian runs onto the crossing the car is fully inside the zig zag markings, at the point of impact the car has completely crossed the black and white markings. If the pedestrian had run straight across she would have passed behind the car.

[vonhosen]

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Apologies if this is answered in the previous 22 pages.

What are the limits of a crossing?

On the video as the pedestrian runs onto the crossing the car is fully inside the zig zag markings, at the point of impact the car has completely crossed the black and white markings. If the pedestrian had run straight across she would have passed behind the car.

The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra (if they aren't there then the black & white stripes become the limit), the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 15:09

[DonkeyApple]

vonhosen said:

The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra, the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.

Not quite correct. The car has to give way before the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing and that can be some distance away.

[heebeegeetee]

Phatboy317 said:

If you mean if she had not been running towards the crossing, then possibly true.
However, then perhaps some other vehicle might have hit her instead - maybe a bus or something.
But probably not on that occasion, although sooner or later it probably would happen to her.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 15th November 14:58

I think the greater worry is that with such a lack of attention, and crossing zebras without looking if its clear, the VW driver is likely to hurt or kill someone eventually.

[vonhosen]

DonkeyApple said:

vonhosen said:

The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra, the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.

Not quite correct. The car has to give way before the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing and that can be some distance away.

Show us where the requirement is.

It's good practice so that you can comply with Reg 25(1) & not fall foul of it like this driver, but there is no legal requirement, so there is no 'has' to.
The pedestrian can only assert their priority by stepping onto the crossing & it's this action that means the driver 'MUST' give way if they aren't already within the limits of the crossing.

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Apologies if this is answered in the previous 22 pages.

What are the limits of a crossing?

On the video as the pedestrian runs onto the crossing the car is fully inside the zig zag markings, at the point of impact the car has completely crossed the black and white markings. If the pedestrian had run straight across she would have passed behind the car.

The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra (if they aren't there then the black & white stripes become the limit), the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 15:09

But he wouldn't have hit her if she had complied with rule 19

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Apologies if this is answered in the previous 22 pages.

What are the limits of a crossing?

On the video as the pedestrian runs onto the crossing the car is fully inside the zig zag markings, at the point of impact the car has completely crossed the black and white markings. If the pedestrian had run straight across she would have passed behind the car.

The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra (if they aren't there then the black & white stripes become the limit), the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.

But he wouldn't have hit her if she had complied with rule 19

Highway code 'advice' in rule 19?
No he wouldn't, I've not claimed otherwise. I've only pointed out that he wouldn't have hit her if he complied with the legal duty under Reg 25(1).
That trumps HC rule 19 in the blame stakes.