Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

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. Only 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.

No it doesn't, personal responsibility does.

She is required to wait for the traffic to stop. You can't argue with physics, if she's stupid enough to run in the path of a vehicle without checking it's safe it is entirely her own fault.

Stupid people are more likely to die, ultimately this improves the gene pool and is good for the human race as a whole.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

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

That's the difference between you and me.

I try to see what happened, and how it happened.

You seem to concentrate on why it happened, and who to blame for it.

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

Show us where the requirement is.

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...

The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.

Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

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

That's the difference between you and me.

I try to see what happened, and how it happened.

You seem to concentrate on why it happened, and who to blame for it.

No I can see what happened & how it happened. The blame part is because people didn't do what they should, with the what & how totally predictable in the case.

[vonhosen]

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

Show us where the requirement is.

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

I've already said that, but that is no legal requirement within Reg 25(1), which is what I was talking about in the post that was questioned.

Toltec said:

In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...

The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.

Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.

Undoubtedly she plays a contributory part, I've said so many times, but IMHO his contribution outweighs hers because the greater duty is imposed on him to avoid exactly that scenario.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 16:08

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

Show us where the requirement is.

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

I've already said that, but that is no legal requirement which is what I was talking about in the post that was questioned.

Toltec said:

In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...

The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.

Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.

Undoubtedly she plays a contributory part, I've said so many times, but IMHO his contribution outweighs hers because the greater duty is imposed on him to avoid exactly that scenario.

Who is the risk greatest for?

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

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. Only 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.

No it doesn't, personal responsibility does.

She is required to wait for the traffic to stop. You can't argue with physics, if she's stupid enough to run in the path of a vehicle without checking it's safe it is entirely her own fault.

Stupid people are more likely to die, ultimately this improves the gene pool and is good for the human race as a whole.

She is not 'required' to, she is 'advised' to. He is 'required' to within the interaction.
You can't argue with physics.
If she had done what she was advised to it wouldn't have happened, if had done what he was required to it wouldn't have happened.
They are both responsible, just that extra responsibility is his burden, so he carries more blame.

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

Show us where the requirement is.

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

I've already said that, but that is no legal requirement which is what I was talking about in the post that was questioned.

Toltec said:

In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...

The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.

Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.

Undoubtedly she plays a contributory part, I've said so many times, but IMHO his contribution outweighs hers because the greater duty is imposed on him to avoid exactly that scenario.

Who is the risk greatest for?

Risk of what?
Injury = her.
Imprisonment = him.
Blame = him.

[Phatboy317]

Toltec said:

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

Nail on head.

By the time his view of the pedestrian became obscured by the pedestrian, he was around 12 metres from the crossing, so it would arguably already have been too late to stop before the crossing, even with full braking.

So, at that point, he should already have slowed down to about 10mph or less in order to be on the safe side.

But, given that he would have needed about 16 metres in order to slow down from 20 to 10 at 25% braking, he would have had to start slowing when he was still a long way back - in fact about the time the silver car moved off across the crossing, at which time there was arguably no reason to have done so.

Perhaps he should have foreseen it, but he didn't, and by the time his view of the crossing became obscured by the black car it was already too late.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

Toltec said:

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

Nail on head.

By the time his view of the pedestrian became obscured by the pedestrian, he was around 12 metres from the crossing, so it would arguably already have been too late to stop before the crossing, even with full braking.

So, at that point, he should already have slowed down to about 10mph or less in order to be on the safe side.

But, given that he would have needed about 16 metres in order to slow down from 20 to 10 at 25% braking, he would have had to start slowing when he was still a long way back - in fact about the time the silver car moved off across the crossing, at which time there was arguably no reason to have done so.

Perhaps he should have foreseen it, but he didn't, and by the time his view of the crossing became obscured by the black car it was already too late.

There is no argument he did too little too late.

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

Toltec said:

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

Nail on head.

By the time his view of the pedestrian became obscured by the pedestrian, he was around 12 metres from the crossing, so it would arguably already have been too late to stop before the crossing, even with full braking.

So, at that point, he should already have slowed down to about 10mph or less in order to be on the safe side.

But, given that he would have needed about 16 metres in order to slow down from 20 to 10 at 25% braking, he would have had to start slowing when he was still a long way back - in fact about the time the silver car moved off across the crossing, at which time there was arguably no reason to have done so.

Perhaps he should have foreseen it, but he didn't, and by the time his view of the crossing became obscured by the black car it was already too late.

There is no argument he did too little too late.

There clearly is. See previous posts.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

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.

That would suggest that the law makes pedestrians have a false sense of security when crossing a road then, which is what I have said all along and what the study shows as well.

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

Toltec said:

Physics

If you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.

Nail on head.

By the time his view of the pedestrian became obscured by the pedestrian, he was around 12 metres from the crossing, so it would arguably already have been too late to stop before the crossing, even with full braking.

So, at that point, he should already have slowed down to about 10mph or less in order to be on the safe side.

But, given that he would have needed about 16 metres in order to slow down from 20 to 10 at 25% braking, he would have had to start slowing when he was still a long way back - in fact about the time the silver car moved off across the crossing, at which time there was arguably no reason to have done so.

Perhaps he should have foreseen it, but he didn't, and by the time his view of the crossing became obscured by the black car it was already too late.

There is no argument he did too little too late.

There clearly is. See previous posts.

it's because of the things said in the previous posts he clearly did too little too late.
You can't go if you can't see that you can safely cross the crossing without breaching Reg 25(1). You need to approach the crossing with that in mind, he didn't. If you can't see that you can safely cross without breaching Reg 25(1) you need to stop at the give ways until you can see you can.

[turbobloke]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

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.

That would suggest that the law makes pedestrians have a false sense of security when crossing a road then, which is what I have said all along and what the study shows as well.

Also, what the driver did is what they could possibly do within the physiological and physics constraints of the situation they found themselves in.

I continued my personal experiment today, begun after reading this thread, involving listening to engine note and looking for bonnet dip when cars including police cars approach pedestrial crossings on roads with populated pavements. It looks as though only those drivers who've been on an advanced e.s.p. demigod training course could have had the necessary premonition and avoided impact with the careless banshee pedestrian in the video. Hope they're OK and recovering well all the same, also that the driver isn't overly traumatised as another victim in this event.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

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.

That would suggest that the law makes pedestrians have a false sense of security when crossing a road then, which is what I have said all along and what the study shows as well.

No it doesn't, because they also do that crossing roads where the law doesn't give them priority or protection. The purpose of giving them priority is to draw them to the crossing where the drivers can expect & plan for it by virtue of the Regs imposed on them.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

There is no argument he did too little too late.

Yes, and the more quickly events are permitted to develop, because of running pedestrians etc, the more cases there are going to be of drivers doing too little too late.

[vonhosen]

turbobloke said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

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.

That would suggest that the law makes pedestrians have a false sense of security when crossing a road then, which is what I have said all along and what the study shows as well.

Also, what the driver did is what they could possibly do within the physiological and physics constraints of the situation they found themselves in.

Maybe for him because of the choices he made that day, but not for everyone & not for what was expected of him.

[Finlandia]

singlecoil said:

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.

We will have to live with it then, just don't blame someone else for the failings of the personal responsibility.

Car must stop, pedestrian must not run out before checking it's safe.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

There is no argument he did too little too late.

Yes, and the more quickly events are permitted to develop, because of running pedestrians etc, the more cases there are going to be of drivers doing too little too late.

Pedestrians sometimes run, that's no surprise.
Where they have priority & a legal priority is given to them, ignore it at your peril.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

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.

That would suggest that the law makes pedestrians have a false sense of security when crossing a road then, which is what I have said all along and what the study shows as well.

You can suggest that it suggests whatever you like, but the idea that any pedestrian runs out into the road, or even across a zebra crossing, relying on the laws of man to overcome the laws of physics is ridiculous. Ridiculous.