Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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.
That's the intention of the law, but it has some flaws, as we've seen.vonhosen 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.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.
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
A driver isn't fined for causing an accident either.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:07
vonhosen said:
It doesn't punish poor unfortunates fro hitting where they are doing what they should be doing. It punishes them for not doing what they should have been doing. I've already said many times that if what happened in this case happened where there was no crossing the driver would not be blamed.
Despite the impact happening outside the confines of the crossing?Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't punish poor unfortunates fro hitting where they are doing what they should be doing. It punishes them for not doing what they should have been doing. I've already said many times that if what happened in this case happened where there was no crossing the driver would not be blamed.
Despite the impact happening outside the confines of the crossing?Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen 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.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.
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
A driver isn't fined for causing an accident either.
If a driver jumps a red light, he will be fined, even without causing an accident.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:07
If a pedestrian runs a red light and causes an accident, they don't get fined.
Odd.
vonhosen said:
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. 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.
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.
vonhosen said:
He should have been coming to a stop before she got onto the crossing, it's because he wasn't on the brake approaching the crossing (as she was approaching the crossing) that he left himself high & dry. There was every chance she could have got onto the crossing before him from her position & then it becomes he MUST stop. He didn't cover that eventuality & left himself extremely vulnerable.
Why would you be coming to a stop if not to give way?vonhosen said:
For Reg 25(1) it doesn't matter if there is a collision or not, much less where it actually takes place. The offence is complete when he fails to stop at the give way line & she is on the crossing (whatever happens after that doesn't matter in respect of the offence, other than aggravating/mitigating factors for sentencing). There doesn't have to be a collision for it to be a without due care either, that's committed even before the Reg 25(1).
Ah, so he will get a fine etc. for breaking reg 25, but the collision is a separate matter, because that is clearly the pedestrians fault it should not be a problem. Looking at the video even my wife wondered if she was deliberately trying to get run over as she made a concerted effort to intercept the car.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12
DonkeyApple said:
vonhosen said:
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. 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.
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.
vonhosen said:
He should have been coming to a stop before she got onto the crossing, it's because he wasn't on the brake approaching the crossing (as she was approaching the crossing) that he left himself high & dry. There was every chance she could have got onto the crossing before him from her position & then it becomes he MUST stop. He didn't cover that eventuality & left himself extremely vulnerable.
Why would you be coming to a stop if not to give way?Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
For Reg 25(1) it doesn't matter if there is a collision or not, much less where it actually takes place. The offence is complete when he fails to stop at the give way line & she is on the crossing (whatever happens after that doesn't matter in respect of the offence, other than aggravating/mitigating factors for sentencing). There doesn't have to be a collision for it to be a without due care either, that's committed even before the Reg 25(1).
Ah, so he will get a fine etc. for breaking reg 25, but the collision is a separate matter, because that is clearly the pedestrians fault it should not be a problem. Looking at the video even my wife wondered if she was deliberately trying to get run over as she made a concerted effort to intercept the car.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
So the chances of getting fined are about zero, so it can't be wrong.
The driver can't be fined for causing an accident either.You aren't fined for causing an accident. You are fined for being guilty of breaking the law.
vonhosen said:
Not really, will of the people.
Then it's time the ones in charge grew a spine and started sorting the laws.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff