Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[Phatboy317]

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.

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

There is no argument he did too little too late.

The lesson being that unless you can see that it is impossible for a pedestrian to enter the crossing before you do, you must stop.

[Finlandia]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

[Alucidnation]

I haven't read the whole thread, so can anyone tell me if anybody has won yet?

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

[Finlandia]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

Would the pedestrian be fined for it then?

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

Would the pedestrian be fined for it then?

They could be financially liable in a civil court.

[Finlandia]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

Would the pedestrian be fined for it then?

They could be financially liable in a civil court.

Would the ped be fined for having caused an accident?

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

Would the pedestrian be fined for it then?

They could be financially liable in a civil court.

Would the ped be fined for having caused an accident?

Not in a criminal court, but could receive a financial cost all the same.
A driver isn't fined for causing an accident either.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:07

[Toltec]

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?

[vonhosen]

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?

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).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12

[Finlandia]

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.

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.

They run red lights and cross roads where they shouldn't and they run blindly over at zebra crossings, why? Because the law allows them to, and it even punishes the one unfortunate enough to hit them in most cases. Red lights are only 'advice', there is no jaywalking legislation, they have priority zones, all the perks but no responsibility, that's where it all goes wrong.

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.

Would the pedestrian be fined for it then?

They could be financially liable in a civil court.

Would the ped be fined for having caused an accident?

Not in a criminal court, but could receive criminal penalty all the same.

So the chances of getting fined are about zero, so it can't be wrong.

[vonhosen]

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.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

A driver isn't fined for causing an accident either.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:07

If a driver jumps a red light, he will be fined, even without causing an accident.
If a pedestrian runs a red light and causes an accident, they don't get fined.

Odd.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

A driver isn't fined for causing an accident either.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:07

If a driver jumps a red light, he will be fined, even without causing an accident.
If a pedestrian runs a red light and causes an accident, they don't get fined.

Odd.

Not really, will of the people.

[DonkeyApple]

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.

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.

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]

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).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12

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.

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

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?

You don't 'have' to give way until they are on the crossing. I give way voluntarily so that I don't commit the offence if they suddenly step out. If they just stand beside the crossing traffic can legally just keep driving past them (for hours if they want to stand there). The legal duty is only imposed when they step within the limits of the crossing.

[vonhosen]

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).

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 17:12

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.

Nope, because if he had done his legal duty the collision wouldn't have taken place. Her behaviour is mitigation in the result but he has the greater burden/responsibility.

[Finlandia]

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.

And running a red light and causing an accident is not breaking the law? The law needs changing then.

vonhosen said:

Not really, will of the people.

Then it's time the ones in charge grew a spine and started sorting the laws.