Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[Vipers]

Sorted, I'me safe, stick one of these on the dash.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

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.

Running a red light is breaking the law.

[Finlandia]

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

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.

Running a red light is breaking the law.

Apparently it's not, it's 'advisory'.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

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.

Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Not really, will of the people.

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

A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

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.

Running a red light is breaking the law.

Apparently it's not, it's 'advisory'.

Running a red light is breaking the law.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).



A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.

You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.


As for reflecting the will of the people

[Finlandia]

singlecoil said:

Running a red light is breaking the law.

vonhosen said:

There aren't enforceable red lights for pedestrians

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Running a red light is breaking the law.

vonhosen said:

There aren't enforceable red lights for pedestrians

The context clearly indicated vehicles, not pedestrians.

[Finlandia]

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Running a red light is breaking the law.

vonhosen said:

There aren't enforceable red lights for pedestrians

The context clearly indicated vehicles, not pedestrians.

The discussion with von was drivers vs. pedestrians, maybe a little unclear for someone to read just that message, but the whole picture was regarding faults and fines for red light skipping and causing an accident, comparing pedestrians and drivers.

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).



A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.

You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.


As for reflecting the will of the people

Of course it's only red lights that are supported by legislation making it an offence to cross them that is breaking the law

I've already told you that pedestrian lights aren't enforceable.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 18:19

[vonhosen]

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Running a red light is breaking the law.

vonhosen said:

There aren't enforceable red lights for pedestrians

The context clearly indicated vehicles, not pedestrians.

And the distinction had already been clearly made.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).



A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.

You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.


As for reflecting the will of the people

Of course it's only red lights that are supported by legislation making it an offence to cross them that is breaking the law

indeed at the very odd laws.

Do you seriously think it's perfectly fine that a pedestrian running/jogging a red light and causing an accident has nothing to worry about from the criminal law?

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

vonhosen said:

Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).



A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.

You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.


As for reflecting the will of the people

Of course it's only red lights that are supported by legislation making it an offence to cross them that is breaking the law

indeed at the very odd laws.

Do you seriously think it's perfectly fine that a pedestrian running/jogging a red light and causing an accident has nothing to worry about from the criminal law?

Yes, if that's what the people want.
They aren't likely to injure anyone & they are still liable civilly for it.
In this country car isn't king, it's the new boy.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

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.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Yes, if that's what the people want.
They aren't likely to injure anyone & they are still liable civilly for it.

They aren't likely to injure anyone? A biker? Soft top car? Cyclist? Heck they may even cause a heart attack for the driver, or more seriously if the driver swerves and hits something or someone else.

I bet that is not what the people want.

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

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.

Just to confirm, if you enter the crossing after they have exited it you are in the clear?

Not arguing this specific incident, it is clear from the video that the car entered the crossing a few tenths of a second before she ran off it into his path. I also do not mean you are clear to run someone over if they take a step off the crossing I simply mean the section 25 offence is no longer in effect?

Sorry to keep pushing this stuff and I am not directing this as an attack on you personally, but being of a technical background I like to ensure thorough testing of boundary conditions. If we need to obey a law with no leeway then it needs to be clearly and tightly defined.

Does a pedestrian have to enter the crossing from a pavement or central refuge for the rule to count or can they dash partially across the normal roadway and enter from the side?

If a cyclist enters while riding then dismounts are they deemed to have stepped on the crossing at the point of dismount or are they still considered a cyclist rather than pedestrian? What if someone jumps off a routemaster, pickup or motorcycle onto the crossing just before you enter it have you committed an offence?

[vonhosen]

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Just to confirm, if you enter the crossing after they have exited it you are in the clear?

Not arguing this specific incident, it is clear from the video that the car entered the crossing a few tenths of a second before she ran off it into his path. I also do not mean you are clear to run someone over if they take a step off the crossing I simply mean the section 25 offence is no longer in effect?

Sorry to keep pushing this stuff and I am not directing this as an attack on you personally, but being of a technical background I like to ensure thorough testing of boundary conditions. If we need to obey a law with no leeway then it needs to be clearly and tightly defined.

Does a pedestrian have to enter the crossing from a pavement or central refuge for the rule to count or can they dash partially across the normal roadway and enter from the side?

If a cyclist enters while riding then dismounts are they deemed to have stepped on the crossing at the point of dismount or are they still considered a cyclist rather than pedestrian? What if someone jumps off a routemaster, pickup or motorcycle onto the crossing just before you enter it have you committed an offence?

You've seen Reg 25(1) & the full regs are available with a simple google. Then apply the legislation, that is what the court will do.
Each case will be dependent on it's circumstances.
It doesn't matter if (as in this case) she exited the limits of the crossing before he hit her, what matters is that she is within the limits of the crossing and at that time he failed to yield at the give way lines, he having not been within the limits of the crossing before her.

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

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.

Death...

Anyone who relies on the law over common sense is a fool.

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Death...

Anyone who relies on the law over common sense is a fool.

I'd rather avoid any of them & urge anyone to do so.
It's common sense not to rely on others where not only your health is concerned but where your liberty or blame is concerned too.

[DonkeyApple]

vonhosen said:

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.

And I suspect that the majority of road users would as well as it's just normal, civilised behaviour.

It also does look like the driver didn't ease off on the approach but then there was no one actually at the crossing as he approached and working on the logical assumption that the person heading in the direction of the crossing who may or may not be aiming to use it, isn't going to be at the crossing at or before him then there wasn't a real need to slow.