Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[vonhosen]

DonkeyApple said:

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.

She could be seen heading towards it & was close enough to be able to get on it before him. If his vision is impaired he should protect his own interests if nothing else & show caution. Don't proceed beyond the give way until he is sure she isn't going to get on the crossing before him.
There was a need to slow, the outcome shows this & it was a potential that needed to be catered for.

[Red Devil]

singlecoil 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.

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.

As VH has told us umpteen times, the laws of man (re priority) only apply to the zebra crossing situation.
It looks to me relying on those laws is exactly what the girl did.

As far as I can tell the VW driver never slackened speed at any point.
Playing 'follow my leader' with the car in front of him was his big mistake.

[vonhosen]

Red Devil said:

singlecoil 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.

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.

As VH has told us umpteen times, the laws of man (re priority) only apply to the zebra crossing situation.
It looks to me relying on those laws is exactly what the girl did.

As far as I can tell the VW driver never slackened speed at any point.
Playing 'follow my leader' with the car in front of him was his big mistake.

I don't think she was consciously thinking about the laws at all, she was just thinking about getting across between the black cars from her right.

[Vipers]

At the end of the day, the police were not involved (apparently), so no action was taken on the driver.

Von has explained the legal standpoint, (nuff said on that point), just about all arguments have been posted, discussed and dissected, are we at the end of the thread I wonder.

Probably another 10 pages at least.

[singlecoil]

Red Devil said:

As VH has told us umpteen times, the laws of man (re priority) only apply to the zebra crossing situation.
It looks to me relying on those laws is exactly what the girl did.

As far as I can tell the VW driver never slackened speed at any point.
Playing 'follow my leader' with the car in front of him was his big mistake.

Doesn't look that way to me at all. The only thing she was relying on was her own judgement in assessing whether or not it was safe to run across. Turned out it wasn't. We already know she didn't see the car she hit, so she wasn't relying on the law to stop it.

[Red Devil]

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

singlecoil 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.

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.

As VH has told us umpteen times, the laws of man (re priority) only apply to the zebra crossing situation.
It looks to me relying on those laws is exactly what the girl did.

As far as I can tell the VW driver never slackened speed at any point.
Playing 'follow my leader' with the car in front of him was his big mistake.

I don't think she was consciously thinking about the laws at all, she was just thinking about getting across between the black cars from her right.

I was taking issue with the point made by singlecoil. I don't think it's ridiculous at all. He may have never encountered a ped who has abruptly changed direction and, without pausing or even breaking stride, simply walked straight out in front of an approaching vehicle (presumably on the assumption that they have priority and a car can 'stop on a sixpence') but I have. No harm was done as I was going slowly enough not to breach the boundary of the crossing, but it was still somewhat unnerving that the ped seemed to have absolutely no concept of self-preservation.

I take your point about conscious thought. Maybe she was the equivalent of an 'amber gambler' motorist thinking she could get across before the next vehicle reached the crossing. I reckon if she hadn't changed direction when on the crossing she wouldn't have been hit. Turning in the same direction as a moving object is heading (especially one which shows no sign of slowing down) is much more likely to end in contact.

[SK425]

Phatboy317 said:

SK425 said:

This. It's bewildering that people aren't getting it when it's so simple.

I'm not sure how you'd go about crafting a jaywalking law - what exactly would become criminal? There are plenty of roads with pavements next to them, but there are plenty of roads without too, so it couldn't be as simple as no walking in the road. I'm even less sure how a jaywalking law would have any relevance in a case like this unless the status of zebra crossings with respect to pedestrian priority was changed too.

How about simply making it an offence to run across a crossing? (except in emergency) Why would that be so difficult to accept?

You could work out something along those lines I suppose. It would be a bit of a muddying of the waters though. At the moment the priority rules for zebra crossings are clear. With this new offence in place, how would I as a driver know when I did and did not have priority? Would I be expected to make a judgement, in the moment, about the manner in which a pedestrian was approaching the crossing in order to know whether or not, if they got onto the crossing, they would have priority?

Would it be difficult to accept? I think so. Bear in mind that you're talking about zebra crossings - a creation specifically devised to give pedestrians priority, so as to encourage them to cross there rather than elsewhere and to give them protection in law if they do so. If even a zebra crossing can only be used in a certain manner, what does that imply for the right to walk everywhere else on the roads? As things stand, people are allowed to use roads to get places, albeit if they want to get there piloting a ton and a half of metal death machine they have rules to follow. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already encumbered by too much arbitrary regulation when I'm driving a car. The last thing I'd vote for is to extend that interference to other modes of transport too. To my mind, if someone wants to run out into the road in front of moving cars, that should be their own lookout. It's nowhere near big enough a problem to justify nanny getting involved.

[Phatboy317]

SK425 said:

You could work out something along those lines I suppose. It would be a bit of a muddying of the waters though. At the moment the priority rules for zebra crossings are clear. With this new offence in place, how would I as a driver know when I did and did not have priority? Would I be expected to make a judgement, in the moment, about the manner in which a pedestrian was approaching the crossing in order to know whether or not, if they got onto the crossing, they would have priority?

Would it be difficult to accept? I think so. Bear in mind that you're talking about zebra crossings - a creation specifically devised to give pedestrians priority, so as to encourage them to cross there rather than elsewhere and to give them protection in law if they do so. If even a zebra crossing can only be used in a certain manner, what does that imply for the right to walk everywhere else on the roads? As things stand, people are allowed to use roads to get places, albeit if they want to get there piloting a ton and a half of metal death machine they have rules to follow. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already encumbered by too much arbitrary regulation when I'm driving a car. The last thing I'd vote for is to extend that interference to other modes of transport too. To my mind, if someone wants to run out into the road in front of moving cars, that should be their own lookout. It's nowhere near big enough a problem to justify nanny getting involved.

I never said anything about removing, or even changing, the priority rules.
The not running rule should be in addition to the priority rule, and is meant to minimise the risk of collision in cases where the priority rule is not adhered to, for any reason.

Drivers still treat the crossing the same - the pedestrian still has priority - but in cases where the driver doesn't, or cannot, stick to the rules, at least it minimises the chance of a collision ensuing.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 15th November 23:18

[WinstonWolf]

Well Von, looks like the Green Cross Man is making a return thanks to adults recklessly crossing the road

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/darth-vad...

[Vipers]

WinstonWolf said:

Well Von, looks like the Green Cross Man is making a return thanks to adults recklessly crossing the road

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/darth-vad...

Hope the message gets across to these brain dead pedestrians.

[carinaman]

When I was at Tesco earlier in the week they had white tee shirts with the album cover on the front of it. Not my thing but perhaps someone should tell the people getting their photo taken on the crossing and they'll rush off to Tesco?

[croyde]

Christ! Is this debate still on going?

[schmunk]

carinaman said:

When I was at Tesco earlier in the week they had white tee shirts with the album cover on the front of it.

Did they have any for The White Album?