Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
delboy735 said:
Jaywalking?? ie, not paying attention to traffic. Also, she didn't exactly just step out, she saw the car coming to to her right, and decided to run across without even a cursory glance to her left.
FFS, why can't we have the Green Cross Code adverts back on telly, and teach the youngsters to pay attention.
Oh yes, forgot, the motorist is an easier target...And Von views them as fair game.
Exactly. Back when common sense was common children were taught "stop at the kerb, look right, left left then look right again and if clear you can cross". The girl did none if this. Also common sense tells you that in the circumstances of large lump of metal and my squidgy bits there is only one loser. When I'm a pedestrian I ensure the vehicle is going to stop before crossing. Von and others seem to embrace the "I'm on the crossing therefore I'm in the right and the vehicle will stop" mantra. Good luck with that when you're put in your wooden box.FFS, why can't we have the Green Cross Code adverts back on telly, and teach the youngsters to pay attention.
Oh yes, forgot, the motorist is an easier target...And Von views them as fair game.
speedking31 said:
croyde said:
.... also some instances of people doing the right thing and waiting to cross but many cars blast through before either someone stops or the ped thinks it's clear enough to cross.
I was always taught to put a foot on the crossing to 'claim' right of way, once you've done that then the drivers MUST stop.
Plus when I cross, I make sure I have eye contact with the driver and raise my hand in thanks and then start checking out the other direction once I'm sure a motorbike or a cyclist isn't whizzing past the car's offside.
Sounds long winded but I walk a lot in the City and very few peds are faster than me
and I have managed not to get hit by a car so far.
Regardless of fault, the girl is a t
t!! who got splat..........tered. Self High Five!!
Sounds long winded but I walk a lot in the City and very few peds are faster than me
and I have managed not to get hit by a car so far.Regardless of fault, the girl is a t
t!! who got splat..........tered. Self High Five!!mybrainhurts said:
Blimey, von, didn't know you were into education...
There is clearly a defect in the law, which ought to hold pedestrians liable for their actions. I noted some time ago that 80%+ of pedestrian casualties get hurt through their own negligence.
Do they? Somneone else quoted 21% in another thread a few days back. Care to provide a source for that number?There is clearly a defect in the law, which ought to hold pedestrians liable for their actions. I noted some time ago that 80%+ of pedestrian casualties get hurt through their own negligence.
singlecoil said:
It's amazing how different people can view the same short video and come to such different conclusions about who was to blame.
I should think any innocent person who found themselves in court would be entitled to be terrified of the eye-witness evidence.
Eye witness evidence is deeply flawed.I should think any innocent person who found themselves in court would be entitled to be terrified of the eye-witness evidence.
When doing Route Cause Analysis at work eye-witness data is treated as suspect unless it is backed up by data. Even when people think they know what they saw they are frequently incorrect.
WinstonWolf said:
Anyone who thinks the pedestrian isn't to blame, would you cross the road in the same manner as she did?
Even if you are walking across the crossing, you should be looking, unlike my OH who,thinks "If the little green man is on, its safe to cross".Next time you stop at a crossing, look see who looks left and right, could be a cyclists zipping down the road. Pedestrians never cease to amaze me, blinkers on, look straight ahead and walk over.
Its too easy for us to sit here and look at the CCTV time and time again, freeze frames etc, but your absolutely right in my opinion, she is to blame.
Vipers said:
WinstonWolf said:
Anyone who thinks the pedestrian isn't to blame, would you cross the road in the same manner as she did?
Even if you are walking across the crossing, you should be looking, unlike my OH who,thinks "If the little green man is on, its safe to cross".Next time you stop at a crossing, look see who looks left and right, could be a cyclists zipping down the road. Pedestrians never cease to amaze me, blinkers on, look straight ahead and walk over.
Its too easy for us to sit here and look at the CCTV time and time again, freeze frames etc, but your absolutely right in my opinion, she is to blame.
Greg66 said:
vonhosen said:
The law places the requirement on the driver in Reg 25
The best way to watch these clips is by a series of freeze frames. When the time counter is on 11sec, the corner of the Cayenne is obscuring the Golf driver's line of sight to the girl (assuming the Golf is RHD).
Very early into 12s, the line of sight opens.
The collision happens just after the timer clicks to 13s.
So one second for the driver to see and react.
It appears that the driver didn't even see the girl though, based on the fact that the Golf looks to maintain speed and line, and the nose doesn't dip under braking. That's not good.
But the girl can see the car (the leading edge of the bonnet) before the driver can see her; yet she ends up doing her level best to run into the path of the car, off the zebra crossing: she tries to run round the front of the car rather than trying to stop.
Both can be criticised, but IMO the greater share of the responsibility (but not all of it) rests with the girl.
The driver did not give way (as required) to somebody lawfully using the crossing, they were on the crossing ( read roundabout if you like) before him.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th November 16:59
Back when I was young and foolish there was an occasion when I got tired of waiting for cars to actually stop at a crossing so in a break in the traffic I set off with my heavily pregnant wife just behind me...
Someone who was intent on ignoring my presence then drove through the space I was about to occupy on the next step. As their car brushed past me I smacked the back of it with my hand as a sort of gesture of how close it was.
A few minutes later the same car reappeared having driven round the block, pulled up and the driver came over. He told me that pedestrians weren't allowed to start crossing until the cars had completely stopped. As I opened my mouth to enter into a discussion on this point he punched me hard in the face and I was on the floor.
Didn't get his number because I couldn't see properly until he was long gone. Sometimes with crossings it is better to assume that nobody can see you and that they don't care about anything.
Someone who was intent on ignoring my presence then drove through the space I was about to occupy on the next step. As their car brushed past me I smacked the back of it with my hand as a sort of gesture of how close it was.
A few minutes later the same car reappeared having driven round the block, pulled up and the driver came over. He told me that pedestrians weren't allowed to start crossing until the cars had completely stopped. As I opened my mouth to enter into a discussion on this point he punched me hard in the face and I was on the floor.
Didn't get his number because I couldn't see properly until he was long gone. Sometimes with crossings it is better to assume that nobody can see you and that they don't care about anything.
WinstonWolf said:
Anyone who thinks the pedestrian isn't to blame, would you cross the road in the same manner as she did?
There are very few collisions between two parties in which there isn't blame on both parties to some degree.In a civil case the contributory percentages will be worked out, in a criminal case the law will be applied.
Criminal outcome 'may' have some bearing on civil claim.
With the two parties in the video only the driver committed an offence.
He will be fighting a rearguard action in the circumstances.
karma mechanic said:
Back when I was young and foolish there was an occasion when I got tired of waiting for cars to actually stop at a crossing so in a break in the traffic I set off with my heavily pregnant wife just behind me...
Someone who was intent on ignoring my presence then drove through the space I was about to occupy on the next step. As their car brushed past me I smacked the back of it with my hand as a sort of gesture of how close it was.
A few minutes later the same car reappeared having driven round the block, pulled up and the driver came over. He told me that pedestrians weren't allowed to start crossing until the cars had completely stopped. As I opened my mouth to enter into a discussion on this point he punched me hard in the face and I was on the floor.
Didn't get his number because I couldn't see properly until he was long gone. Sometimes with crossings it is better to assume that nobody can see you and that they don't care about anything.
Someone who was intent on ignoring my presence then drove through the space I was about to occupy on the next step. As their car brushed past me I smacked the back of it with my hand as a sort of gesture of how close it was.
A few minutes later the same car reappeared having driven round the block, pulled up and the driver came over. He told me that pedestrians weren't allowed to start crossing until the cars had completely stopped. As I opened my mouth to enter into a discussion on this point he punched me hard in the face and I was on the floor.
Didn't get his number because I couldn't see properly until he was long gone. Sometimes with crossings it is better to assume that nobody can see you and that they don't care about anything.
Did your wife's pregnancy affect her vision too or had she swanned off somewhere else by then?vonhosen said:
If he can't see it's clear he must assume it isn't & show caution. He can only proceed where he can see it is clear/safe to go. In that respect it's not much different to a roundabout. Those lines infront of the crossing for him are a give way. If he had driven into the roundabout & collided with a car from the right in a situation like that, then the PH mob would be baying for his blood & say he should have checked it was clear before entering the roundabout. Because it's a pedestrian the PH mob are out for their blood.
The driver did not give way (as required) to somebody lawfully using the crossing, they were on the crossing ( read roundabout if you like) before him.
Hmm. Interesting you put it that way. Made me think a bit more. The driver did not give way (as required) to somebody lawfully using the crossing, they were on the crossing ( read roundabout if you like) before him.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th November 16:59
When I'm on my pedal bike, it's not unusual to find myself filtering up the left of stationary traffic. If there is a zebra, usually the queuing traffic will stop so as to leave the zebra crossing free. If the vehicle at the head of the queue is a van, I'm unsighted and can't see what's on the crossing until I am level with the front of the van. Thinking about it, I always slow and treat the crossing as a give way, peaking round the van and proceeding if the crossing is clear. So I see your point about being unsighted means be cautious - as I realise that's what I do.
But conversely, if I am crossing the zebra crossing on foot in those circs, experience has taught me that cyclists/moped riders/motorbikes are always so cautious/courteous. So I tend to pause in front of the stationary channel and peer round between the queue and the far kerb to see whether it is clear. What I don't do, even on a zebra, is run across with the blinkers on hoping or trusting that vehicles will freeze on the spot for me if I emerge from behind an obscured sightline. Whether I'm in the right or not isn't much consolation when I'm lying on the floor, post impact...
Generally speaking people signal their intention to use a zebra by turning and waiting on the kerbside. You don't often come across people who conceal their intentions before suddenly turning and stepping straight out regardless of traffic flow. As a driver, one doesn't tend to assume when approaching a zebra that someone will run out of a crowd, or from behind a tree, or from inside a shop, straight onto the zebra - part of the package of assumptions you use are that people are predictable and act predictably.
Vipers said:
As always you are right. This in my opinion demonstrates again where the law is an ass.
...and why we're seeing ever more incidents like that happening, more and more pedestrians getting themselves injured or worse, and more and more drivers being punished.Because the law, the way it is, does absolutely nothing to discourage that sort of behaviour.
But the law's the law, and the law's always right, not so?
vonhosen said:
WinstonWolf said:
Anyone who thinks the pedestrian isn't to blame, would you cross the road in the same manner as she did?
There are very few collisions between two parties in which there isn't blame on both parties to some degree.In a civil case the contributory percentages will be worked out, in a criminal case the law will be applied.
Criminal outcome 'may' have some bearing on civil claim.
With the two parties in the video only the driver committed an offence.
He will be fighting a rearguard action in the circumstances.
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
WinstonWolf said:
Anyone who thinks the pedestrian isn't to blame, would you cross the road in the same manner as she did?
There are very few collisions between two parties in which there isn't blame on both parties to some degree.In a civil case the contributory percentages will be worked out, in a criminal case the law will be applied.
Criminal outcome 'may' have some bearing on civil claim.
With the two parties in the video only the driver committed an offence.
He will be fighting a rearguard action in the circumstances.
I wouldn't do what the driver did either.
Even if she hadn't been hit he would still have committed the offence.
vonhosen said:
Even if she hadn't been hit he would still have committed the offence.
Question. Woman standing at crossing chatting, the driver decides they are not about to cross.At the last moment as he approaches the crossing, the pedestrian suddenly turns and steps out in front of the vehicle.
So at which distance from the crossing does the driver committed an offence if a pedestrian steps out.
There obviously is a distance at which he cannot stop in, and therefore cannot be guilty of committing an offence.
Just interested.
Vipers said:
vonhosen said:
Even if she hadn't been hit he would still have committed the offence.
Question. Woman standing at crossing chatting, the driver decides they are not about to cross.At the last moment as he approaches the crossing, the pedestrian suddenly turns and steps out in front of the vehicle.
So at which distance from the crossing does the driver committed an offence if a pedestrian steps out.
There obviously is a distance at which he cannot stop in, and therefore cannot be guilty of committing an offence.
Just interested.
Here it is again.
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.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 10th November 18:59
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff