Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
Bit surprised at how many countries have a law that makes "jaywalking" illegal.About time we joined that list.
Time for a shake up, and to make the pedestrian more accountable for his/her actions.
Lets bring back the Tufty club and the Green cross Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
Time for a shake up, and to make the pedestrian more accountable for his/her actions.
Lets bring back the Tufty club and the Green cross Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
singlecoil said:
Perhaps the time has come for us all to agree that legally the driver is in the wrong, and discuss whether or not that should be the case in this particular situation?
It seems to me that in nearly all collisions, we can EITHER discuss who was at fault, OR what each party could (should?) have done differently in order to avoid the incident.We can't really conflate the two, and the latter is more useful
Philosophical debates about the legal system might be of academic interest but of little help when it comes to using the roads safely.
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
Perhaps the time has come for us all to agree that legally the driver is in the wrong, and discuss whether or not that should be the case in this particular situation?
It seems to me that in nearly all collisions, we can EITHER discuss who was at fault, OR what each party could (should?) have done differently in order to avoid the incident.We can't really conflate the two, and the latter is more useful
Philosophical debates about the legal system might be of academic interest but of little help when it comes to using the roads safely.
singlecoil said:
Perhaps the time has come for us all to agree that legally the driver is in the wrong, and discuss whether or not that should be the case in this particular situation?
Okay. Lets expand this point. Perhaps somebody with a legal background would be kind enough to tell us all exactly what law was broken by the driver.Looks to me like he was within the limit. Not speeding then.
He/she may have seen the "person" walking round the corner, before the black vehicle partially blocked his/her view to the right.and then was probably watching to the left to make sure no-one was about to step off the pavement...again all clear, so no need to stop. Then as black car passes to his/her right he/she catches sight of "person" running across crossing. Decisions, decisions......at this point, "I" would assume ( as I am guessing the driver did) that the "person" would run straight over the crossing, therefore, using logic, if I were to accelerate a bit, the "person" would see me, slow down and dodge behind me. If I (or the driver ) had slammed on, there is also great probability that the "person" would have run face first into the car. Sadly the "person" chose the other route, diagonal across the road, and we now know the result.
So far as I can see, the only thing the driver did wrong, was not to read the mind of the "person" and understand what the "persons" intentions were to be.
So please can someone give us all a full explanation of the law broken in this instance. Thank you.
pinchmeimdreamin said:
IMO the driver should have been paying more attention and have spotted the Ped earlier, However on the flip side if I was the ped I would be blaming myself 100%.
Yes, wreckless action of the pedestrian, but not unique. Doesn't everyone scan pavements when approaching a crossing anticipating just this or, god forbid, an infant running loose from a parent? Driver doesn't appear to have done so.Sticks. said:
Yes, wreckless action of the pedestrian, but not unique. Doesn't everyone scan pavements when approaching a crossing anticipating just this or, god forbid, an infant running loose from a parent? Driver doesn't appear to have done so.
In the infant (or anyone) running loose scenario though that's the random element that cannot be quantified. To mitigate against that we'd allbe driving at 5mph. Surely there has to be a reasonable expectation that a pedestrian will take some steps towards self preservation before the fault automatically becomes the driver's (both on a zebra crossing and off it)?
Hackney said:
Sticks. said:
Yes, wreckless action of the pedestrian, but not unique. Doesn't everyone scan pavements when approaching a crossing anticipating just this or, god forbid, an infant running loose from a parent? Driver doesn't appear to have done so.
In the infant (or anyone) running loose scenario though that's the random element that cannot be quantified. To mitigate against that we'd allbe driving at 5mph. Surely there has to be a reasonable expectation that a pedestrian will take some steps towards self preservation before the fault automatically becomes the driver's (both on a zebra crossing and off it)?
This law is going to have to change when autonomous cars start appearing in numbers on our roads.
Otherwise, we're either going to see a huge increase in the number of pedestrians being run down, or autonomous cars are going to have to be programmed to come to a complete stop at each and every pedestrian crossing, even if there's no pedestrians within miles.
Otherwise, we're either going to see a huge increase in the number of pedestrians being run down, or autonomous cars are going to have to be programmed to come to a complete stop at each and every pedestrian crossing, even if there's no pedestrians within miles.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 11th November 00:08
delboy735 said:
Bit surprised at how many countries have a law that makes "jaywalking" illegal.About time we joined that list.
Time for a shake up, and to make the pedestrian more accountable for his/her actions.
Lets bring back the Tufty club and the Green cross Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
But the pedestrian wouldn't have been jaywalking because it was across a pedestrian crossing (albeit out slightly where she swerved to avoid the car).Time for a shake up, and to make the pedestrian more accountable for his/her actions.
Lets bring back the Tufty club and the Green cross Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
Also in the US, where many states have jaywalking laws there are also MANY MANY more uncontrolled crossings where pedestrians have priority, so it's relatively easy to cross quickly and safely. As a UK driver there you always need to remember the various priorities because it's one area where US drivers are a lot more clued up and courteous so pedestrians rarely expect drivers to not yield.
Hackney said:
In the infant (or anyone) running loose scenario though that's the random element that cannot be quantified. To mitigate against that we'd allbe driving at 5mph.
Surely there has to be a reasonable expectation that a pedestrian will take some steps towards self preservation before the fault automatically becomes the driver's (both on a zebra crossing and off it)?
Yes, people should behave reasonably, responsibly and with self preservation in mind. But they don't always and as drivers we need to anticipate the potential risk this presents. With experience, the ability to judge the degree of risk improves and so 5mph isn't often necessary. Surely there has to be a reasonable expectation that a pedestrian will take some steps towards self preservation before the fault automatically becomes the driver's (both on a zebra crossing and off it)?
I'd rather avoid a collision than have one even though I was in the right, whether a pedestrian or a driver.
delboy735 said:
singlecoil said:
Perhaps the time has come for us all to agree that legally the driver is in the wrong, and discuss whether or not that should be the case in this particular situation?
Okay. Lets expand this point. Perhaps somebody with a legal background would be kind enough to tell us all exactly what law was broken by the driver.Looks to me like he was within the limit. Not speeding then.
He/she may have seen the "person" walking round the corner, before the black vehicle partially blocked his/her view to the right.and then was probably watching to the left to make sure no-one was about to step off the pavement...again all clear, so no need to stop. Then as black car passes to his/her right he/she catches sight of "person" running across crossing. Decisions, decisions......at this point, "I" would assume ( as I am guessing the driver did) that the "person" would run straight over the crossing, therefore, using logic, if I were to accelerate a bit, the "person" would see me, slow down and dodge behind me. If I (or the driver ) had slammed on, there is also great probability that the "person" would have run face first into the car. Sadly the "person" chose the other route, diagonal across the road, and we now know the result.
So far as I can see, the only thing the driver did wrong, was not to read the mind of the "person" and understand what the "persons" intentions were to be.
So please can someone give us all a full explanation of the law broken in this instance. Thank you.
If a pedestrian is in the carriageway within the limits of the crossing before any part of the car enters those limits then the car driver must accord them precedence.
The still I produced earlier in the thread shows the pedestrian on the crossing (within the limits of the crossing) before any part of the car has entered it & the following video shows he didn't accord them precedence.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 06:37
vonhosen said:
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
[b] '18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should
always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)
19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.' [/b]
Surely, when taken together, these all add up to:
Pedestrians must stop at the crossing and wait for traffic to both see them and also stop (as per 18 & 19), then make their way onto the crossing, with all the precedence accorded to them by reg 25 - especially considering the part about traffic not having to stop until you're on the crossing (Reg 19). Taken together, this is logical and, if conducted correctly, gives both sides a fighting chance of not ending up in the situation in the OP.
I agree in this case that the fault goes both ways - I will always slow when approaching any crossing I'm unsighted on until I am positive there isn't someone at or on it - the car didn't do that. However as a pedestrian I will always wait until I'm sure everything is stopped, or stopping, before I step out - the pedestrian did neither.
Hence a coming together.
BIt's advice for them in the Highway Code, it's law for him in the zebra crossing regulations.
It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possible for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possible for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 07:52
Its Black and White. The "driver" is wrong. Again.
Absolute b
ks. The "pedestrian" runs out behind a car that has just crossed the crossing, the driver is probably checking to the left, as they are aware that people have just crossed, they have noted they are off the crossing, so free to continue......then from behind the "moving" vehicle comes the "runner", who has displayed zero common sense, and not taken any advice from the Highway code, but it doesn't matter because we can hold the "driver" responsible, because they " broke" a law !!
Why as motorists do we accept all of these frankly ridiculous laws that protect stupid people ??
Absolute b
ks. The "pedestrian" runs out behind a car that has just crossed the crossing, the driver is probably checking to the left, as they are aware that people have just crossed, they have noted they are off the crossing, so free to continue......then from behind the "moving" vehicle comes the "runner", who has displayed zero common sense, and not taken any advice from the Highway code, but it doesn't matter because we can hold the "driver" responsible, because they " broke" a law !!Why as motorists do we accept all of these frankly ridiculous laws that protect stupid people ??
vonhosen said:
It's advice for them, it's law for him.
It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possie for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
So you would rely on the law to protect you while crossing the road?It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possie for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 07:26
If she'd crossed according to the rules I learned in Tufty club she'd have been perfectly safe...
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
It's advice for them, it's law for him.
It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possie for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
So you would rely on the law to protect you while crossing the road?It's black & white, if they are on the crossing before him he must accord precedence.
It's arguably a without due care (sec 3 RTA) by him too, he isn't doing what is expected of a careful competent driver.
The nub of it is he is approaching too quickly with a restricted view where it's possie for a pedestrian to enter the crossing.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 07:26
If she'd crossed according to the rules I learned in Tufty club she'd have been perfectly safe...
The legislative requirements are with the driver not the pedestrian in that scenario.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff