Apportioning blame.

Author
Discussion

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
Saw a very near miss yesterday.

Pedestrians were waiting at a light controlled crossing. The road they wanted to cross was a 2 lane one way street with traffic coming from the left, with a crossroads just to the right. So there are traffic lights to tell the one way street traffic when to stop and also pedestrian lights.

A van in the right hand lane of the one way street stopped while the pedestrian light was still red, the driver waved the pedestrians across, they did so against the red and came within inches of being taken out by a car in the left lane going straight across the crossroads.
It looks as though the van driver was planning to turn right and either forgot other traffic might still be on green or didn't think the pedestrians might not look.

How would blame be allotted if it had been an accident?

The van driver was a bit silly. The car driver should have thought about pedestrians hidden by the van. The car seemed to be going at 25 or 30 which looked very fast in the circumstances though the limit was 30 and it wouldn't have seemed particularly excessive if it wasn't for the near miss.

The pedestrians crossed against the red so arguably it would largely have been their fault.

So if there had been an accident who would be charged and for what? Assuming witnesses resisted the temptation to massively exaggerate the cars speed of course.

Would the fact that the pedestrians crossed against a red light affect any insurance payout?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
Road users must obey signals given by police officers, traffic officers, traffic wardens (see ‘Signals by authorised persons’) and signs used by school crossing patrols.

Laws RTRA sect 28, RTA 1988 sect 35, TMA 2004 sect 6, & FTWO art 3

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Given that pedestrians crossing a road are road users.

Anyone else...better to ignore.

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
so the van was stopped at a crossing and allowed people to pass even though the light for him was green, and a car going the same way passed him on the left ?
it sounds to me like the very situation the zig zag lines are there for

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
ging84 said:
so the van was stopped at a crossing and allowed people to pass even though the light for him was green, and a car going the same way passed him on the left ?
it sounds to me like the very situation the zig zag lines are there for
No, I think the straight on arrow was green but the right turn arrow wasn't. He was in the right turn lane so effectively stopped at a red light. The lights were primarily there for the junction so it wasn't exactly a pedestrian crossing and there were no zig zags.

R_U_LOCAL

2,676 posts

207 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
Rule 191 of the highway code states:

"...You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians."

So despite the actions of the van driver, the car driver would have been mainly at fault.

V8forweekends

2,481 posts

123 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
I seem to recall some case law from the Stone Age (which is when I studied it) about a lorry driver waving a kid into the path of an oncoming vehicle and the Lorry Driver being held partially responsible - but I think that was partly to do with the fact that a kid might expect an adult to know what they were doing....and it could all be a load of bolleaux I've imagined or made up.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
R_U_LOCAL said:
Rule 191 of the highway code states:

"...You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians."

So despite the actions of the van driver, the car driver would have been mainly at fault.
No doubt the car driver would have argued that the van had stopped because of the red light not to give way to pedestrians. If that junction really does count as a pedestrian crossing that is. Otherwise it makes the filter traffic lights pointless because a stationary vehicle in one lane would effectively block the other.

On the subject of rule 191, does the overtaking restriction only apply within the zig zags on the approach? If not, how far back?

R_U_LOCAL

2,676 posts

207 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
No doubt the car driver would have argued that the van had stopped because of the red light not to give way to pedestrians. If that junction really does count as a pedestrian crossing that is. Otherwise it makes the filter traffic lights pointless because a stationary vehicle in one lane would effectively block the other.

On the subject of rule 191, does the overtaking restriction only apply within the zig zags on the approach? If not, how far back?
It relates to the controlled area of the crossing, which, as you've suggested, is within the area marked by the zigzag lines.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
R_U_LOCAL said:
It relates to the controlled area of the crossing, which, as you've suggested, is within the area marked by the zigzag lines.
No zig zags in this case so rule 191 isn't relevant. I don't think it counts as a pedestrian crossing.

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
seems like a very odd crossing
can you post a googlemaps link?

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 31st August 2014
quotequote all
ging84 said:
seems like a very odd crossing
can you post a googlemaps link?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5201895,-0.6333155,17z

It was the junction between Dover road and Bath road, the car and van were heading southbound on Dover road.