Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[singlecoil]

This is from the Abbey Road Webcam madness thread in the Lounge, thought there might be people here who hadn't seen it,

kapiteinlangzaam said:

The event we all knew was going to happen!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66c_1415416406

[singlecoil]

Mojooo said:

Not sure on that one

The pedestrian running across the road meant she was suddenly infront of the car - but at the same tiem as a driver if you see someone at the side of the crossing you anticipate they will walk onto it.

I suspect hey accelerate because they thought if the lady was walking they would pass - didn't expect her to suddenly start running.

My thinking is along those lines too. He doesn't have long to think about it, and if she hadn't swerved then she would have passed behind him.

[singlecoil]

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.

[singlecoil]

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?

[singlecoil]

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.

I'm quite sure that either of the parties could give you a list of things they should have done differently. The problem isn't whether or not anyone knows what they should do in a given situation, they usually do know. The problem is to get them to actually do it. And as long as the parties are human, that isn't always going to happen.

[singlecoil]

v12Legs said:

I think someone posted earlier a link to a study showing driver solely at fault in 70% of incidents, which, if true, shows where the problem really lies.

Well, going by much of what has been said in this thread, that's a very low percentage.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

Looks like more education or legislation is needed for pedestrians then.

That would be a waste of time, effort and money.

Pedestrians are already well aware that they should not take chances with vehicles. The problem is not to make them aware of the dangers, they already are. The problem is to get them to actually do what they already know they should be doing.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

Looks like more education or legislation is needed for pedestrians then.

That would be a waste of time, effort and money.

Pedestrians are already well aware that they should not take chances with vehicles. The problem is not to make them aware of the dangers, they already are. The problem is to get them to actually do what they already know they should be doing.

If the possibility of death is not a strong enough deterrent, then fining may help.

That's some weird kind of logic there, or are you being sarcastic? Sarcasm doesn't really work there because it was you that made the original point. So you have to have been serious when you suggested that a fine might be taken more seriously than death.

That's beyond ridiculous, and I hope when you have had a second thought about it, you will see that for yourself. I don't expect you to admit to it, but as long as you personally realise it, that will be enough.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

By observing a busy street in any town one can clearly see that death is not enough of a deterrent for many cyclists and pedestrians, so what to do?

If there is something that is inexpensive and effective, then by all means do it, otherwise nature should be allowed to take its course.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

By observing a busy street in any town one can clearly see that death is not enough of a deterrent for many cyclists and pedestrians, so what to do?

If there is something that is inexpensive and effective, then by all means do it, otherwise nature should be allowed to take its course.

The problem with nature taking its course is that someone else will be held responsible for the dozy pedestrians actions.

One way of doing it inexpensive and effective in the long run is to bring in jaywalking legislation, not to police it on the spot but to use when accidents happen. Then all you need to do is air a few commercials on the TV in between the soaps, the message will sink in eventually.

No, it won't.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Relax. Neither you nor anyone else can stop every possible bad thing from happening.

[singlecoil]

Finlandia said:

singlecoil said:

Finlandia said:

As I have said before, being hit by a car doesn't seem to be punishment enough, so what more can/must be done?

Relax. Neither you nor anyone else can stop every possible bad thing from happening.

No, but it would be really easy for the peds to have a quick look before running over a road, just like at a railway crossing, surely that can't be too much to ask?

Most of the time, most of the people, no, some of the time, some of the people, yes.

[singlecoil]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.