Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
vonhosen said:
It'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.
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.
highway code said:
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)
I always thought a "MUST NOT" is backed up by a law in the highway code?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)
Not that she was loitering on any type of crossing as she was running before being hit and she's "loitering" off the crossing after being hit.
Anyhow, I would hope that a judge would have a little common sense and see that someone running onto a crossing had a bit of responsibility for what happened next.
delboy735 said:
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 ??
The problem was the driver made assumptions.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 ??
He assumed the crossing was clear, even though he could not see.
He assumed the pedestrian would be observant and hold an understand of the highway code, even though this is London and there are many tourists.
He assumed that when he saw the pedestrian they would continue to walk hence the burst of acceleration.
In many accidents it's the assumption and actions being made upon assumptions which generally causes such incidents.
If the driver had not made assumptions the incident would not have occurred.
Can I see the crossing is clear? No, reduce speed.
Can I see a pedestrian on the cross? Yes, stop!
Am I checking the left pavement for pedestrians? Yes, do I have time to check the right? No, slow down.
jhfozzy said:
Anyhow, I would hope that a judge would have a little common sense and see that someone running onto a crossing had a bit of responsibility for what happened next.
So would I. While the motorist is certainly in the wrong, the pedestrian was an accident looking for somewhere to occur. If we all drove assuming everything is going to happen we wouldn't get anywhere. I think I am more aware than most of the drivers around me (also riding a motorcycle helps keep the mind keen) and concentrate to the point that I won't talk with my passenger/s, but I can't drive down a single carriageway, which has a 60mph limit, at 20mph just in case a deer runs out in front of me.
Driving, walking, cycling etc all involve a risk and we can do our best to minimise this but at the same time if we want to live in a world where we can move a bit faster than walking, we have to accept that there will be risk. Trouble today is that society is trying to become risk adverse, which doesn't work. We just end up breeding a population that is actually surprised when something happens to them and it can't possibly be their own fault.
Maybe the driver is a local, and by watching that camera for 10 minutes yesterday (Yes, I was bored
) I can see that most of the driver's are pretty peed off with the antics on that crossing, and was of the opinion that to get on with his journey he would keep going as the way looked clear and to slow would have meant inviting groups of tts to hold him up whilst taking silly pics.
Not right, I know, but I actually feel sorry for him as the girl was mainly to blame for her accident yet I'm sure she'll be screaming for compensation, 'innit bruv.
Peds, on the whole, stop or at least waver at a crossing before continuing. If I treated every crossing as if some numpty might decide to throw themselves under my wheels, I might as well give up driving and walk.
Driving, walking, cycling etc all involve a risk and we can do our best to minimise this but at the same time if we want to live in a world where we can move a bit faster than walking, we have to accept that there will be risk. Trouble today is that society is trying to become risk adverse, which doesn't work. We just end up breeding a population that is actually surprised when something happens to them and it can't possibly be their own fault.
Maybe the driver is a local, and by watching that camera for 10 minutes yesterday (Yes, I was bored
) I can see that most of the driver's are pretty peed off with the antics on that crossing, and was of the opinion that to get on with his journey he would keep going as the way looked clear and to slow would have meant inviting groups of tts to hold him up whilst taking silly pics. Not right, I know, but I actually feel sorry for him as the girl was mainly to blame for her accident yet I'm sure she'll be screaming for compensation, 'innit bruv.
Peds, on the whole, stop or at least waver at a crossing before continuing. If I treated every crossing as if some numpty might decide to throw themselves under my wheels, I might as well give up driving and walk.
John145 said:
Can I see the crossing is clear? No, reduce speed.
Can I see a pedestrian on the cross? Yes, stop!
Am I checking the left pavement for pedestrians? Yes, do I have time to check the right? No, slow down.
Accepted, but:Can I see a pedestrian on the cross? Yes, stop!
Am I checking the left pavement for pedestrians? Yes, do I have time to check the right? No, slow down.
Up to the point where the black car obscured the driver's view, he (or she) had full view of the crossing, and it was clear.
At the point where his view of the pedestrian became obscured, he was about 12 metres from the crossing.
According to the Highway Code, 12 metres is the stopping distance from 20mph, which is around the speed he was doing.
This means that in order to have stopped in time, he would have had to do a full-on emergency stop the moment the black car came between him and the pedestrian.
There was no time to merely slow down.
You be the judge
Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 11th November 10:00
vonhosen said:
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.
I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
WinstonWolf said:
The requirement to stay alive rests firmly with the pedestrian.
I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
This sums it up in a nutshell.I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
WinstonWolf said:
The requirement to stay alive rests firmly with the pedestrian.
I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
I don't think she was entirely responsible. They were both partially responsible. The driver didn't have a clear view of the crossing and so should have been exercising more caution and the woman ran straight over without looking.I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
When two people not exercising enough caution meet someone gets hurt.
Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The requirement to stay alive rests firmly with the pedestrian.
I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
I don't think she was entirely responsible. They were both partially responsible. The driver didn't have a clear view of the crossing and so should have been exercising more caution and the woman ran straight over without looking.I've yet to hear a single person who thinks the driver is in the wrong that would actually be willing to cross the road in the same way she did.
Sure, the motorist committed an offence but she was entirely responsible for getting hit.
When two people not exercising enough caution meet someone gets hurt.
We all know that if she'd followed the rules of the Tufty Club she'd have crossed the road without incident.
vonhosen said:
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.
Hold on, you've made a big jump there. 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 anonymous-user on Tuesday 11th November 07:52
Reg 25 stipulates that the driver much give precedence to the pedestrian. But it doesn't create an offence if the driver fails to do so (at least, on its face, or on a quick reading of the regs as a whole). The regs are more about standardising crossing layouts and rules for their use, but don't refer to criminal offences.
So what is the *specific* offence that is committed by failing to adhere to Reg 25 (you appear to suggest that there is a slamdunk offence committed because of Reg 25, and possibly another of driving without due care and attention)?
Or is a failure to adhere to such a reg indicative of driving without due care and attention?
WinstonWolf said:
Would you be brave enough to cross a road in the same way she did?
We all know that if she'd followed the rules of the Tufty Club she'd have crossed the road without incident.
Indeed, but they're not the first person to do so, nor will they be the last, and as a driver you need to consider that possibility and drive accordingly.We all know that if she'd followed the rules of the Tufty Club she'd have crossed the road without incident.
I take the view as a driver that I have had to pass a test to drive and have, therefore, knowledge of the rules of the road. Pedestrians have no written rules and are drawn from all sections of society from the stupid to the genius, but cannot be expected to behave in a uniform manner so it is incumbent on me, the driver, to take this into account.
As a pedestrian I assume that the driver about to enter the side road that I am in process of crossing, or the zebra crossing I am on, does not know that I have priority once I am on the road and that he/she will hit me anyway. It's no good crying from your hospital bed that you were in the right!
As a pedestrian I assume that the driver about to enter the side road that I am in process of crossing, or the zebra crossing I am on, does not know that I have priority once I am on the road and that he/she will hit me anyway. It's no good crying from your hospital bed that you were in the right!
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
Retroman said:
As soon as they put one foot on the crossing, the driver became liable.
By the laws of man, yes.By the laws of physics, no.
The car was less than 10 metres away by the time the driver could have seen the pedestrian stepping onto the crossing, at which time it was too late to be able to stop.
It appears that the driver then tried to speed up so as to be past the pedestrian before she reached the car, which, in retrospect, probably turned out for the best, because had the car braked then she probably would have ended up in front of the car instead of running into its side.
Greg66 said:
Hold on, you've made a big jump there.
Reg 25 stipulates that the driver much give precedence to the pedestrian. But it doesn't create an offence if the driver fails to do so (at least, on its face, or on a quick reading of the regs as a whole). The regs are more about standardising crossing layouts and rules for their use, but don't refer to criminal offences.
So what is the *specific* offence that is committed by failing to adhere to Reg 25 (you appear to suggest that there is a slamdunk offence committed because of Reg 25, and possibly another of driving without due care and attention)?
Or is a failure to adhere to such a reg indicative of driving without due care and attention?
I reckon could get a PC20 so 3 points and £100.Reg 25 stipulates that the driver much give precedence to the pedestrian. But it doesn't create an offence if the driver fails to do so (at least, on its face, or on a quick reading of the regs as a whole). The regs are more about standardising crossing layouts and rules for their use, but don't refer to criminal offences.
So what is the *specific* offence that is committed by failing to adhere to Reg 25 (you appear to suggest that there is a slamdunk offence committed because of Reg 25, and possibly another of driving without due care and attention)?
Or is a failure to adhere to such a reg indicative of driving without due care and attention?
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Moto...
v12Legs said:
I reckon could get a PC20 so 3 points and £100.
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Moto...
Ah. Ok - so it looks as if there is some other legislation somewhere than makes it an offence to breach the regs. http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Moto...
Thanks.
Greg66 said:
v12Legs said:
I reckon could get a PC20 so 3 points and £100.
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Moto...
Ah. Ok - so it looks as if there is some other legislation somewhere than makes it an offence to breach the regs. http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Road_Traffic_Law/Moto...
Thanks.
Bluntly, deserved it.
The rodent appears plenty developed enough to be able to manage stopping at the side of the road to ensure it can cross safely. bks to laws, as has been said the law will be of little comfort to them as the surgeons put them back together.
It's time people educated their fking children on how not to get killed, rather than bhing about how it's all the mean old motorist's fault whose life their child ruined by behaving inappropriately.
IMO, the driver was potentially a touch hot coming over the crossing (but 20mph is hardly a brisk pace on that road!), but I think playing it in my head from what I believe I can see (and knowing how I behave on zebras) I'd have done entirely similar. Otherwise, these apologists would have everyone stopping for the pedestrian crossing when there's a car coming the other way, because it temporarily obstructs their view of the crossing. Which is horsest.
If anything stuck to that driver in terms of charges I'd be astounded.
The rodent appears plenty developed enough to be able to manage stopping at the side of the road to ensure it can cross safely. b
ks to laws, as has been said the law will be of little comfort to them as the surgeons put them back together.It's time people educated their f
king children on how not to get killed, rather than bhing about how it's all the mean old motorist's fault whose life their child ruined by behaving inappropriately.IMO, the driver was potentially a touch hot coming over the crossing (but 20mph is hardly a brisk pace on that road!), but I think playing it in my head from what I believe I can see (and knowing how I behave on zebras) I'd have done entirely similar. Otherwise, these apologists would have everyone stopping for the pedestrian crossing when there's a car coming the other way, because it temporarily obstructs their view of the crossing. Which is horses
t.If anything stuck to that driver in terms of charges I'd be astounded.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff