Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Randomthoughts said:

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.

Now tell us what you really think.

[speedking31]

By the letter of reg. 25 the pedestrian was outwith the limits when hit and therefore the driver did not commit an offence?

He gave precedence while she was on the crossing and once she moved outside the limits she was fair game

[Devil2575]

WinstonWolf said:

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.

When two people not exercising enough caution meet someone gets hurt.

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.

Err yes...that was my point. Had either the pedestrian or the motorist behaved differently then the incident would not have taken place.

No I wouldn't have corssed like that, but i'd also have exercised more caution as a driver.

[heebeegeetee]

Sticks. said:

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.

Exactly. You can blame the ped all you like but that won't keep you out of court when you've fked up. If the ped is underage, is he or she going to stand in court?

I also find it interesting that many blame the lack of visibility as an excuse for the driver, whereas imo the lack of visibility is the reason why the accident shouldn't have happened - unless we all think its ok to proceed when you can't see at a speed in which you can't stop in time.

[WinstonWolf]

heebeegeetee said:

Sticks. said:

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.

Exactly. You can blame the ped all you like but that won't keep you out of court when you've fked up. If the ped is underage, is he or she going to stand in court?

I also find it interesting that many blame the lack of visibility as an excuse for the driver, whereas imo the lack of visibility is the reason why the accident shouldn't have happened - unless we all think its ok to proceed when you can't see at a speed in which you can't stop in time.

So would you be brave enough to cross the road in the same manner she did?

[Vipers]

heebeegeetee said:

I also find it interesting that many blame the lack of visibility as an excuse for the driver, whereas imo the lack of visibility is the reason why the accident shouldn't have happened - unless we all think its ok to proceed when you can't see at a speed in which you can't stop in time.

We are but human, do tell us you have never ever missed something, which in hindsight you think "st, I should have seen that".

Drivers do not drive over crossing blind, in his opinion he must have thought it was clear.

As I said before, its so easy for us to sit down in our warm armchairs, review the footage time and time again and come to conclusions.

Even if she had walked over the crossing SHE might have seen the car, looking at the way she is running, I don't even think she glanced at all.

[heebeegeetee]

WinstonWolf said:

So would you be brave enough to cross the road in the same manner she did?

Well I'm not a young girl so I wouldn't do what a young/girl person would do. In fact I can't really run at all now. I dare say when I was young I did do what all young and foolish people do.

I do drive though, so I'm saying to you that as a driver I *definitely* would not have approached that crossing in that manner.

[WinstonWolf]

heebeegeetee said:

WinstonWolf said:

So would you be brave enough to cross the road in the same manner she did?

Well I'm not a young girl so I wouldn't do what a young/girl person would do. In fact I can't really run at all now. I dare say when I was young I did do what all young and foolish people do.

I do drive though, so I'm saying to you that as a driver I *definitely* would not have approached that crossing in that manner.

Would you have crossed the road in that manner when you were younger/capable?

Would you also have felt it was someone else's fault if they had run you over, assuming you were stupid enough to cross the road in that manner? (I also assume you've never been that stupid as you're old enough to have been bought up with the Green Cross code)

[Devil2575]

WinstonWolf said:

So would you be brave enough to cross the road in the same manner she did?

I don't understand the value of this line of questioning.

I wouldn't be brave enough to go on holiday and leave my front door unlocked. That doesn't make it 100% my fault if someone enters my house and steals my stuff.

What the girl did was incredibly risky and unwise. That doesn't change the fact that the driver also played a part.

[croyde]

The DM has the 'story' but according to them it happened back in July 2012, over 2 years ago so surely there must be some record as to the aftermath?

[Vipers]

Looking at other links, it transpires it happened July 2012, and yes, the car driver did,stop to assist.

As expected all the other links say the car was "Speeding" blah blah blah. One even suggests the woman breaks into a run and swerves to the right to miss the car.

[vonhosen]

jhfozzy said:

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.

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?

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.

Loitering has nothing to do with this. The reason why a pedestrian MUST NOT loiter on a crossing for fear of prosecution is because it's in the law, not because it's in the highway code. This lady didn't loiter on the crossing.

The legislation however doesn't place an upper limit on the speed at which a pedestrian may enter the crossing.
The judge has to apply the law, not prejudices. Did the driver do what was required in the legislation?

Albert Einstein said:

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 16:43

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

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.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 07:26

So you would rely on the law to protect you while crossing the road?

If she'd crossed according to the rules I learned in Tufty club she'd have been perfectly safe...

No I wouldn't but if I did that would 't stop it being an offence by him.
The legislative requirements are with the driver not the pedestrian in that scenario.

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.

If he hasn't done what was required of him she can't be entirely responsible for it.

[Vipers]

So as I understand the "Law", motorists are quite legally to approach a crossing at 30mph, at the last min a pedesteian dashes out of a shop onto the crossing at which time the vehicle is 3 ft from the studs, car cannot stop in 3 ft from 30 mph, so pedestrian (amazing I know), gets hit.

Driver is guilty of an offence, nuts or what.

[vonhosen]

speedking31 said:

By the letter of reg. 25 the pedestrian was outwith the limits when hit and therefore the driver did not commit an offence?

He gave precedence while she was on the crossing and once she moved outside the limits she was fair game

When considering whether he committed an offence of failing to accord precedence, whether a collision took place or not is irrelevant.
Even if he'd have got through without hitting her he would have still not accorded precedence.
When she entered the crossing he had to let her cross before him. There are give way lines before he gets to the crossing & he has to give way to what is on the crossing before he crosses those lines entering the crossing. He didn't.

[vonhosen]

Vipers said:

So as I understand the "Law", motorists are quite legally to approach a crossing at 30mph, at the last min a pedesteian dashes out of a shop onto the crossing at which time the vehicle is 3 ft from the studs, car cannot stop in 3 ft from 30 mph, so pedestrian (amazing I know), gets hit.

Driver is guilty of an offence, nuts or what.

The driver of a car can be guilty of an offence whilst doing less than 30mph, where 30mph is too fast for the conditions/circumstances.

He failed to observe, anticipate & approach at an appropriate speed for the conditions/circumstances & that was prior to him failing to accord precedence.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

The driver of a car can be guilty of an offence whilst doing less than 30mph, where 30mph is too fast for the conditions/circumstances.

He failed to observe, anticipate & approach at an appropriate speed for the conditions/circumstances & that was prior to him failing to accord precedence.

If he was guilty of an offence, then so was the driver of the car ahead of him.
Like him, that driver observed the crossing to be clear, and proceeded on that basis.
Then, like him, that driver had their view obscured by another car when they reached a point approx 12 metres from the crossing.
And, like him, there was then no time to slow down, and, in order to stop before the crossing the driver would have had to brake very hard, and they would have had no reason to because the pedestrian, at that point in time, had still not stepped onto the crossing.
Had the pedestrian arrived a couple of seconds earlier, and had chosen to run out in front of the black car instead of behind it, it would have been the driver of the car ahead who would not have seen the pedestrian run onto the crossing, and subsequently hit her.
Sure he might have slowed down a bit more, but in order to do that he would have had to have started slowing down some distance back - when he would have seen little or no reason to.
There's only so much a human can do.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

The driver of a car can be guilty of an offence whilst doing less than 30mph, where 30mph is too fast for the conditions/circumstances.

He failed to observe, anticipate & approach at an appropriate speed for the conditions/circumstances & that was prior to him failing to accord precedence.

If he was guilty of an offence, then so was the driver of the car ahead of him.
Like him, that driver observed the crossing to be clear, and proceeded on that basis.
Then, like him, that driver had their view obscured by another car when they reached a point approx 12 metres from the crossing.
And, like him, there was then no time to slow down, and, in order to stop before the crossing the driver would have had to brake very hard, and they would have had no reason to because the pedestrian, at that point in time, had still not stepped onto the crossing.
Had the pedestrian arrived a couple of seconds earlier, and had chosen to run out in front of the black car instead of behind it, it would have been the driver of the car ahead who would not have seen the pedestrian run onto the crossing, and subsequently hit her.
Sure he might have slowed down a bit more, but in order to do that he would have had to have started slowing down some distance back - when he would have seen little or no reason to.
There's only so much a human can do.

You don't commit the offence of failing to accord precedence until the pedestrian steps onto the crossing, although there is no legal requirement to accord precedence until they enter the crossing it can save you a lot of bother if you stop for them before that point. Failing to observe does not absolve you of the offence.
If you can't see it's clear is reason enough to adjust your speed down so that you can deal with what you potentially have been unable to see. Not doing so can be without due care. Saying somebody else is also guilty of without due care doesn't absolve you of your case of it. There's a lot of it about.
This human didn't do as much as could have been done or enough to satisfy the legislation either..

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 17:25

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

If you can't see it's clear is reason enough to adjust your speed down so that you can deal with what you potentially have been unable to see. Not doing so can be without due care.

His vision was not obscured until the point in time when it was already too late to adjust his speed down, and the only option would have been to brake very hard.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

If you can't see it's clear is reason enough to adjust your speed down so that you can deal with what you potentially have been unable to see. Not doing so can be without due care.

His vision was not obscured until the point in time when it was already too late to adjust his speed down, and the only option would have been to brake very hard.

If his vision wasn't obscured he can't have been looking, because he didn't do what he needed to do in relation to the circumstances.
She can be seen walking towards the crossing from the start of the video.
He is lucky she wasn't killed or he'd have been right up the swanny. A bit of bad luck & it could have changed to a 'death by'.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th November 17:42