Pedestrian and car at the Abbey Road crossing
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Not really, will of the people.
Then it's time the ones in charge grew a spine and started sorting the laws.The government should reflect the will of the people.
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.
vonhosen said:
Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).
A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
As for reflecting the will of the people
singlecoil said:
Finlandia said:
singlecoil said:
Running a red light is breaking the law.
vonhosen said:
There aren't enforceable red lights for pedestrians
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).
A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
As for reflecting the will of the people
I've already told you that pedestrian lights aren't enforceable.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th November 18:19
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).
A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
As for reflecting the will of the people
Do you seriously think it's perfectly fine that a pedestrian running/jogging a red light and causing an accident has nothing to worry about from the criminal law?
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Finlandia said:
vonhosen said:
Running the red light is whatever the outcome (even if there is no incident).
A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
You said the red light is 'advisory' for pedestrians, so not breaking any laws.A government should fear it's people, not a people fear it's government.
The government should reflect the will of the people.
As for reflecting the will of the people
Do you seriously think it's perfectly fine that a pedestrian running/jogging a red light and causing an accident has nothing to worry about from the criminal law?
They aren't likely to injure anyone & they are still liable civilly for it.
In this country car isn't king, it's the new boy.
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.
vonhosen said:
Yes, if that's what the people want.
They aren't likely to injure anyone & they are still liable civilly for it.
They aren't likely to injure anyone? A biker? Soft top car? Cyclist? Heck they may even cause a heart attack for the driver, or more seriously if the driver swerves and hits something or someone else.They aren't likely to injure anyone & they are still liable civilly for it.
I bet that is not what the people want.
vonhosen said:
Nope, because if he had done his legal duty the collision wouldn't have taken place. Her behaviour is mitigation in the result but he has the greater burden/responsibility.
Just to confirm, if you enter the crossing after they have exited it you are in the clear?Not arguing this specific incident, it is clear from the video that the car entered the crossing a few tenths of a second before she ran off it into his path. I also do not mean you are clear to run someone over if they take a step off the crossing I simply mean the section 25 offence is no longer in effect?
Sorry to keep pushing this stuff and I am not directing this as an attack on you personally, but being of a technical background I like to ensure thorough testing of boundary conditions. If we need to obey a law with no leeway then it needs to be clearly and tightly defined.
Does a pedestrian have to enter the crossing from a pavement or central refuge for the rule to count or can they dash partially across the normal roadway and enter from the side?
If a cyclist enters while riding then dismounts are they deemed to have stepped on the crossing at the point of dismount or are they still considered a cyclist rather than pedestrian? What if someone jumps off a routemaster, pickup or motorcycle onto the crossing just before you enter it have you committed an offence?
Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
Nope, because if he had done his legal duty the collision wouldn't have taken place. Her behaviour is mitigation in the result but he has the greater burden/responsibility.
Just to confirm, if you enter the crossing after they have exited it you are in the clear?Not arguing this specific incident, it is clear from the video that the car entered the crossing a few tenths of a second before she ran off it into his path. I also do not mean you are clear to run someone over if they take a step off the crossing I simply mean the section 25 offence is no longer in effect?
Sorry to keep pushing this stuff and I am not directing this as an attack on you personally, but being of a technical background I like to ensure thorough testing of boundary conditions. If we need to obey a law with no leeway then it needs to be clearly and tightly defined.
Does a pedestrian have to enter the crossing from a pavement or central refuge for the rule to count or can they dash partially across the normal roadway and enter from the side?
If a cyclist enters while riding then dismounts are they deemed to have stepped on the crossing at the point of dismount or are they still considered a cyclist rather than pedestrian? What if someone jumps off a routemaster, pickup or motorcycle onto the crossing just before you enter it have you committed an offence?
Each case will be dependent on it's circumstances.
It doesn't matter if (as in this case) she exited the limits of the crossing before he hit her, what matters is that she is within the limits of the crossing and at that time he failed to yield at the give way lines, he having not been within the limits of the crossing before her.
vonhosen said:
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
Show us where the requirement is.
PhysicsIf you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.
Toltec said:
In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...
The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.
Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.
Undoubtedly she plays a contributory part, I've said so many times, but IMHO his contribution outweighs hers because the greater duty is imposed on him to avoid exactly that scenario.The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.
Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.
Injury = her.
Imprisonment = him.
Blame = him.
Anyone who relies on the law over common sense is a fool.
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
Show us where the requirement is.
PhysicsIf you have to allow for pedestrians running onto a crossing then you have to begin to give way well before they reach the limits of the crossing.
Toltec said:
In the strict sense driver did commit the offence, it is one that is committed nearly as often as speeding though and if there were cameras to detect it...
The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.
Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.
Undoubtedly she plays a contributory part, I've said so many times, but IMHO his contribution outweighs hers because the greater duty is imposed on him to avoid exactly that scenario.The driver may not have looked, been looking in the wrong direction at the critical moment or simply did not allow for a pedestrian suddenly accelerating to a run.
Hopefully the obvious total lack of care on the part of the pedestrian will be weighed against the possible failure of the driver when it comes to handing out a penalty.
Injury = her.
Imprisonment = him.
Blame = him.
Anyone who relies on the law over common sense is a fool.
It's common sense not to rely on others where not only your health is concerned but where your liberty or blame is concerned too.
vonhosen said:
DonkeyApple said:
vonhosen said:
DonkeyApple said:
vonhosen said:
The 'limits' of the crossing are small white squares either side of the zebra, the zig zags are something different, they are 'the controlled area'.
When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.
Not quite correct. The car has to give way before the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing and that can be some distance away. When the pedestrian gets into the limits of the crossing before the car, he has to stop at the give way lines before the crossing. Where there is a chance of the pedestrian getting into the limits of the crossing before him, he needs to approach those give ways at a speed that he can do that.
If she had stood at the side of the road with one foot on the crossing he'd have still committed the offence.
It's good practice so that you can comply with Reg 25(1) & not fall foul of it like this driver, but there is no legal requirement, so there is no 'has' to.
The pedestrian can only assert their priority by stepping onto the crossing & it's this action that means the driver 'MUST' give way if they aren't already within the limits of the crossing.
vonhosen said:
He should have been coming to a stop before she got onto the crossing, it's because he wasn't on the brake approaching the crossing (as she was approaching the crossing) that he left himself high & dry. There was every chance she could have got onto the crossing before him from her position & then it becomes he MUST stop. He didn't cover that eventuality & left himself extremely vulnerable.
Why would you be coming to a stop if not to give way?It also does look like the driver didn't ease off on the approach but then there was no one actually at the crossing as he approached and working on the logical assumption that the person heading in the direction of the crossing who may or may not be aiming to use it, isn't going to be at the crossing at or before him then there wasn't a real need to slow.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff