Punishment for pedestrian - fair?

[Dr Jekyll]

paranoid airbag said:

Ever heard of Roman Roads? Pretty certain they were keen on pedestrianised transport.

Horses and pedestrians don't need a smooth surface. the Romans built roads because they were keen on wheels.

Roman roads in (for example) the City of London were much wider than required for even the fattest pedestrian, they were specifically designed to be wide enough for carts.

[SWoll]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

SWoll said:

It is surely a basic human instinct that the more vulnerable you are in a situation the more careful you become?

Perhaps so, but surely the sign of a civilised society is the principle that the more powerful your position, the more care you should show to those who are more vulnerable.

I do think your point has now drifted so far from the original question that it is now irrelevant though. If you are placing yourself in an increased position of vulnerability due to your own poor judgement and lack of "due care and attention" then ultimately you are responsible for this.

In the situation described when a person walks/runs out in front of a moving vehicle with no warning are we really expected to accept that the responsibility for the ensuing accident should always fall at the feet of the driver of the vehicle because they have a greater "duty of care"?

[Devil2575]

sinizter said:

I was taught to look both ways and not run across roads by the time I could walk. As should everyone else.

Really? My son could walk at 18 months old but he was far too young to understand the green cross code.

Either you were a child genius, a very late walker or you're not telling the whole truth

[TTwiggy]

Dr Jekyll said:

paranoid airbag said:

Ever heard of Roman Roads? Pretty certain they were keen on pedestrianised transport.

Horses and pedestrians don't need a smooth surface. the Romans built roads because they were keen on wheels.

Roman roads in (for example) the City of London were much wider than required for even the fattest pedestrian, they were specifically designed to be wide enough for carts.

So it's carts now is it? Earlier you claimed that roads were built for cars.

Many of our roads pre-date even the Romans.

[Dr Jekyll]

Dr Jekyll said:

deltashad said:

As for pedestrians/ children/ disabled/ elderly/ dogs and people in track suits walking infront of cars, well, I think they have every right to.
Cars were an afterthought.

Roads were actually invented for vehicles not pedestrians. Have disabled elderly dogs in track suits have an equal right to walk on railway lines?

[Hugo a Gogo]

ludicrous argument - how the fk would people get about if they never crossed roads? the road network has surrounded every house, train tracks haven't

if you're in town, peds should have some priority

[Phil-CH]

heebeegeetee said:

No, none of this.

It's that yet again, we have people who drive vehicles that weigh over a ton and which contribute to the deaths and injuries of thousands a year, and who don't seem to have any common sense or basic grasp of either everyday reality or basic road law. It's not right.

While I agree it goes both ways (and quite unaware of the situation in the UK since I live in Zurich/Switzerland), we do have the problem that the laws that pedestrians always have right of way on pedestrian crossings without a traffic light is causing pedestrians to walk without looking. This has been cause of many accidents, more horrific ones and some even fatal.

While incase of an accident, the laws are quite clear and the driver of the motorized vehicle is to blame, I see the main problem in that that the laws we have are causing pedestrians to have less awareness. More and more think it is safe (and right) to walk without looking.

To then pin the blame on car drivers IMO is wrong. Accidents do happen, yet there are many places where pedestrian crossings are set up in bad places where visibility for both pedestrian and/or driver is down right dangerous. Then you always have rain or other influences to take into consideration - yet with the current laws in place, pedestrians rather risk their lives walking out blindly onto the road instead of at least checking before walking.

I'd be willing to make a bet that if you'd got rid of the laws that pedestrians always have right of way on pedestrian crossings that we'd have a lot less accidents, since people would be forced again to actually look before walking. And in places where you have traffic lights controlling traffic flow, you do what the green or red man says...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SWoll said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

SWoll said:

It is surely a basic human instinct that the more vulnerable you are in a situation the more careful you become?

Perhaps so, but surely the sign of a civilised society is the principle that the more powerful your position, the more care you should show to those who are more vulnerable.

In the situation described when a person walks/runs out in front of a moving vehicle with no warning are we really expected to accept that the responsibility for the ensuing accident should always fall at the feet of the driver of the vehicle because they have a greater "duty of care"?

I feel that should be the starting point in the investigation. The default position should be driver to blame, with the onus on the driver to prove that isn't the case.

You need a licence to drive a vehicle, but you don't need a licence to go for a walk. There's a reason for that. Driving a vehicle is far more dangerous, and comes with a higher duty of care.
Careless pedestrians rarely harm others. Careless drivers do.

[paranoid airbag]

TTwiggy said:

Dr Jekyll said:

paranoid airbag said:

Ever heard of Roman Roads? Pretty certain they were keen on pedestrianised transport.

Horses and pedestrians don't need a smooth surface. the Romans built roads because they were keen on wheels.

Roman roads in (for example) the City of London were much wider than required for even the fattest pedestrian, they were specifically designed to be wide enough for carts.

So it's carts now is it? Earlier you claimed that roads were built for cars.

Many of our roads pre-date even the Romans.

I must admit, I was wondering - Dr Jeykll said 'vehicles' not 'cars' Roman Roads were used for both carts (vehicles) and 'pedestrians' (even if they were heavily armed). Up until cars, though, everyone benefited from better roads.

What did the Romans ever do for us, eh....

[TTwiggy]

paranoid airbag said:

I must admit, I was wondering - Dr Jeykll said 'vehicles' not 'cars' Roman Roads were used for both carts (vehicles) and 'pedestrians' (even if they were heavily armed). Up until cars, though, everyone benefited from better roads.

What did the Romans ever do for us, eh....

The fact remains that most of our roads developed naturally - footpaths became bridalways; bridalways became cart tracks; cart tracks became coaching routes; coaching routes became modern roads. This applies both inside and outside of town.

In terms of 'rights', you can either go with longevity, and give it to pedestrians, or go with 'might' and give it to cars. Neither is correct however, as we have no 'right of way' on UK roads. So, the sensible approach, is that everyone looks after their own safety, and the most 'powerful' look out for the most vulnerable.

[Phil-CH]

Schnellmann said:

Saw this in my local Zurich newspaper this morning.

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/stadt/Fussgaen...

For non-German speakers, basically a pedestrian ran across some traffic lights when they were red. Caused a motorcyclist (who was correctly going through the lights which were green for him) to crash, resulting in a serious ankle injury for the motorcyclist and damage to his bike.

In the Swiss courts the pedestrian has been fined for causing the crash and ordered to pay the motorcyclist compensation.

I think that is fair but I couldn't imagine a court in the UK finding in favour of a motorcyclist over a pedestrian. Any thoughts?

Ha! Have you heard this one? Happened here in Switzerland a bit more than a year ago:

http://www.probasel.ch/Wordpress/?p=305 (unfortunately can't find the article that was in the tages-anzeiger at the time, but the story is on here too!).

What is says is that a female was hit by a 80 year old driving a car whilst crossing a pedestrian crossing. The woman was lucky to have only received "medium" grade insuries. The 80 year old driver of the vehicle was in shock and felt guilty. The driver admitted of not seeing the pedestrian. The driver was fined 6000 CHF and the drivers licence was taken away for 3 months on being found guilty.

Now, apparently there was another witness who watched the accident unfold and saw that the pedestrian who crossed the road did not bother to look before walking. This has prompted the judge to find the pedestrian also guilty and the pedestrian was fined 450 CHF as a result of this.

[sinizter]

Devil2575 said:

sinizter said:

I was taught to look both ways and not run across roads by the time I could walk. As should everyone else.

Really? My son could walk at 18 months old but he was far too young to understand the green cross code.

Either you were a child genius, a very late walker or you're not telling the whole truth

Child genius.

[paranoid airbag]

TTwiggy said:

The fact remains that most of our roads developed naturally - footpaths became bridalways; bridalways became cart tracks; cart tracks became coaching routes; coaching routes became modern roads. This applies both inside and outside of town.

In terms of 'rights', you can either go with longevity, and give it to pedestrians, or go with 'might' and give it to cars. Neither is correct however, as we have no 'right of way' on UK roads. So, the sensible approach, is that everyone looks after their own safety, and the most 'powerful' look out for the most vulnerable.

seems a pretty sensible summary - SWoll I think you've slightly misunderstood the argument - it's not the pedestrian's vulnerability from doing something silly, it's their vulnerability from not having a steel safety cage whether at fault or no. It seems a bit unfair to say the pedestrian can go screw themselves if they make a mistake, when the person in the car suffers in general much less for the same mistake. You're possibly right about drifting O/T though, and I do wonder how some people manage to stay alive - on one hand it's good that they don't feel scared, but how you can be scared of traffic and still manage to put yourself in harm's way through your own idiocy (and people will do this regardless of transport mode) escapes me.

[Alfanatic]

If person A moved in to a position to impede person B (person B being in a car) on the public highway, and that person B as a consequence was involved in a collision, I'm pretty sure that UK law would recognise person A to be at fault no matter if they were in a car or on foot. It's only Brake that would blame the driver and the Daily Wail that would express outrage at how the driver is being persecuted because UK law is stupid.

The driver has a duty to, AFAIK, demonstrate reasonable care, which would include anticipating that a pedestrian in sight could become an obstacle. This means that the driver has to anticipate this and take steps to reduce the risk. It does not mean that the driver has to absolutely avoid running the pedestrian over at all costs regardless of what the pedestrian does.

[redgriff500]

heebeegeetee said:

I suggest you jolly well tell that person incapable of understanding that he or she must not go out without a responsible person.

If they are that incapable they should be locked in or put down.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Alfanatic said:

It does not mean that the driver has to absolutely avoid running the pedestrian over at all costs regardless of what the pedestrian does.

i would disagree, I driver DOES absolutely have to avoid running a pedestrian over, if at all possible, at the very least attempt to

[Buff Mchugelarge]

Dr Jekyll said:

paranoid airbag said:

Ever heard of Roman Roads? Pretty certain they were keen on pedestrianised transport.

Horses and pedestrians don't need a smooth surface. the Romans built roads because they were keen on wheels.

Roman roads in (for example) the City of London were much wider than required for even the fattest pedestrian, they were specifically designed to be wide enough for carts.

Pwned.

[Alfanatic]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Alfanatic said:

It does not mean that the driver has to absolutely avoid running the pedestrian over at all costs regardless of what the pedestrian does.

i would disagree, I driver DOES absolutely have to avoid running a pedestrian over, if at all possible, at the very least attempt to

Yes, that's kind of what I was saying, perhaps not well worded. I don't actually think we're in disagreement.

In other words, I'm saying that the punishment in the OP is fair, and I'm saying that I think that UK law would reach the same conclusion.

I'll put it the other way around: If the pedestrian does something that makes it unreasonably difficult for the driver to avoid them, and driver hasn't broken any laws to get into that situation, or failed to give right of way when they should have or anything like that, then the pedestrian is at fault. This would include recognising that not many drivers are trained to control skids, that they are not trained to remain calm in what would be a high stress situation, that the typical response will be to try and stop and not to try and drive around. That's just what most drivers do in panic situations.

So, if the driver had reduced speed on spotting the pedestrian, and the pedestrian then steps in front of the driver at a point where stopping is impossible, and the driver bends the brake pedal trying to stop but of course fails, the pedestrian is at fault. Or if the driver does swerve and missed the pedestrian, but then has their own accident as a result, the pedestrian is at fault.

Or (sorry) if the driver has been given the choice of hitting the pedestrian or hitting something else (e.g. lamppost, other car, oncoming traffic) and risking injury to themselves, and they choose to hit the pedestrian, the pedestrian is at fault. Or is this more of a grey area?

[hairykrishna]

Are the Swiss like the Germans, in that they take pedestrian crossings a lot more seriously than us? I've spent a fair bit of time working in Germany and people just don't cross the road unless the lights are green. Doesn't matter if there's not a car to be seen.

[barker22]

People going on about pedestrians being here before cars so they have every right. Seriously listen to yourselves. Its the 21st century, things have changed.
Without the aid of cars and other vehicles you pedestrians wouldn't have anywhere to walk to.