Punishment for pedestrian - fair?

[BlackPrince]

dapearson said:

stuff

I feel very bad for you dapearson that said idiot ped crossed through a queue of cars w/o looking but as bikers we're taught to evaluate hazards and also match our speed to visibility and a gap in front of a van is a hazard where a pedestrian could cross through.

Perhaps its a bit extreme but whenever I'm filtering through a row of cars (as opposed to just riding on the other side of the road), if there is a van or a bus or something that I can't see above and its in an area where there are pedestrians, I'll decrease my filtering speed from 30mph to 2mph just in case I need to stop for a pedestrian. Sometimes I treat said bus/van as if they were a stop sign and I just come to a complete stop and crane my neck to make sure no one is going to start running across the road. This has saved me from an incident more times than I care to remember.


Anyway, I agree with one of the above posters that one should just assume that pedestrians are idiots (I swear to god that 99% of peds dont bloody look to see if a car is coming as long as its their 'right of way' at a crossing), and act accordingly. When the light goes green if there are pedestrians around, don't treat it as a TLGP and a quick look left and right for any remaining cars or peds crossing the intersection is apropos, as well as a lifesaver before turning left and right at junctions.

That being said, I do on occasion enjoy accelerating towards a dawdling pedestrian (only peds under 40) and watching them get the f8ck out of the way

Oh and if my IAM instructors tell me that on my bike as I'm the vulnerable one its up to me to protect myself, I don't understand why its not up to pedestrians to protect themselves! I was taught that at traffic lights, keep your eye on your mirrors until the car behind you approaches you and comes to a complete stop. When I'm crossing the road if there isn't a car there stopped I'll keep looking to make sure that some drunken bellend doesn't plow through the intersection. Am I the only one out of a group of peds that does this? OF COURSE! Fk's sake - there are some stupid drivers and bikers out there that have lady luck on their side but its a bloody miracle that some peds are still alive


Anyway, I suppose its in our self interest to look out for them as if we hit them WE get prosecuted

[dapearson]

BlackPrince said:

I feel very bad for you dapearson that said idiot ped crossed through a queue of cars w/o looking but as bikers we're taught to evaluate hazards and also match our speed to visibility and a gap in front of a van is a hazard where a pedestrian could cross through.

I take your point, and i do count myself as one of the more observant and careful riders out there. I'm not a sunday blast or sportsbike rider. I'm more of a lights on and fluorescent vest kind of chap.

Hard to explain without being able to show you exactly, but it's not the sort of location where a pedestrian would normally cross. I had not, and haven't since seen a pedestrian cross half way down that road. There is a crossing at each end of the road, and there isn't anything in-between that's worth crossing for! It's a straight road with a path each side, no houses, nowhere else to go except at each end - hence the crossings.

[TTwiggy]

I've said this before, but it clearly merits repeating: The vast majority of roads in this country (excluding motorways, that have different byelaws) pre-date the motor vehicle by hundreds, and in some cases thousands of years. We do not have jaywalking laws for the very simple reason that mile upon mile of our rural roads do not have a pavement. In the UK, we share road use - nobody has an exclusive right to them. The onus is on those capable of causing the most harm to look out for those most likely to come to harm.

[Dr Jekyll]

TTwiggy said:

I've said this before, but it clearly merits repeating: The vast majority of roads in this country (excluding motorways, that have different byelaws) pre-date the motor vehicle by hundreds, and in some cases thousands of years. We do not have jaywalking laws for the very simple reason that mile upon mile of our rural roads do not have a pavement. In the UK, we share road use - nobody has an exclusive right to them. The onus is on those capable of causing the most harm to look out for those most likely to come to harm.

No, the onus is for eveyone to look out for everyone else.

[TTwiggy]

Dr Jekyll said:

TTwiggy said:

I've said this before, but it clearly merits repeating: The vast majority of roads in this country (excluding motorways, that have different byelaws) pre-date the motor vehicle by hundreds, and in some cases thousands of years. We do not have jaywalking laws for the very simple reason that mile upon mile of our rural roads do not have a pavement. In the UK, we share road use - nobody has an exclusive right to them. The onus is on those capable of causing the most harm to look out for those most likely to come to harm.

No, the onus is for eveyone to look out for everyone else.

You don't feel, that if you're in charge of over a tonne of metal, capable of going over 100mph, that you owe it to the soft, squidgy, easily crushed road users to look out for them?

odd.

[Dr Jekyll]

TTwiggy said:

You don't feel, that if you're in charge of over a tonne of metal, capable of going over 100mph, that you owe it to the soft, squidgy, easily crushed road users to look out for them?

odd.

I refer you to my previous answer.

I feel EVERYBODY should look out for EVERYBODY ELSE.

What's so odd about that?

[freecar]

heebeegeetee said:

xRIEx said:

So it's OK for you to say people incapable of driving shouldn't drive, but others can't say that people incapable of looking after themselves in a given situation should have a responsible person with them in that situation? Slightly hypocritical there. In any case, the (legal) drivers have actually passed a test to prove they are capable of driving.

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

Just for clarity there is a young lady (adult but special) in the local area who isn't allowed out alone, she cannot cross the road safely and was hit numerous times before a carer was assigned and the house order established!

I don't think she#d be thrown in prison for going out but it's just a safety thing that she understands is for her own good as well as the good of the local motorists!

I've been googling but can't find a link, it was on the South Today news show that normally has country shows and waterskiing squirells, you know the sort!

[TTwiggy]

Dr Jekyll said:

TTwiggy said:

You don't feel, that if you're in charge of over a tonne of metal, capable of going over 100mph, that you owe it to the soft, squidgy, easily crushed road users to look out for them?

odd.

I refer you to my previous answer.

I feel EVERYBODY should look out for EVERYBODY ELSE.

What's so odd about that?

I agree that everyone should look out for their own personal safety. But when the odds are stacked against the most vulnerable, I believe that the the onus is on the 'most deadly' to take the most care. I think the law generally agrees with me too.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TTwiggy said:

Dr Jekyll said:

TTwiggy said:

You don't feel, that if you're in charge of over a tonne of metal, capable of going over 100mph, that you owe it to the soft, squidgy, easily crushed road users to look out for them?

odd.

I refer you to my previous answer.

I feel EVERYBODY should look out for EVERYBODY ELSE.

What's so odd about that?

I agree that everyone should look out for their own personal safety. But when the odds are stacked against the most vulnerable, I believe that the the onus is on the 'most deadly' to take the most care. I think the law generally agrees with me too.

^^^^THIS

TTwiggy is spot on. There must be something in having the the letters TWIG in your forum name that makes you right!!

[Hugo a Gogo]

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?

the exact opposite, Heather Mills got 200,000 off the police authority for running out in front of a police bike with blues and twos going, injuring the cop, PC Osborne, forcing him to retire

[StormLoaded]

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?

nothing to do with courts as didnt get that far, but i did get my car repairs paid for by a pedestrian's (home) insurance once. took months to get my excess back as it wasnt something that often happens so think her home insurance were trying to drag their feet.

When the police turned up at the scene the pedestrian admitted to them that the accident was her fault - she walked right out infront of my car as i was going past [at 40mph, in a 40 zone.. 1 very lucky lady..].
c£1500 worth of damage [.. as she did a rather theatrical roly poly over my car] was all paid for through her home insurance.

so if it ever happens to anyone else.. make sure the pedestrian admits liability to the fuzz!

[C.A.R.]

In response to the OP I highly doubt the same case would yield a similar result in the UK, partly because laws are very biased against the motor car and the irresponsible people who drive them. I mean, they're noisy, expensive, emit toxins that kill polar bears and cause cancer and worst of all they're pretty hard if you ever get hit by one.

Yes, a driver has a great responsibility to observe the road ahead (I'm pretty sure this is why I had to watch several video clips before getting my drivers license) but how is that responsibility any greater than that of the humanoid without a car using the pavement? Everyone has the same amount of responsibility to look out for the actions of others however inappropriate they may be, but it is not a greater responsibility for the car driver, it's just going to hurt a lot more for the pedestrian.

This is the same reason modern cars look crap. It's the same reason that modern cars can no longer have undeniably-awesome pop-up headlights. Why Peugeots all look the same.

Bring back pointy cars with pop-up headlights and pedestrians with common sense....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Hugo a Gogo said:

the exact opposite, Heather Mills got 200,000 off the police authority for running out in front of a police bike with blues and twos going, injuring the cop, PC Osborne, forcing him to retire

In her case, wasn't the bike on the wrong side of the road and speeding. In a built up area (Kensington)on a sunny Sunday afternoon when it was busy. And she didn't run out as far as I'm aware, she was just crossing the road (possibly with her mind on other things, I don't know)

Any emergency vehicle driver knows the score if they take a decision to stick on the blue lights and go for it; that they onus is 100% on them to make sure it's safe to do so. That's what all the training is for.

[LeoSayer]

I'm slightly surprised this result was returned in Zurich.

I had understood that the law in Switzerland was stacked in the favour of the 'smaller' party, ie. the pedestrian in this case.

[Hugo a Gogo]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

the exact opposite, Heather Mills got 200,000 off the police authority for running out in front of a police bike with blues and twos going, injuring the cop, PC Osborne, forcing him to retire

In her case, wasn't the bike on the wrong side of the road and speeding. In a built up area (Kensington)on a sunny Sunday afternoon when it was busy. And she didn't run out as far as I'm aware, she was just crossing the road (possibly with her mind on other things, I don't know)

Any emergency vehicle driver knows the score if they take a decision to stick on the blue lights and go for it; that they onus is 100% on them to make sure it's safe to do so. That's what all the training is for.

well I don't know, I wasn't there, but the cop said he was the third of three bikes travelling in convoy, he said he was in the outside lane and that she ran out from behind a bus, looking at the other two bikes who'd just passed
...and he was cleared of careless driving

[SWoll]

TTwiggy said:

I agree that everyone should look out for their own personal safety. But when the odds are stacked against the most vulnerable, I believe that the the onus is on the 'most deadly' to take the most care. I think the law generally agrees with me too.

The odds are stacked against pedestrians because in the event of a meeting between them and a car they will always come off worse, therefore any level of common sense/self preservation should ensure that pedestrians should be equally as careful as drivers if not more so?

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

I'm not convinced your comment about "the law" is strictly relevent in this case either TBH.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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 .

Thus, I feel a car driver owes a far higher duty of care to a pedestrian than a pedestrian does to a car driver.

[deltashad]

Everyone should have to go through compulsery basic road crossing training before being allowed to leave a safe environment. This would at least, cut down on the amount of pedestrian roadside accidents.

If they do not have a CBT card on their person showing they have passed the training module they should be taken away to a detention centre for breach of rules.

If they are knocked down by a car without a CBT card then they are liable for all costs, regardless of the accident and the injuries.

This training will need to be run through a govenment scheme with a cost of £30 per head. All revenue from the scheme should go towards funding more training for crossing roads along with electronic roadside signs incorporating speach warnings for the hard of hearing.
Barriers should also be set up on all pavements with access only at certified crossings, these crossings should be fitted with barriers on the pavement which only open when the little man turns to green.

Any more revenue left over should disappear into politicians personal overhead budgets and bankers bonus'.

[TTwiggy]

SWoll said:

TTwiggy said:

I agree that everyone should look out for their own personal safety. But when the odds are stacked against the most vulnerable, I believe that the the onus is on the 'most deadly' to take the most care. I think the law generally agrees with me too.

The odds are stacked against pedestrians because in the event of a meeting between them and a car they will always come off worse, therefore any level of common sense/self preservation should ensure that pedestrians should be equally as careful as drivers if not more so?

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

I'm not convinced your comment about "the law" is strictly relevent in this case either TBH.

There are situations in this country where pedestrians have no choice other than to share the roads with motor vehicles. In these cases, the pedestrian can only 'take care' up to a certain level. Beyond that, the onus is on the motorist to 'take care' of his fellow, much more vulnerable, road user.

My point about the law was in response to some of the 'I pay road tax (chortle), I have the right of way (bigger chortle)' posters. If one of them were to hit a pedestrian in a situation where it was possible and reasonable to avoid the collision, then a court appearance for the driver would be almost certain.

[paranoid airbag]

Dr Jekyll said:

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

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

Roads were used by, in chronological order, a)pedestrians, b)horses/horse and carts, c)bicycles, d)cars. Congratulations, that's the most exactly wrong statement I've heard all year.

In theory, I'd like pedestrians to be responsible for their actions - and if you think clueless pedestrians are a nightmare in a (noisy, easy to see) car, try dealing with them on a (silent, harder to see) bike. I'd like idiotic cyclists to be responsible for theirs- ninjas, salmon, the idiot I saw today who turned right right in front of a bus (just how DO people have so little sense of self-preservation? And I can pretty much guarantee she isn't generally mentally deficient), tts who run zebra crossings etc. But I'd also like idiotic motorists to be responsible for their actions - and that just isn't possible. Ask anyone who's suffered a proper, life-changing (or ending) injury - no amount of insurance money can compensate for loss of life or limb, nor can the criminal punishments. So if the most dangerous road users can't be responsible for their actions, what point in going after essentially harmless ones?

It sucks, but I'd rather be worried about a costly insurance payout every time I step into a car, than worry every time I walk or ride somewhere that I'll be killed for making a slight mistake because the some tt in a car decided that, as they had priority, I deserved to die.