Joggers running into road. Liability split...

[KungFuPanda]

So what do you guys think of this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7924297/D...

I can see the point of the insurance company accepting 30%or 40% taking into account the litigation risk.

[grassomaniac]

As someone who runs semi-regulary I don't understand why the "joggers" were trying to cross the way they did looking at the footage. Crossing in front of the bus, so they had poor visibility and were obscured from the drivers view. The driver didn't look to be going very fast either.

In my opinion the joggers were taking a stupid risk crossing in the manner they did trying to shave a few seconds off.

Edited by grassomaniac on Friday 24th January 15:33

[Pegscratch]

I think it was a pretty stupid thing to do on the joggers part but the bus stopped is a giveaway that you don't want to speed through.

I don't think I'd be impressed at having to pay for the jogger's stupidity though. Natural selection should be applied here. Red man, a lane you can't see, fk it, let's jog across anyway? Morons.

[deckster]

The joggers are pretty much entirely in the wrong in my book.

But the driver sounds a real charmer so I do wonder if there is something else here. And even if not, he needs a bit of an attitude readjustment.

[grassomaniac]

Must admit I did read the quotes from him and he did sound like a bit of a tit although I do understand his frustration regarding the insurance.

[CanAm]

Pegscratch said:

I think it was a pretty stupid thing to do on the joggers part but the bus stopped is a giveaway that you don't want to speed through.

Exactly; with a bus stopped like that in a built up area there's a fair chance that a (dim) pedestrian will be coming through.

[Derek Smith]

If you go on a police driving course, or an advanced driving course, you'll be told to look out for hazards. Recognising them is easy enough.

If you pass a bus that is stationary, not only at a bus stop, you should be ready for pedestrians crossing in front of it. You should slow, and enough so that you can stop immediately.

On some buses you can see under the front. Not so much here. At other times, although not in this instance, you can see shadows. If not you should hoot, and drive as if you hadn't.

In this particular case, the bus had stopped at green traffic lights. There was nothing in front of it. It doesn't take an awful lot of working out that there might be pedestrians crossing. The image below the video shows that the driver had clear sight of the pedestrians in time to brake from a reasonable speed.

If the reporting officer put a file through on this personal injury RTA, I'd tick the box to continue. If the driver gave the verbals he did on the DM, I'd think it was home clear.

[PistonTim]

As a keen runner (not jogger, thats a swear word) they are 100% responsible for their own stupid actions and people like that give the community a bad name.

In my view the driver is not at fault although I know the law sides with pedestrians, but really its a dumb decision that he is to blame.

Blame or not though he does need his attitude adjusting!

[CharlieH89]

You can see In the video that they were running, not waiting infront of the bus.
They only stopped running when they seen the car, hence the mans car clipping one of them.

It should be entirely their fault for running into the path of a car when signs say not to.

[FunkyNige]

grassomaniac said:

As someone who runs semi-regulary I don't understand why the "joggers" were trying to cross the way they did looking at the footage. Crossing in front of the bus, so they had poor visibility and were obscured from the drivers view. The driver didn't look to be going very fast either.

In my opinion the joggers were taking a stupid risk crossing in the manner they did trying to shave a few seconds off.

Totally agree, if that was me running and I wanted to cross in front of that bus I'd walk and poke my head around the bus first, not just keep running and hope for the best like these two did!

[The_Nugget]

In any sane world it is entirely the pedestrians fault.
The Bus looks to be turning right, it’s not stopped as at a bus stop.

Morons.

[rlg43p]

Derek Smith said:

The image below the video shows that the driver had clear sight of the pedestrians in time to brake from a reasonable speed.

I completely disagree with this; the fact that you can freeze a frame on the video when the joggers first become visible does not mean the driver had time to react.

20 mph is about 9 metres per second.

In the image where the joggers are visible the driver is just in front of the crossing



As the distance between rows of studs is 2.4m I reckon in the second image (below) he has moved forward about 3m - so that has taken about 0.33 seconds. There is no way that is enough time to brake to a stop.



The joggers should have stopped to look around the bus to see what was coming before blindly running across the road. Tossers!

[Glenn63]

Adding to the fact the camera is further forward than the driver and in the middle of the windscreen the camera can the see the joggers earlier than the driver. I’d say 100% joggers fault I don’t even see how it can be any other way.

[numtumfutunch]

Initially I thought the joggers were totally at fault and then I read the article

Drivers a tosser - burn him

Cheers

[popeyewhite]

I'd be furious if I was the driver as well. However ins co. capitulation is nothing new, people forget they seldom have the insured's best interests at heart.

[N111BJG]

We need to know which insurer so we can avoid giving them any money
Twonks !!

[paintman]

During my service if I'd been completing an RTA (the old description!) stats book for that one the section 'Pedestrian crossing road heedless of traffic' would have had a big tick.
Unfortunate that we have no offence of jaywalking.
Also a shame that insurers will pay out as it will cost them less than defending it. Sends entirely the wrong message to the ambulance chasers.

[Horsey McHorseface]

N111BJG said:

We need to know which insurer so we can avoid giving them any money
Twonks !!

This.

[meatballs]

Darwinian by the joggers. I wouldnt run out around an opaque bus/van/lorry into a second lane even if the green Man was showing - I would be leaning forward checking it's clear.

[Derek Smith]

rlg43p said:

Derek Smith said:

The image below the video shows that the driver had clear sight of the pedestrians in time to brake from a reasonable speed.

I completely disagree with this; the fact that you can freeze a frame on the video when the joggers first become visible does not mean the driver had time to react.

20 mph is about 9 metres per second.

In the image where the joggers are visible the driver is just in front of the crossing



As the distance between rows of studs is 2.4m I reckon in the second image (below) he has moved forward about 3m - so that has taken about 0.33 seconds. There is no way that is enough time to brake to a stop.



The joggers should have stopped to look around the bus to see what was coming before blindly running across the road. Tossers!

It's a hazard. There's a bus on the outside line stopped for an unknown reason. The driver continued at a speed that, apparently, he was unable to stop given the nature of the hazard.

I agree that the joggers were also to blame, but I was talking about the liability of the driver. If he is experienced, he should know that pedestrians do not always stop in such circs.

The green light means you may proceed if clear. There was sufficient warning in the situation as presented to the driver that he was unable to know that the road would be clear when he got there. The bus stopping moving forward is a clear indication that there might be a hazard ahead.

If it was a police driver, (s)he'd have had their permit suspended at the very least. It is basic, very basic, driver craft.

As you quite rightly point out, the driver was unable to stop. You make my point. It's a clear case of failing to respond to a hazard. He should have been able to stop.