Joggers running into road. Liability split...
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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
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, f
k it, let's jog across anyway? Morons.
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, f
k it, let's jog across anyway? Morons.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.
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.
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!
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!
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!In my opinion the joggers were taking a stupid risk crossing in the manner they did trying to shave a few seconds off.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff