crossing on a red 25% at fault
crossing on a red 25% at fault
Author
Discussion

SplatSpeed

Original Poster:

7,491 posts

282 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/...

you crossed a red light when a bus is coming and the bus driver is 75% to blame when he had a green light

FFS the light is there for your safety

madrob6

3,594 posts

251 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
I'm a bit short on cash, perhaps I should walk out in front of a bus too.

bloody stupid if you ask me.

RichBurley

2,432 posts

284 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
I think the traffic light colour is a red (sic) herring here. Imagine that there are no traffic lights, but people are stepping out into the road in front of the bus. You might think that they are stupid, and I might well agree with you, but the bus driver has a duty to take care, and slow down. He didn't take suitable evasive action, and a judge has found him 75% responsible.

The woman was held partly at fault don't forget. It's not a green light (sic again) for other people to do this; the woman in question suffered "catastrophic brain damage", so it's unlikely that she did it as a "career move".

For more No win No Fee Personal Injury advice, feel free to email me. wink

Edited by RichBurley on Wednesday 6th February 15:16

Vipers

33,524 posts

259 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
How often do we see ped's step on to the road just coz the little man is green, without a thought of even looking just in case, planks most of them.

Sad incident as it is, it does demonstrate the idiots we have around us drivers, and not only other drivers it seems.

smile

shoestring7

6,196 posts

277 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7

SplatSpeed

Original Poster:

7,491 posts

282 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
RichBurley said:
I think the traffic light colour is a red (sic) herring here. Imagine that there are no traffic lights, but people are stepping out into the road in front of the bus. You might think that they are stupid, and I might well agree with you, but the bus driver has a duty to take care, and slow down. He didn't take suitable evasive action, and a judge has found him 75% responsible.

The woman was held partly at fault don't forget. It's not a green light (sic again) for other people to do this; the woman in question suffered "catastrophic brain damage", so it's unlikely that she did it as a "career move".

For more No win No Fee Personal Injury advice, fell free to email me. wink

Edited by RichBurley on Wednesday 6th February 14:59
there is no pedestrian right of way law in this country yet

he had right of way

she played chicken with a bus

you ignore lights at your own risk

stupid bint she is 65 about time she learned the green cross code FFS

heebeegeetee

30,256 posts

279 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7
Beat me to it. The problem is that numpties think green mean go, regardless. The bus driver had a duty of care, he chose to ignore that and drove his bus into somebody, the bus company has to pay. Makes perfect sense to me.

In fact it could be argued that the actions of the pedestrian were in error, whereas the drivers were deliberate, which makes him 100% at fault, so maybe the driver and his company have got off lightly.

Vipers

33,524 posts

259 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7
S'pose peds dont read the HC do they, which would explain their attitude. BUgg$%s

smile

heebeegeetee

30,256 posts

279 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
Vipers said:
shoestring7 said:
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7
S'pose peds dont read the HC do they, which would explain their attitude. BUgg$%s

smile
There's no necessity on being able to read to be a ped though. In fact, you're allowed to be a total looney and still be a ped smile. But if you don't like it, don't drive a vehicle, its as simple as that. Peds were round for a few millenia before motor vehicles, the land has been paved to make the highways, i don't see a necessity for peds to obey the 'highway' code.

2something

2,145 posts

239 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all

Plenty of drivers drive through red lights by mistake, no reason why the same shouldn't happen to pedestrians.

O.k the low winter sun really doesn't help the situation at the moment, but it never ceases to amaze me how blind some people are.

LeoSayer

7,860 posts

275 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
The driver could have stopped but chose to run the woman over instead. Sounds like 100% the drivers fault if you ask me.

tigger1

8,483 posts

252 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
shoestring7 said:
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7
And also the other part (for motorists) which reads

Highway code said:
a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"
Looks pretty similar to me.

shoestring7

6,196 posts

277 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
Vipers said:
shoestring7 said:
..or you read the HC and know that a green light means "Cross if it is safe to do so"

SS7
S'pose peds dont read the HC do they, which would explain their attitude. BUgg$%s

smile
You mis-understand me; the Bus driver was being shown the green light. It doesn't mean you can cross regardless.

SS7

DannyR

398 posts

231 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
LeoSayer said:
The driver could have stopped but chose to run the woman over instead. Sounds like 100% the drivers fault if you ask me.
I partially agree with this, the woman shouldnt have gone through a red light so she was on some level to blame, however the bus driver should have braked, ive seen this when people overtake and misjudge things, instead of the oncoming car breaking they do nothing (seems to happen more with trucks or buses coming the other way)

anyone else seen this kind of behaviour? If someone makes a mistake people dont seem to care anymore, they dont care that they can do something to help rectify it at the very least, probably on a line with the "respect in the uk" thread a few days back

H_Kan

4,942 posts

230 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
In fairness it would appear that the driver could have stopped but chose not to. Normally though if it was a case of a ped unexpectedly jumping out onto the road then liability should fall 100% on them.

Hooli

32,278 posts

231 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
its darwin in action, your dumb enough to walk infront of a bus you deserve to get hurt.
saying the bus driver should have braked because people might cross means in london the bus would NEVER sodding move!

LeoSayer

7,860 posts

275 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
Hooli said:
saying the bus driver should have braked because people might cross means in london the bus would NEVER sodding move!
Big difference between those who might cross and those who are already crossing.

2something

2,145 posts

239 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all

"intending to cross his path" was in the report
not
"intending to cross"

As with most of these, it's very hard to comment without knowing exactly what happened but that is the beauty of PH - we can!

MK4 Slowride

10,028 posts

239 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
Bring in a no 'J' walking law and fine the pedestrians. Having said that I'd rather the government stopped making all these new laws but this could be sort of acceptable in towns and put the responsibility back on the pedestrian and not always the driver! It'd certainly help in cases like this. Idiot woman, silly bus driver.

Silent1

19,762 posts

266 months

Wednesday 6th February 2008
quotequote all
"Her counsel Christian Du Cannher counsel told the court that CCTV footage showed the driver could see pedestrians intending to cross his path but chose not to brake or slow down.

He said in those circumstances, there was an opportunity - as much as three seconds - for him to have braked, although that did not excuse Ms Newey from choosing to cross when she did."

For s sake, i'll make sure i accelerate if anyone walks out now.