Zebra Crossing - near-miss

Strider590

s_b wrote: »

this thread is a waste of cyberspace now
its been explained about the highway code
the relevant sections have been posted but some of you with more posts than british telecom want to labour a point that isnt valid

Duty calls.....

asbokid

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS / ZEBRA CROSSINGS

ZEBRA, PELICAN AND PUFFIN PEDESTRIAN CROSSING REGULATIONS AND GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1997, SI 1997/2400

25 Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings

(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or a traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

(2) Where there is a refuge for pedestrians or central reservation on a Zebra crossing, the parts of the crossing situated on each side of the refuge for pedestrians or central reservations shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be treated as separate crossings.

mikey72

asbokid wrote: »

Clifford v Drymond
[1976] RTR 134, CA

Whilst walking across the road on a zebra crossing, the claimant was struck by a car coming from her right. She was thrown or carried 45ft and sustained serious injuries. She was 10ft on to the crossing when hit. The judge found on the available evidence that the car, travelling not more than 30mph had been about 75ft away when the claimant began to cross. He considered whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence in stepping on to the crossing when the approaching car was within 75ft to 80ft and decided she was not.

HELD, ON APPEAL: The claimant should bear 20% of the blame. The Highway Code required a pedestrian not only to allow vehicles plenty of time to slow down or stop before starting to cross, but also to look right and left while crossing. If the claimant did not look at the approaching car she was negligent; if she did look she should have seen the car was near enough to make it doubtful whether it would pull up. She must also have been guilty of a measure of negligence in having failed to keep the car under observation as she proceeded to cross the road. If she had she would have seen that it was not going to stop and could have allowed it to pass.

And as the other case from 1970.

That's probably why the act was brought in in 1997.
It clears up the responsibility, the driver has been 100% in the wrong since then

asbokid

Moulder v Neville
[1974] RTR 53, Div Ct

The defendant was driving his car towards an uncontrolled (ie 'Zebra') crossing and was within the area marked by the zig-zag lines when a pedestrian stepped on to the crossing. The defendant continued over the crossing, missing the pedestrian by a foot. On a charge of failing to give precedence he claimed that the area between the zig-zag lines was part of the crossing and that when a vehicle was within the controlled area (ie between the zig-zag lines) no pedestrian should move on to the crossing.

HELD: The roadway between the zig-zag lines was not part of the crossing. If a pedestrian gets on to the striped area before the car gets on to the striped area the driver must give the pedestrian priority.

Note-- See SI 1997/2400, reg 25 (above), which sets out the regulations relating to precedence of pedestrians on zebra crossings.

mikey72

asbokid wrote: »

Moulder v Neville
[1974] RTR 53, Div Ct

The defendant was driving his car towards an uncontrolled (ie 'Zebra') crossing and was within the area marked by the zig-zag lines when a pedestrian stepped on to the crossing. The defendant continued over the crossing, missing the pedestrian by a foot. On a charge of failing to give precedence he claimed that the area between the zig-zag lines was part of the crossing and that when a vehicle was within the controlled area (ie between the zig-zag lines) no pedestrian should move on to the crossing.

HELD: The roadway between the zig-zag lines was not part of the crossing. If a pedestrian gets on to the striped area before the car gets on to the striped area the driver must give the pedestrian priority.

Note-- See SI 1997/2400, reg 25 (above), which sets out the regulations relating to precedence of pedestrians on zebra crossings.

Yes, doesn't matter where the car is, the link in post#65 show a diagram of the crossing. Only the black and white bit counts.

asbokid

asbokid wrote: »

Moulder v Neville
[1974] RTR 53, Div Ct

The defendant was driving his car towards an uncontrolled (ie 'Zebra') crossing and was within the area marked by the zig-zag lines when a pedestrian stepped on to the crossing. The defendant continued over the crossing, missing the pedestrian by a foot. On a charge of failing to give precedence he claimed that the area between the zig-zag lines was part of the crossing and that when a vehicle was within the controlled area (ie between the zig-zag lines) no pedestrian should move on to the crossing.

HELD: The roadway between the zig-zag lines was not part of the crossing. If a pedestrian gets on to the striped area before the car gets on to the striped area the driver must give the pedestrian priority.

Note-- See SI 1997/2400, reg 25 (above), which sets out the regulations relating to precedence of pedestrians on zebra crossings.

mikey72 wrote: »

Yes, doesn't matter where the car is, the link in post#65 show a diagram of the crossing. Only the black and white bit counts.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/schedule/1/made

asbokid

s_b wrote: »

if i sound my horn a certain member told me he was phoning the police and was suing me .. mikey post 17..............

DRIVER NOT LIABLE

Jankovic v Howell
[1970] CLY 1863 Ormerod J

The claimant, crossing a road by a pedestrian crossing, walked over the central island without pausing and on to the other half of the crossing, where he was struck by the defendant's scooter.

HELD: It was superfluous to hoot or take evasive action every time a pedestrian approaches a refuge. Judgment for the defendant.

asbokid

Judge (by her mother and litigation friend Gwen Judge) v Brown
(26 March 2001, unreported), QBD

The claimant was 12 years old at the date of the accident. The claimant was walking home from school with friends and as she stepped out onto a zebra crossing, a vehicle driven by the defendant collided with her. The claimant brought an action against the defendant alleging he was negligent in failing to keep a lookout for pedestrians on the zebra crossing.

HELD, at trial: The judge found that had the defendant been keeping a proper lookout he ought to have seen the claimant. The judge submitted that a reasonably careful driver should have been ready to slow down or stop to let children cross. The judge also stated that a girl of the claimant's age ought reasonably to have appreciated that she was stepping out when the defendant's vehicle was close. Judgment was entered with liability split between the parties at 50/50.

Trebor16

The simplest solution to the issues surrounding zebra crossings is to do away with them and convert them to pelican crossings.

asbokid

Trebor16 wrote: »

The simplest solution to the issues surrounding zebra crossings is to do away with them and convert them to pelican crossings.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS (PUSH BUTTON CONTROLLED CROSSINGS)

Turner v Arriva North East Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 410
[2006] All ER (D) 369 (Mar)

The deceased was killed by a bus driver when she attempted to cross a road whilst the pedestrian lights were red against her. It was the bus driver's evidence that his speed was 15mph, although expert evidence suggested that his speed was in the region of 24mph (which was within the speed limit). At first instance the judge found in favour of the bus driver as his speed was not excessive, and he was travelling in a clear lane with traffic lights in his favour. The judge also found that given the size and angle of the bus, the driver's view of the pedestrian crossing was restricted. The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was justified in finding that no liability rested with the bus driver as there was no reason why he could not proceed and there was no way he could have seen the pedestrian until it was too late.