Zebra Crossing - near-miss

s_b

Trebor16 wrote: »

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

i prefer the european way
i find it much safer for car driver and foot soldier
we look each other in the eye and we are both safe

asbokid

TRAFFIC LIGHTS (PUSH BUTTON CONTROLLED CROSSINGS)

DRIVER AT FAULT

Frank v Cox
(1967) 111 Sol Jo 670, CA

At a crossroads controlled by traffic lights Frank began walking across the road on the south side from east to west. The traffic lights had changed and were in his favour. Cox was in his car in the road at the west side of the junction. As soon as the lights changed he drove into the junction and turned right, knocking down Frank who had then almost reached the centre refuge.

HELD: Cox's driving was not only careless, it verged on the monstrous, and Frank was not at all to blame. There is a paramount duty on motorists turning at junctions when the lights show in their favour to be sure that no pedestrians are crossing the road they are entering. They must observe the Highway Code which requires drivers when turning at junctions to give precedent to pedestrians who are crossing.

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)

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

[2002] EWCA Civ 1590
[2002] All ER (D) 285 (Oct), [2003] RTR 159

The claimants were jogging on the eastern side of the A20 carriageway in Dover, which is made up of three lanes. The defendant was approaching a junction controlled by traffic lights when the lights changed from red to green. The defendant therefore continued to drive and collided with the claimants as they passed in front of him.

At first instance, the judge found that no liability should attach to the defendant as he was under no obligation to stop or slow down as the signal had changed to green. The judge further commented that if he was wrong on primary liability that he would have reduced the claim for damages by 80% to reflect the claimants' level of contributory negligence.

HELD, ON APPEAL: That the judge was not entitled to make a finding of no liability as although the lights were green, this did not mean that the defendant had discharged his duty of care. Further, as there was a lorry to the defendant's left, which had remained stationary, this should have alerted him to the fact that pedestrians might have been crossing especially as the lights had just changed.

The court held that a prudent driver would have realised this and would have acted accordingly.

The court therefore held that the defendant was liable but accepted the level of contributory negligence found by the judge at the first instance.

ilesmark

Hi everyone

Never in a million YEARS did I dream that my thread would get so many responses!

Post 46

maninthestreet wrote: »

Quite correct - OP, you saw the pedestrian APPROACHING the crossing so you should assume they ARE going to use it. It does not matter from which direction the pedestrian actually approached the crossing. If this incident occurred whilst you were taking your driving test, you would fail (poor hazard perception).

Approaching, in the context I was using it for this post, meant heading towards something demonstrating some intention of using it rather then just walking past it. But I can quite believe I'd have failed if the incident had happened on my driving test.......and no doubt if I had slowed down on the off-chance but the woman had stayed on the pavement and not suddenly stepped onto the crossing then I'd have been failed for hesitancy instead!

Not sure if I agree (post 94) that after the 1997 came into force the driver is always 100% at fault - see post 99.

And there must be some cases where the pedestrian IS at fault - I don't know the outcome of this one, but wouldn't have thought the claimant would have brought it without assurances from her lawyer of a reasonable chance of success.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7265159/Widow-of-motorcyclist-killed-in-accident-sues-skateboarder-who-stepped-into-road.html

And come to think of it, I remember reading on Teletext news years ago a story about some woman suing a 10 year old child for damage to her car after he'd run out in front of her, although I couldn't find it when I looked for it.

asbokid

ilesmark wrote: »

And there must be some cases where the pedestrian IS at fault - I don't know the outcome of this one, but wouldn't have thought the claimant would have brought it without assurances from her lawyer of a reasonable chance of success.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7265159/Widow-of-motorcyclist-killed-in-accident-sues-skateboarder-who-stepped-into-road.html

The teenager ran into the road and caused a motorcyclist to swerve into the path of an oncoming car, and the collision killed him. The biker's widow sued the boy for causing the fatal accident. The boy then issued his own writ in response, alleging the biker was travelling at an excess speed, and had an illegally tinted visor, etc..

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Widow-faces-writ-skateboarder-hits/story-11656885-detail/story.html

On 26 May 2010, a press report stated that "A High Court decision is expected soon."

That was over a year ago.

And come to think of it, I remember reading on Teletext news years ago a story about some woman suing a 10 year old child for damage to her car after he'd run out in front of her, although I couldn't find it when I looked for it.

Suing for damages is easy. It is winning that's difficult!

Strider590

ilesmark wrote: »

And come to think of it, I remember reading on Teletext news years ago a story about some woman suing a 10 year old child for damage to her car after he'd run out in front of her, although I couldn't find it when I looked for it.

A lot of controversial stuff is disappearing from the web, I think the authorities are reigning in and shutting down alternative opinions.

Notably the removing or changing of news stories which turn out to have political "implications", like those covering killings/crime later found to be linked to Sharia law.

Or in the last 5-10 years anything that suggested speeding wasn't the only cause of accidents. Or anything which debunked the whole global warming theory.

It's very curious, I started saving links to news items of interest (I check the news at lunch times and save links for viewing at home) and even printing some to PDF files and now some of those articles have disappeared without trace. Like they never existed....

Weird stuff.....

cyclonebri1

Not sure if it's been mentioned but in the 1st post it was said that the ped did not look the correct way??

What you have to realise is that in this cosmopolitan society we live in, many are from countries who drive/look the other way:eek:
I know I've nearly been caught out abroad.

On which subject at least "we" treat pedestrians with a darn site more respect that they do in mainland europe;)

My pet hate?, the installation of crossings directly outside shop exits and the like with no barrier rail, several near me.

Final advice, read the bottom line of my signature;)

ilesmark

asbokid wrote: »

The teenager ran into the road and caused a motorcyclist to swerve into the path of an oncoming car, and the collision killed him. The biker's widow sued the boy for causing the fatal accident. The boy then issued his own writ in response, alleging the biker was travelling at an excess speed, and had an illegally tinted visor, etc..

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Widow-faces-writ-skateboarder-hits/story-11656885-detail/story.html

Re the counterclaim - I think if I was being sued for £25K in response to a claim of £300K, I'd just settle for the £275K!!

Wouldn't have thought the counterclaim would go that far - tests (almost certainly carried out by the police) showed in the original claim that neither the motorbike or the car it hit had been breaking the 40mph limit.

asbokid wrote: »

On 26 May 2010, a press report stated that "A High Court decision is expected soon."

That was over a year ago.

Suspect the action would have been settled out of court.

As regards the comments that the pedestrian may have looked the other way as they were from a country that drives on the other side - I said she didn't look up at all. Plus, the incident took place in Penzance and the woman was local. I very much doubt she could so much as spell the word 'passport' or locate Paris on a map.

davidjwest

ilesmark wrote: »

Plus, the incident took place in Penzance and the woman was local. I very much doubt she could so much as spell the word 'passport' or locate Paris on a map.

Any reason why you think that?

Do you also suspect her of having a wooden leg and a parrot on her shoulder?

:rotfl:

ilesmark

AAAAAARRRRR!

I can see I need to be careful of my terminology here - I too am from Penzance. I was simply making the point that, on balance, the reason that the person I encountered on that crossing did not look where she was going was highly unlikely to be because she was from a drive-on-the-right country.