Zebra Crossing - near-miss

Trebor16

Every accident has to be judged on its circumstances. Making statements that the driver is usually to blame if they hit a pedestrian doesn't demonstrate a lot of common sense being applied.

asbokid

ilesmark wrote: »

We're getting a bit OT now, but here's a dash-cam one that made me laugh.....but not the police - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuIBj0R2ui4

The commentary especially.

That happy splashing was done by Kerry Callard.. Here's her facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1253963683

The cops were gonna do her for (careless driving), but there was insufficient evidence.

Bongles

s_b wrote: »

so to understand this right
you walk onto a pedestrian crossing as you have your head down,me as a driver has to do an emergancy stop because you gave me no warning

As far as the law is concerned, the fact that a pedestrian was in the vicinity of the crossing is all the warning you need. The law expects you to see the pedestrian and it expects you not to assume the pedestrian isn't going to use the crossing just because they don't look like they are.

The moment the pedestrian steps onto the crossing - whether they showed any sign in advance of doing so or not, whether they know you're there or not, whether they've looked or not - they have precedence and you're at fault if you hit them.

It might be annoying, but it's how the rules work.

Gloomendoom

Eggzackerly. The law requires a driver to stop for a pedestrian crossing the road at a zebra crossing. No if's, no but's. It doesn't add the caveat "but only if the pedestrian has looked first" and, as far as I am aware, the pedestrian is not legally obliged to look before starting to cross, despite what the Highway Code (and common sense) may suggest as good practice.

maninthestreet

Bongles wrote: »

As far as the law is concerned, the fact that a pedestrian was in the vicinity of the crossing is all the warning you need. The law expects you to see the pedestrian and it expects you not to assume the pedestrian isn't going to use the crossing just because they don't look like they are.

The moment the pedestrian steps onto the crossing - whether they showed any sign in advance of doing so or not, whether they know you're there or not, whether they've looked or not - they have precedence and you're at fault if you hit them.

It might be annoying, but it's how the rules work.

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).

Trebor16

Bongles wrote: »

As far as the law is concerned, the fact that a pedestrian was in the vicinity of the crossing is all the warning you need.

It's usual that when being taught to drive that any pedestrians are in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing that drivers should be aware of the possibility of pedestrians using the crossing, but that is not as far as the law is concerned.

The Highway Code is very clear on how pedestrians should behave. It clearly states that pedestrians should check that traffic has stopped before starting to cross. It states that pedestrians should give traffic plenty of time to see them before using the crossing.

Pedestrians therefore have a duty to make sure it is safe to use the crossing before they set foot on it. The content of the Highway Code can be used against both drivers and pedestrians should they not follow the advice given.

Flyboy152

I think some people need to understand the distinction between should and must.

bikeyspice

Whilst we're on the subject of zebra crossings it might be worth pointing out that most of those crossings in supermarkets are not correctly marked out and are questionable in the eyes of the law.

The law states that a pedestrian has right of way once they have put a foot into the "controlled zone". The controlled zone is defined by the small dots running parallel to the main black and white section, effectively a give way line Most of the supermarket crossings don't have these lines of small dots so aren't in fact legitimate crossings

I'm not planning on running anybody over anytime soon at one of these crossings:D but it's worth bearing in mind if you're a pedestrian, knowing that the you may not have the full protection of the law if you're unfortunate enough to get hit and the driver has a savvy lawyer

Gloomendoom

bikeyspice wrote: »

Whilst we're on the subject of zebra crossings it might be worth pointing out that most of those in supermarket crossings are not correctly marked out and are questionable in the eyes of the law.

I suspect that, as the supermarket crossings don't actually cross a public highway, the usual rules and penalties don't apply anyway.

Flyboy152

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I suspect that, as the supermarket crossings don't actually cross a public highway, the usual rules and penalties don't apply anyway.

Although, the RTA has some jurisdiction over areas where the public have access to, I am not sure to what extend it covers these sorts of things.