Zebra Crossing - near-miss

Gloomendoom

Trebor16 wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/38

See for yourself where I got it from, and then you will realise what a buffoon you are for making such comments about making it up.

Actually, I checked it before I posted. I was just winding you up.

Successfully, it seems.

Strider590

Let's forget the crossing for a minute, if you hit a pedestrian at any time, the highwaycode makes it clear that you should have seen said pedestrian, slowed down, and prepared to stop. There are very few circumstances in which the pedestrian could be considered at fault.

The following could at a stretch be considered partially pedestrian fault:

Kid's playing football next to a road, ball rolls across road followed by chasing child, driver hits child = drivers fault.

Someone steps out from behind a parked vehicle or a bus, driver hits them = drivers fault.

Why driver fault?

Because the driver should be paying attention to his/her surroundings!
If you see kids playing at the side of the road, you should be aware of what could happen.
If you come to a parked vehicle you should be scanning for signs of pedestrians, look under the vehicle or through it's windows as you approach.....
This is why elderly drivers are in more accidents involving pedestrians than any other age group, they lose their driving confidence, crank the seat all the way forward (so they can peer through the top half of steering wheel) and focus too much on one point a fixed distance ahead.

mikey72

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

Thanks for the links Mikey. I have read the road traffic acts/orders online before and they are usually clear as mud to me, but these links are verging on 'plain english'!
Basically they are quite clear and say that pedestrian has precedence over vehicle within the limits of the crossing, AS LONG AS the vehicle has not already entered the limits. Some people on this thread were intimating that the pedestrian ALWAYS has precedence regardless of where the vehicles were.
In my experience, zebra crossings have been located in 30MPH areas or less with decent sight lines, you'd have to be 'going some' to hit someone on a crossing and be 'in the wrong'.

To be fair, as the limits are defined as the black and white crossing, it would be impossible to hit a pedestrian if you were already driving over the crossing.

If a driver hits a pedestrian, they would have to be approching the crossing to give the pedestrian space to get out.

I would think a driver would always be in the wrong.

I don't think anyone is considering the case of a pedestrian throwing themselves at the side of back wheels or the car, which would be the exception.

johnfarquhar74

mikey72 wrote: »

Your arguement is the same as saying anyone on a main road has to watch out for traffice pulling out over a give way sign from a side road, and expecting the main road traffic to stop, just because they're driving up to a give way sign too fast.

I don't think I actually meant it as that but there is an element of truth in there. If someone was to pull out of a side street in front of an oncoming car, perhaps due to poor judgement, then I would expect at the very least for the car that HAD priority to ease up, apply brakes and perhaps remonstrate with the horn, driving into the back of the other car is not a viable option, is it?
As an aside, I was taught to watch for traffic joining a main road and cover my horn just in case they had not seen me(Bike training).

mikey72 wrote: »

A zebra crossing is the "main road" in this case. Just because they're pedestrians doesn't automatically give a car driver the right of way.
The law is very clear, and so are the road markings.

Think you're pushing the analogy there, the main road will always be the main road, the zebra crossing is simply a pedestrian prioritsed crossing over the main road, you are quite right though, the law is very clear, thanks again!

mikey72

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

I don't think I actually meant it as that but there is an element of truth in there. If someone was to pull out of a side street in front of an oncoming car, perhaps due to poor judgement, then I would expect at the very least for the car that HAD priority to ease up, apply brakes and perhaps remonstrate with the horn, driving into the back of the other car is not a viable option, is it?
As an aside, I was taught to watch for traffic joining a main road and cover my horn just in case they had not seen me(Bike training).



Think you're pushing the analogy there, the main road will always be the main road, the zebra crossing is simply a pedestrian prioritsed crossing over the main road, you are quite right though, the law is very clear, thanks again!

No, not pushing at all.
It's a give way sign. There in no ambiguity at all in it.

You have no rights at all to cross it, just because you think it's across the main road. You have not got the right of way.
You can only cross it if there is nothing coming the other way.
Like a pedestrian on the pavement continueing to walk across his right of way on the zebra.

Crossings controlled by lights, pelican, puffin, don't have give way markings, just a single solid line, as you are controlled by the lights.
It is still a bad move to plough through pedestrians on green though.

Strider590

Actually something just occurred to me.....

Typically (or so it would seem) when a driver see's a squirrel half way across a road, he/she stops.
But when a driver see's a pedestrian half way across a road (not a crossing) and he/she carries on.

Says a lot for our mentality toward our fellow man really..........

Trebor16

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Is that the whiff of hypocrisy at work there?

Let me remind of your quite blind "advice."






I think you need to get off that high horse of yours before you alienate everybody here.

My posting style can be forthright at times, that is because I refuse to "run with the crowd," so to to speak and I don't bow down to the consensus of popular opinion. I have my own mind and speak it, quite often in fact; in short, I don't suffer fools gladly. Most people on here know that and accept it. You however, just seem intent on throwing insults at people at random. On two threads in as many days you have levied insults against people, I do hope this not a trend.

How easy it is to quote selective posts out of context to try and show me in a particular light. That is very disingenuous behaviour.

Most people on here see you for what you are................someone who deliberately tries to inflame people and to wind them up. As I have said before you like to dish it out, but you don't like it when your inappropriate behaviour is challenged.

I think you will find that most people on here don't accept your behaviour and see it for what it really is.

Trebor16

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Actually, I checked it before I posted. I was just winding you up.

Successfully, it seems.

Oh, the old "I was only trying to wind you up ploy". How pathetic, is that the best you can come up with?

mikey72

Strider590 wrote: »

Let's forget the crossing for a minute, if you hit a pedestrian at any time, the highwaycode makes it clear that you should have seen said pedestrian, slowed down, and prepared to stop. There are very few circumstances in which the pedestrian could be considered at fault.

The following could at a stretch be considered partially pedestrian fault:

Kid's playing football next to a road, ball rolls across road followed by chasing child, driver hits child = drivers fault.

Someone steps out from behind a parked vehicle or a bus, driver hits them = drivers fault.

Why driver fault?

Because the driver should be paying attention to his/her surroundings!
If you see kids playing at the side of the road, you should be aware of what could happen.
If you come to a parked vehicle you should be scanning for signs of pedestrians, look under the vehicle or through it's windows as you approach.......

Strider590 wrote: »

Actually something just occurred to me.....

Typically (or so it would seem) when a driver see's a squirrel half way across a road, he/she stops.
But when a driver see's a pedestrian half way across a road (not a crossing) and he/she carries on.

Says a lot for our mentality toward our fellow man really..........

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Fair play though, that's twice I agree with you in this thread.

Trebor16

Strider590 wrote: »

Let's forget the crossing for a minute, if you hit a pedestrian at any time, the highwaycode makes it clear that you should have seen said pedestrian, slowed down, and prepared to stop. There are very few circumstances in which the pedestrian could be considered at fault.

The Highway Code also makes it clear that the pedestrian should make sure that vehicles have stopped in both directions befpre stepping on the crossing.

Strider590 wrote:

The following could at a stretch be considered partially pedestrian fault:

Kid's playing football next to a road, ball rolls across road followed by chasing child, driver hits child = drivers fault.

Someone steps out from behind a parked vehicle or a bus, driver hits them = drivers fault.

At a stretch? No, if the child runs out in front of the car without taking proper care then it is not a stretch that it is partially pedestrian fault. Nor is is the case when a pedestrian steps out from behind a parked vehicle. Yes, drivers should be on the look out for this, but if the pedestrian recklessly steps out without looking then they should take the majority of the blame.

Strider590 wrote:

Why driver fault?

Because the driver should be paying attention to his/her surroundings!
If you see kids playing at the side of the road, you should be aware of what could happen.
If you come to a parked vehicle you should be scanning for signs of pedestrians, look under the vehicle or through it's windows as you approach.....
This is why elderly drivers are in more accidents involving pedestrians than any other age group, they lose their driving confidence, crank the seat all the way forward (so they can peer through the top half of steering wheel) and focus too much on one point a fixed distance ahead.

While the driver should be paying attention there will always be circumstances where no matter how careful they are accidents with pedestrians will still happen because of the failure of the pedestrian to act safely and reasonably.

To simply lay the majority of the blame with the driver is simplistic and smacks of the approach they have in some european countries where it is assumed that the driver is at fault in accidents with pedestrians and cyclists and has to prove otherwise. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. The actions of all participants in accidents should be properly scrutinised without blame being apportioned prior to the facts being looked at.