Zebra Crossing - near-miss

Strider590

Trebor16 wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately this isn't another European country, the British have an entirely different attitude to driving. One which is very aggressive and very "im better than you because my vehicle is bigger".

Most drivers in the UK, see cyclists and pedestrians as lower class road users, "unimportant" and "below them".
In Europe (for whatever reason) they're much more respected.

johnfarquhar74

Trebor16 wrote: »

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.

That particular part of the code isn't 'law' though.

Trebor16 wrote: »

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.

I've said earlier, I'm not an expert, but I believe that the 'law' looks on the vehicle as being responsible as it is the vehicle that is alien to the situation. Our laws on vehicles are loosely based on the laws that were/are applicable to those who rode horses on the highway, as in they are secondary to the pedestrian. Although they are still in use today and for the most part are suitable, some are archaic and bear little resemblance to those of 'new' countries.
Perhaps the laws need to be re-written so as to reflect the nature of todays society but until then, blame/responsibility will lie with whoever the law says is at fault! We are not yet at a stage, where like insurers, we can proportionally divide the blame depending on who was doing what.

Bongles

Trebor16 wrote: »

Section 38 of the Highway Code makes it clear that anyone who does not follow the advice given in the highway code can have their failure to follow the guidance used negatively against them in any civil or criminal proceedings. So if a pedestrian does not look properly, does not wait for vehicles to stop and then crosses and is hit will not be blameless in such a situation and their actions would be closely examined in any proceedings.

The actions of all parties will be closely examined. If it is found that the pedestrian stepped onto the crossing without looking and without waiting for vehicles to stop, and also that the approaching driver did not give precedence to the pedestrian once they stepped onto the crossing, it will be concluded that while the pedestrian may not have complied with the advice in the Highway Code, the driver nonetheless broke the law.

mikey72

I agree with you, the law says the driver must yield at the give way sign, anything else is purely advice.

NiallB

Relevant legislation from "The Highway Code According To My Dad"

1. Always assume that EVERYONE on the road except you is a deaf and blind moron and will do something stupid and dangerous without warning at any time.

1.2 This applies to motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and all other road users.

2. Be prepared to react accordingly at all times.

3. That's it.


Best advice I've ever received.

s_b

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

Trebor16

johnfarquhar74 wrote: »

That particular part of the code isn't 'law' though.

But it can be considered in any legal proceedings thanks to section 38 of the RTA 1988.

asbokid

ilesmark wrote: »

Hi all

Every time I have ever seen anyone use a zebra crossing, they have ALWAYS looked in the direction of traffic first. Every time, that is, apart from yesterday.

I was approaching a zebra crossing at about 15 mph and saw a woman walking along the pavement near it. She was walking parallel with the road, rather than towards the crossing and was looking down, so I assumed she wasn't going to cross.

Imagine my surprise when she suddenly turned sharp right across the pavement and onto the crossing, all with her head still down. I stopped just in time, but couldn't understand why she hadn't looked up first like everyone else. Even though I wasn't going very fast, if I had been any nearer the crossing I couldn't have stopped in time.

My question - if I had hit her in the above circumstances, would I have been blamed?

Just curious?

Maynard v Rogers
[1970] RTR 392 Mocatta J

Shortly after midnight in a not very well-lit street the claimaint, aged 19, stepped on to a pedestrian crossing without first looking to her right. She was hit by the defendant's car coming from her right. She was not far from the pavement she had left and the defendant had very little opportunity of avoiding the accident. The claimant must have been able to see his car if she had looked.

HELD: Although the major proportion of the blame must rest on the claimant it was possible that if the defendant had sounded his horn she might have been able to jump back. The claimant was found two-thirds to blame, the defendant one-third.

s_b

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

:rotfl::rotfl:

mikey post 17..............

asbokid

ilesmark wrote: »

Hi all

Every time I have ever seen anyone use a zebra crossing, they have ALWAYS looked in the direction of traffic first. Every time, that is, apart from yesterday.

I was approaching a zebra crossing at about 15 mph and saw a woman walking along the pavement near it. She was walking parallel with the road, rather than towards the crossing and was looking down, so I assumed she wasn't going to cross.

Imagine my surprise when she suddenly turned sharp right across the pavement and onto the crossing, all with her head still down. I stopped just in time, but couldn't understand why she hadn't looked up first like everyone else. Even though I wasn't going very fast, if I had been any nearer the crossing I couldn't have stopped in time.

My question - if I had hit her in the above circumstances, would I have been blamed?

Just curious?

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.