Prosecution?

Mercdriver

sevenhills wrote: »

Indeed; the OP was asked about proscecution. It was a pedestrian crossing, so one would assume that the light was on stop for the car and green to cross, otherwise why would there be any talk of a prosecution?


More info from OP needed.

No red light on a Zebra Crossing. It's still an offence to cross it when someone is on the crossing.

sevenhills

Mercdriver wrote: »

No red light on a Zebra Crossing. It's still an offence to cross it when someone is on the crossing.

The OP did not say it was a Zebra crossing.

justme111 wrote: »

My daughter (14) has been hit by a car in a pedestrian crossing. ..

Car_54

Dymphna60 wrote: »

Is the police officer saying that any prosecution is up to you ? Or just asking how you feel about it ?
I was recently hit by a car on a puffin crossing- driver came out of a side road and through the red light passing the car stopped at the crossing.
A police officer came to A and E and asked if I was very angry so maybe this is something they do.
When he came to take a statement later though he said the police would decide if she would be given points or a driving course. Kept telling me driver was sorry so they might recommend no action.

That seems extraordinarily lenient. Two offences - red light, and overtaking the stationary vehicle. But maybe just to difficult to prove.

Car_54

Mercdriver wrote: »

No red light on a Zebra Crossing. It's still an offence to cross it when someone is on the crossing.

Not exactly. It's an offence not to "accord precedence". If the ped is on the other half of the road and heading for the kerb the question of precedence does not arise and it is not an offence to proceed.

justme111

It was a zebra crossing , not a traffic light operated one.
The police officer told me that they take into account opinion of the injured party re prosecution.
McHale, I am not sure why you went onto fault opinions if I have not mentioned anything about fault ot asked who's fault was it, just described the situation and possible courses of action from now. We are not stupid and realise that if she looked it would not have happened. Hope it will be a lesson. I am a bit worried as she still feels dizzy when laying down and can not cope with looking at gadgets to the same degree as before 3 days after sedation - a bit too long I reckon for it to be residue from it. Going to ask GP what to do - I reckon brain MRI would be a good idea but how to get it is the question. My ojine health insurance tomorrow although not sure they would authorise it with no referral from a&e or gp. Have got in touch with a solicitor firm , they say they take some handling fee and up to 25% payout fee - is this norm and is it worth sticking with them or giung with the ones without such a fee. Sorry if it is a dumb question , I just was lucky in never dealing with no win no fee offices so there may be some general rules. I know one could argue going with the cheaper ones but then 100% of £1000 is still less than 75% of £5000 ...
One of the solicitor firms said as it was pretty clear case ( the same that policeman said) absence of criminal prosecution should not impact in any way on the civil case.

Mercdriver

sevenhills wrote: »

The OP did not say it was a Zebra crossing.

Why assume they mean a pelican/puffin? Zebra crossings are pedestrian crossings also. In fact OP has come back and said it IS a zebra crossing.

Mercdriver

Car_54 wrote: »

Not exactly. It's an offence not to "accord precedence". If the ped is on the other half of the road and heading for the kerb the question of precedence does not arise and it is not an offence to proceed.

Only if there is an island, in which case they are treated as separate crossings.

unholyangel

Mercdriver wrote: »

Only if there is an island, in which case they are treated as separate crossings.

He means a scenario where its a single crossing and the pedestrian has already crossed over in front of you, heading towards the pavement on the other side. You only need to give precedence, not wait until they have crossed completely.

Although strictly speaking, the regulations do not make it an offence not to give precedence so I'm guessing it would fall under the catch all careless driving.

Car_54

Mercdriver wrote: »

Only if there is an island, in which case they are treated as separate crossings.

Not so. The relevant law is:

"Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings
25.—(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 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 reservation shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be treated as separate crossings."
[The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997]

mchale

justme111 wrote: »

My daughter (14) has been hit by a car in a pedestrian crossing. Broken arm , hopefully no other major injuries although it is not clear . The policeman who dealt with it has been asking what I think re prosecution and I have no idea. I do not want to cause grief to the driver- I am sure they already been tormented enough and it may happen to anyone i reckon if unlucky - cars are dangerous items. But I have no idea of implications of having criminal prosecution or not happening - I will phone a personal injury solicitor but wanted to hear opinions of not interested parties as I am aware interests of a solicitor may not exactly align with ours ..

In that case maybe your answer should be "I don't want the driver prosecuted as if my daughter was looking where she was going it's possible this accident would not have happened"