Indignant pedestrians

[7db]

Unfortunatley pedestrians have right of way when on the road, and there's little else you can do about that...

Not always. It would help if everyone knew when they did or didn't have priority, and acted accordingly (that's the point of the whole priority protocol) but sadly pedestrians don't seem to think the HC applies to them enough to read it and understand it...

If a pedestrian steps out or starts to cross a road as in the circumstances described, they have right of way.

It's one of the few instances where they do.

[stephenperry]

i was led to believe that pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what

i.e. if you hit them with your car then you're automatically in the wrong

[vonhosen]

i was led to believe that pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what

i.e. if you hit them with your car then you're automatically in the wrong

Not necessarily, but the civil law courts with their rulings have a history of placing quite a burden on the motorist.

[TripleS]

i was led to believe that pedestrians always have the right of way no matter what

i.e. if you hit them with your car then you're automatically in the wrong

Not necessarily, but the civil law courts with their rulings have a history of placing quite a burden on the motorist.

Going beyond that, I understand one body of opinion has proposed that the entire blame should lie with the driver in any conflict between driver/pedestrian or driver/cyclist, regardless of the actual circumstances.

In my view that is quite ridiculous, but I do believe that drivers should accept a large measure of responsibility for keeping things safe, even if the pedestrian/cyclist behaves badly - for want of a better term. I think it used to be the case that drivers largely accepted that, and certainly those aspiring to advanced driver status should be expected to work on that basis.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[7db]

I may as well repeat here my belief posted elsewhere that there's nearly no such thing as an accident which the "perfect" driver couldn't avoid.

This is not to say that drivers who fail to be perfect should be prosecuted for failing to avoid the accident, just that those of us who strive to better our driving should always look to avoid accidents which are not our fault.

[Lady Godiva]

Lets face it, we already know that the 'Advanced' driver would be expected to see the pedestrian, and take appropriate position and speed such that any danger was removed in advanced. That's the theory. Also, the pedestrian should have looked, and seen the car. So, we could be critical on both sides, but Someone much greater than us once said "Let he who has no sin throw the first stone".

So I'm looking at this from a behavioural viewpoint. As soon as you sounded the horn, the pedestrian was a little shocked. She also felt a little foolish, as she almost certainly realised at that point that she had done something silly. Therefore she responded like many of us do, she reacted badly.

I bet most of us have done the same, reacted badly when we've realised we've done something wrong and been caught out, even if only something silly.

Let's not get too upset by someone elses natural reaction (that we've all been guilty of). Just be grateful that you managed to avoid an accident, now go out and practice those observation skills .

Regards
Sally

[MGF]

With strict liability traffic offences it may be possible to apportion blame to one person in the form of guilt. For example, failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing is an offence, even if the pedestrian suddenly steps out in front of a car.

However civil claims are based on the law of negligence.

This has developed over the last 70 odd years and one thing that is very clear is that the 'victim' has a common law duty to avoid injury to himself.

This precludes any attempt to make one road user, eg the motorist, 100% liable even when the other road user has 'right of way'. Hence in the above example the motorist could possibly escape liability altogether. At the very least the pedestrian will be 'contributory' negligent meaning the motorist wont be liable for the pedestrian's contribution to the acident.

Insurance companies often settle according to rules agreed between themselves to save on the costs of litigation and these agreements don't necessarily concur with what the courts would do.

In my view, common sense dictates that one road user should not automatically be 100% responsible for an accident. This discourages us from taking the necessary action to protect ourselves from risk.

[Gareth]

In my view, common sense dictates that one road user should not automatically be 100% responsible for an accident. This discourages us from taking the necessary action to protect ourselves from risk.

I must be thick today - please would you explain this in more detail?

[MGF]

What I mean is if a pedestrain knows that if he is hit by a vehicle the motorist is always 100% to blame the pedestrian is likely to take less care when using the public highway.

In other words they may take the view that it is the motorist's responsibility to protect them and not a joint responsibility, albeit weighted in the pedestrian's favour when he has 'right of way'.

It seems bizarre to suggest that people will fail to make adjustments to their behaviour on the basis that they have right of way and wont be their fault if an accident happens but I am convinced human nature can make us behave like this.

Pedestrians almost 'dare' motorists to hit them if they have 'right of way' in the same way as motorists often wont slow down or change position when they also have 'right of way'.

[7db]

With strict liability traffic offences it may be possible to apportion blame to one person in the form of guilt. For example, failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing is an offence, even if the pedestrian suddenly steps out in front of a car.

Notice that even here the driver does not have to yield priority if he enters the crossing (crosses the metal studs) first.

[vonhosen]

It invariably only takes one person to do the right thing to avoid any collision. Always be that person.