Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
cІubman
Posted - 15 May 2017 12:47
it's like being on a yacht and insisting you have right of way over a super tanker. you may well be right but there's only one winner when you crash
stardust
Posted - 15 May 2017 12:52
Report as offensive
Is there a zebra/pelican/other crossing actually laid out or not?
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 12:53
Report as offensive
nope
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 12:58
Report as offensive
Philip Stuckey
Posted - 15 May 2017 12:59
Report as offensive
Think its only their priority if they are already crossing not if they are on the kerb. But you might want to look that up before running anyone over on the back of my vague recollection of my motorbike test
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:01
Report as offensive
Thanks Deltus - they had not started to cross so they did not have right of way - I was well within in my rights to bawl them out as I thought. Brad, you have made yourself look an even bigger fool than usual (actually you haven't, just as big as usual).
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:02
Report as offensive
"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

The answer is here - pedestrians do not always have right of way Gravitas- indeed in many countries not only do they not have right of way it is actually illegal to jay walk.
Osama
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:02
Report as offensive
The cyclist
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:03
Report as offensive
Well yes, but if they haven't started crossing, you're not going to hit them. If they step off the kerb, it's then their right of way.

The only way there could be a collision without them stepping off the kerb first is if they walk into the side of your vehicle as you drive past them, which would be unusual.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:04
Report as offensive
Clergs I agree, which is why I slammed on the brakes when they stepped out in front of me glued to their phone and I satisfied myself with shouting rather than maiming...
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:05
Report as offensive
The only way there could be a collision without them stepping off the kerb first is if they walk into the side of your vehicle as you drive past them, which would be unusual.

Deltus - you cannot have right of way if you give the car no meaningful time to stop - that makes no sense.
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:08
Report as offensive
It might not make sense, but it's the law. Same with a zebra crossing - the pedestrian doesn't have right of way until their foot is on the road, but if you hit them then it's still your fault.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:09
Report as offensive
Gravitas if that were right you would have to stop in front of every pedestrian standing at the side of the road just in case they decide to step out in front of you- nobody does that nor should they.
.....Meh
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:09
Report as offensive
"you may well be right but there's only one winner when you crash"

Could be two... one physically, one financially...
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:10
Report as offensive
"195
Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:10
Report as offensive
" the pedestrian doesn't have right of way until their foot is on the road, but if you hit them then it's still your fault. "

That is not true - plenty of drivers are acquitted from careless/dangerous driving if they can prove somebody basically just ran out in front of them.
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:12
Report as offensive
Basically, if you can't be bothered to read and understand the Highway Code in full, assume that it's always your fault if you hit a pedestrian or a cyclist, and drive accordingly. You'll be right 95% of the time.
Monkeygirkl
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:12
Report as offensive
heh @ Osama
.....Meh
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:13
Report as offensive
Maybe from the criminal charges but not the personal injury compensation. There'll be a discount for contributory negligence but it's still there...

Guy at school had this when someone tried to commit suicide in front of his car and failed. Still had to pay compo.
Father CYPmas
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:13
Report as offensive
Nowhere in the Highway Code does it permit you to hit pedestrians. HTH
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:13
Report as offensive
"195
Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

Yes, I always stop for pedestrians waiting on zebra crossings - this proves my point - if people like Gravitas was correct there would be no need for zebra crossings because the situation would be the same at any point of any road all the time.
cІubman
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:14
Report as offensive
not even if they're hipsters and pointedly walking out in front of you in some kind of knit-your-own-kaftan whilst wearing a "i support JC" badge?
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:15
Report as offensive
Not any point in the road at any time, only on a side road as you're turning into it. If it helps, imagine that there's a zebra crossing across every side road that you turn in to.
Moosheepploptrump
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:15
Report as offensive
"That is not true - plenty of drivers are acquitted from careless/dangerous driving if they can prove somebody basically just ran out in front of them."

That's true to a point. I've dealt with RTA large loss PI claims for 17 years (on and off) and I think the first observation I'd make is how difficult it is to escape full liability when they hit a pedestrian. Generalising, I know, but there's usually some contrib in there even if primary liability doesn't rest with the car driver. I've seen an appetite from the courts to ensure that the injured party is compensated when badly injured (again generalising). Especially the case where the pedestrian was visible to the car driver prior to the collision.

Well done for stopping! Doesn't matter if it wouldn't have been your fault.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:16
Report as offensive

Guy at school had this when someone tried to commit suicide in front of his car and failed. Still had to pay compo.

I still don't think this is true. We do not have strict liability in this country in traffic cases. If the driver was not speeding, was not in any way distracted and was proven to break as soon a humanly possible I do not believe he would be liable to pay any compensation.
12
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:19
Report as offensive
Yeah there's strict liability when a motorist hits a pedestrian, because you see the pedestrian has right of way at all times.

Said no competent lawyer, ever.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:19
Report as offensive
Not any point in the road at any time, only on a side road as you're turning into it. If it helps, imagine that there's a zebra crossing across every side road that you turn in to.

Ah, ok, others are suggesting pedestrian always has right of way. If you mean simply in side roads then that is possible this is the case but is emphatically not what most people assume - most pedestrians wait for indicating cars turning into a side road, and most drivers expect them too.
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:20
Report as offensive
I'm sure your personal beliefs would be duly noted in the Crown Court hearing, before the law is applied to the facts.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:23
Report as offensive
"I was not aware that all it took for a dangerous or careless driving conviction was proof that the driver failed to follow the highway code."

No it requires proving that you were doing something dangerous or careless - not abiding by the highway code is a good starting point.

For the avoidance of doubt if I could have stopped but didn't of course I should go to jail whether I technically had right of way or not - but my point is that I a couple of feet closer and I would not have been able to stop on time.
Deltus
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:29
Report as offensive
Then you should have approached the corner at a safer speed.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:30
Report as offensive
I approached the corner at very low speed, short of zero there can be no safe speed if somebody steps out right in front of you.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:34
Report as offensive
"The pedestrian. They always have right of way. In fact and theory. "

"Hank you cretin "

Delicious irony from Gravitas there.
.....Meh
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:35
Report as offensive
The argument was that if he'd been going slower he might have been able to swerve or something. But whatevs.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:39
Report as offensive
yeah ok - then he was clearly thought to be going too fast for the conditions. I agree if you run somebody over they will (rightly) look for the tiniest bit of fault on your part - but that is not the same as strict liability.
.....Meh
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:47
Report as offensive
Doubtful. But proving it is another matter.

#commercialsettlement
Parsnip
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:50
Report as offensive
i'd be interested to understand the insurance arrangements of meh's friend from school
.....Meh
Posted - 15 May 2017 13:54
Report as offensive
I'll ask him if he kept any of the papers 20 years on.
Parsnip
Posted - 15 May 2017 14:02
Report as offensive
he'd probably remember why he paid compensation when presumably he was insured...without having to look back at them
Captain Mal
Posted - 15 May 2017 14:14
Report as offensive
If he was only 5 yards down the road and you actually had to / could stop for him it seems questionable whether you were properly on the road before him.

But yes, what matters is basically who was on that particular road first.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 14:44
Report as offensive
maybe it was 10 yards Mal - I think the reason I wanted clarification is that I approach that junction every day and it always quite busy with pedestrians and cars and the pedestrians always wait for the cars. Further this guy was glued to his phone and not aware of his environment AT ALL. Fact is if I had been going a bit faster and unable to stop I would probably have been going to fast for a busy junction but I could stop so no harm done really... Still enjoyed a good horn blast and shout first thing in the morning though.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 15:06
Report as offensive
"he would have given himself no more than a small fine on the basis that as drivers don't intend to kill anyone, they should not be punished if they do."

Gravitas, yet another stupid thing you said on this thread that I missed - I think you will find that most people do not believe that drivers who accidently knock somebody down should get the same punishment as a murderer (and it is certainly not the law in theory or practice).
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 15 May 2017 15:25
Report as offensive
That it true - but that argument has to be seen in the context of my full argument that if we believe drink driving is so bad then the punishment should be higher for all drink drivers rather than just throwing the book at the unlucky ones.
Captain Mal
Posted - 15 May 2017 15:37
Report as offensive
^ and not just drink driving, all of the various driving offences with massively varying outcomes dependent solely on whether or not someone ends up dead. Its pure Daily Mail satiation rather than anything with a coherent legal / moral basis to it.
Saint Katy the Virgin
Posted - 16 May 2017 12:24
Report as offensive
Indeed Mal, a minimum one year prison sentence for all drink drivers would have a far far greater deterrent effect (and accordingly mean less deaths) than giving the very rare driver who happens to kill somebody five plus years and letting everyone else off with a ban (hint- nobody who gets behind a wheel of a car after a few drinks thinks they are going to kill somebody - but they are worried about the risk of being stopped by the police)