Safe Speed Forums

Hi all,

the story in the link doesn't say it but I heard that what happened was the two old dearies came out the indoor bowling alley where they proceeded to cross a dual carriageway to the bus stop on the other side. As they attempted to cross a motorist on the inside lane slowed to let them cross and indicated for them to go. As they crossed into the outside lane of the carriageway a car passed on that lane and mowed them down. Is the driver who knocked them down guilty of due care or is the kind motorist to blame for causing an obstruction?


http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/read ... hp?id=6429


Regards


Andrew


P.S. Speed cam only a few hundred yards up the road

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Doesn't say it was on a pedestrian crossing so I think it is up to the pedestrian to ensure the road is clear before they cross.

There may be a small ammount of blame on the driver who hit them but we don't have enough information to make a judgement.

But that doesn't give motorists any right to mow down pedestrians in the road. They have a duty of care to make all reasonable efforts not to hit them, even if the pedestrians are behaving foolishly.


Yes, it depends on the circumstances, but if a vehicle to your left has stopped but not pulled up to the kerb, it should suggest caution needs to be exercised.

I don't see that the driver who stopped can be held responsible in any way.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

What!!! It was a bloody dual carriageway, you don't stop on a dual carriageway to let eldery folk across. At any rate, it would appear that the other driver slowed down to let them cross, not stop, he should have have considered HIS actions more carefully. If you going to indicate to people that they can cross the road, then the pedestrians are going to assume it's safe to do so, the other driver may have been travelling within the speed limit only to have two pensioners walk out in front of him. What can you do in such circumstances?

The driver who slowed down to let them cross HAS got to share responsibility as have the pensioners who placed their trust in this driver.

It could well be that the elderly pedestrians had already started to cross. This happened to me some years ago. I forget where, but remember vividly the situation. It was a Sunday morning, early - and the old people were dressed in hats etc - almost certainly off to church.

I was perhaps 5 seconds from them - but covering the brake - in the inside lane of a dual carriageway when they stepped off into my path (a misjudgement, nothing more). I gently then firmly braked. However, on checking my mirrors I realised that the only car behind had decided to pull out to overtake - about 5 seconds behind me. Luckily I saw his front dive down as he saw the pedestrians. However, I was for the second or so between him pulling out and the nosedive moment of relief, in quite a quandrary. I toyed with hooting. If this had made the pedestrians turn round or stop that would have been fine - I was well in control. However, had they slowed or sped up, it could have gone either way - I could not accurately compute "impact or miss" in the snapshot I'd taken. I also toyed with broadsiding/weaving - the car behind me was well back and likely able to deal with that by braking. On my own I definitely would have done that. However, I had three passengers and was nervous of the one behind me getting an impact. In the end, all's well that ends well without any action from me - but had the car behind me been perhaps 1 second closer and the ladies remained in the blind spot I was no doubt creating, things could have been very dire.

I know this section of road well and I'd never consider crossing there into open traffic, and I am a (relatively) spritely 36 year old.

What is the speed limit at this location?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Arm out the window. Quick.

Possibly indicate right while braking in a straight line (especially if you can't get the window down in time).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hi Andrew,

As you know this is my old stomping ground. I know the road very well, having lived in the west of Port Glasgow for most of my life.

It is a piece of dual which has existed for some time (as long as I can remember), and it was added to on the east side in the mid 70s when the entire length of A8 through Port Glasgow was dualled. This piece of dual through Port Glasgow has a 40 mph limit, and it's an appropriate limit for the road quality, and the reasonable crossing opportunities for a limited number of pedestrians.
However, when you get into Greenock, the road quality changes. the surface is much poorer, the number of vulnerable road users increases, and the crossing opportunities diminish. The appropriate speed here is guided correctly by the change down in speed limit to 30 mph. It is however a straight dual carriageway, and failure to recognise the obvious hazards can encourage motorists to speed along it.

In the good old days it was a routine speed trap area - the boys would regularly be there outside the 'Norseman' on Sinclair Street dishing out tickets.

The accident you describe does seem like a horrible 'accident', borne from good intent.

I am in no position to apportion burdens of resposibility, not knowing the specifics of the collision, but it's worth looking at this type of situation in its general sense.

Knowing how reliant old people are on advice by motorists, there is a burden of responsibility on a motorist who offers this kind of assistance to ensure that the help offered is appropriate, and that he has considered and anticipated all the risks. As Roger said however, if you as the nearside motorist have not encouraged the pedestrian movement, then that proportion of responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of the pedestrian. Your attempts to mitigate can themselves have serious consequences.

There is a responsibility on the passing motorist to be able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. He should also be anticipating, and asking himself why that car inside has braked without indicating.
If there is no obvious reason why someone has braked it soon will become obvious.
It should set off some alarm bells which he should respond to by at least engine braking and covering his brakes, and giving some extra attention to that particular hazard zone.

But the main burden of responsibility should always lie with the pedestrians. They are by far the most vulnerable. They are also the unexpected factor in this situation and they must always be aware of this, and need to take full responsibility for themselves.
The complications arise when a second party offers to shoulder some of this responsibilty, as may have been the case with the nearside motorist.

There are safety guards built in for each party in this kind of situation if each person maintains their own responsibilites as defined by COAST, ie each party independently could have prevented the collision but when assumption takes over from observation and anticipation, it can go seriously wrong.

But it's a tragedy. it's such a horrible way for lives which have been lived, to end.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Agree with Paul. Arm out of window - quick to try to warn and perhaps a press on the hazards to warn the approaching driver.

Also agree with Ian on this - never assume anything or that anyone will behave as you would do. Depends on outcome of investigation as to any charges - but from the details as given this could well be judged as a genuinely unforeseeable but extremely tragic accident.

Proves we need COAST information adverts and more Green Cross Code information adverts instead of the singles focus "speed" ones....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Agree with I.G. and Paul. I probably should have familiarised myself with it but... going back to late seventies here... I owned an Austin 1100 and was driving a Mk 3 Cortina - a Sunday job of stocktaking in supermarkets as a student and I happened to be wheelman that journey. No time to open window and tried to signal right - but ended up putting the wipers on I think - at least for a flick. The time between me spotting him pull out and nosediving was less than 2 seconds, probably half that. Swerving was the most likely thing I'd have done had I not aborted all thoughts of doing anything when I realised the fastard had seen the score. Now with hindsight? Definitely an indicator; probably a chink to the right too as I pulled up - even if there was nothing immediately behind me.

What it does prove, is that for the sake of a few minutes instead of using a crossing, people are still willing to risk their lives crossing a main road and worst still at night. We say life is cheap in parts of this country, yet I still see people of all ages crossing roads, without a car in the world, assuming that a car will slow down for them, or has seen them etc. Some pedestrians openly have chips on their shoulders and will cross in the path of a vehicle to make a point. This is because most pedestrians know that the onus is always on the motorist, that motorists have to give way to pedestrians which is fine and dandy in theory. The trouble is, nobody has to pass a test to become a pedestrian.

I think it's about time we had a jaywalking law in this country, I know the arguments about policing/resources etc are valid however the responsibility must be shifted to the pedestrian as well as the driver. When I was in the States, I was ever mindful to walk the extra few yards to a crossing because of the law. Those who get run over whilst disregarding a jaywalking law then only have themselves to blame.

This lunchtime I saw a driver stop at a Pelican crossing to let a middle-aged woman across when the lights were green. She looked a bit puzzled, then started to walk across - but given a lack of observation on both parts, could all too easily have been hit by a vehicle coming the other way.

This did seem like misplaced courtesy.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Actually I think it's murderous. It's far too easy for a non-driving pedestrian to believe that 'the cars are stopping for me'. I'd never never never do that.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

agreed 100%.

we were discussing this the other day somewhere, the number of pedestrians that waltz into the traffic often mere feet from a safe crossing point the councils errected at the cost of [how many thousands?] annoys me no end. I tend to abandon my usual courtesy and proceed carefully but positively and make them wait, I feel it probably does them good to be reminded cars don't magically stop every time they feel like prancing around in the road.

perhaps there should be a IAP, institude of advanced pedestrians to teach them how to think ahead, ie don't walk to the end of the street then decide to cross when theres a crossing in the middle. when i need to be on the other side of the road I'm walking down I'm constantly looking for lulls in the traffic, suprising how many people don't think about crossing a road untill they absolutely have to.

as for the thread topic, i see potentially simular situations all the time in london and like some of you point out its an awkward one to know who should do what in the heat of the moment.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

This does raise the issue of circumventing the 'rules' for the sake of courtesy leading to dangerous expectations by certain road users.

Another example is the growing number of drivers on slip roads who expect traffic on a dual carriageway to give way to them without consideration as to whether it is practical or not (and contrary to the highway code!!) simply because they are used to the courtesy of drivers moving from lane 1 to lane 2 to accomodate them.

Courtesy is no bad thing, but sadly it is leading to a drop in some road users' percepted need to actually look and think for themselves.

a far worse problem is people who flash other cars to turn in front of them. Not a problem you think? Well what about when they've just passed a cyclist?

In any situation where pedestrians are crossing the road, or intending to, visibility is everything. Any situation where the pedestrian may be obscured by other vehicles should be avoided by all parties. It's not enough to simply slow down, as even a 5mph collision is likely to be very damaging to a pedestrian - as I know from bitter experience. And if you're alongside another vehicle when a pedestrian steps out from in front of it, you're not going to have time to even get your foot onto the brake.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Ist a very sad situation und ist another example really of driver not thinking COAST ideas. It depend... if the couple were already on road then the first driver had to stop. I think on dual carriage way he should have placed hazards und opened window to wave a slow down communication to anything approaching in outer lane. Ist what I did in similar situation when the oldish lady was halfway across L1 of a carriageway und in mirror could see another car in L2 und a potential SMIDSY relating to my position und where she was in relation. He observed und also slowed.

In otherr situation - I ensure they know to say on kerb but am also looking around for other traffic und foot ist poised on brake und right foot easing in case of a mad dash.

Und as for light flashers - I do not move on their flash unless I am 100% sure ist safe to do so und I scan all around in case of the overtaken cyclist coming up the inside of them again. But again this ist another common-sense COAST issue und why this COAST message ist more important than mithering about speed all the time!

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I agree about some kind of jaywalking law. However, what I will not accept, is the idea that it be compulsory to use a crossing just because one is nearby.

Here's the reason: crossings are often built in places where it is very dangerous to cross! A blind corner, for example. Quite often building the crossing there doesn't really make it safer, it just encourages people to cross in a dangerous place when there are safer places nearby.