Right of way - liability ?

[Bollo]

I think there was something in the CTC mag or similar recently about this. I believe (don't know - someone on here will be able to confirm) that the law tends to each incident on its merits - if the appearance of the pedestrian could not have been reasonably predicted by the road user then the fault will lie with the pedestrian. Proving what sort of thing is 'reasonable' is another matter though.

Part of my commute takes me past a sixth form college along a quiet road. The young'ns never look before crossing and usually have a mobile strapped to their ears so I'm always looking for them to step out. In the past I've hit two of them. One was as described before - he just screamed out of an alley straight into the road giving me no real time to react. The other one was less clear, as the girl stepped out into the road without looking and I'll admit I wasn't paying full attention at the time.

 

[Globalti]

Drivers (and probably cyclists) have a duty to drive or ride in such a way that they can anticipate the stupid unpredictable actions of other road users or pedestrians. If an accident happened the Police would investigate and decide whether or not the driver / rider contributed to the blame.

My Dad once killed a cyclist, it was an old gent who was half blind, half drunk, had no lights or brakes and rode straight out in front of Dad's car. He had been warned by his family not to go to the pub on his bike. The Police came and took Dad's car apart, filling in a big questionnaire about the condition of the brakes, tyres, even how clean the windows were, whether the heater was on, whether a mat could have impeded his foot - everything. Happily for my Dad his car was in perfect condition, otherwise the Police said he'd have been held as contributory and done for manslaughter. That's why I always insist that my car is in perfect running order.

 

[very-near]

Surely this depends as to whether they took due care when stepping into the road. If they saw you, and stepped out anyway, causing you to crash,then they, to some extent, are at fault. (This would probably depend on the speed you were travelling at, how far ahead of you they were when they stepped out etc, all of which would probably be your word against theirs in court.) If they didn't look, then there could be an element of contributary negligence. There is a common law duty of care to others that needs to be taken into consideration, along with accepted codes of behaviour that are well established in society. i.e. don't step into the road without looking.

On my way home I ride through a couple areas where the kids will pull such stunts just for the hell of it. Rights of way don't enter into it when there's a dozen of them waiting for 'something to occupy them.'

If they were sprinting they obviously have seen you and so it can be deduced that they took the chance/raced you to the road position/ possible collision point.

 

[Mr Pig]

Who does the liability lie with?

The one who's not a police officer.

 

[Arch]

If they were sprinting they obviously have seen you and so it can be deduced that they took the chance/raced you to the road position/ possible collision point.

I don't know if that's true. People sprint across roads for all sorts of reasons, not just to get out of the way of traffic. Someone might sprint out to catch a bus at a stop across the road, or to catch a mate they've just seen, or to dodge a bunch of mates larking about or something like that, and give no thought to traffic (in which case, they deserve all they get, in Arch law)...

 

[Night Train]

It is rarely the fault of the pedestrian as any other road user, in or on a vehicle, should be aware of the potential for an unseen pedestrian, adult, child, dog, etc. running out from between parked vehicles.

However, I knew someone who was driving past a school and a kid ran out and hit her car. She successfully won compensation from the kid's family for the damage to her car door. The kid had run into the side of her car and so the police and insurance company accepted that the kid had hit her, rather then her car hitting the kid, and she could not have stopped as the front of her car had already passed the kid before he ran out.

 

[Over The Hill]

I think the law would accept that car drivers and cyclists are expected to go along at some speed and that they are reasonable to expect the ped to stay on the pavement.
If however the speed was excessive then some blame would be with the cyclist.

If you go with the idea that all drivers must drive expecting every ped to leap out in front of them then all moving things would have to go at 5mph. If a train is going along and someone walks on the track in front of it then it is hardly the train drivers fault if the train cannot stop.

It is well established that if the usual or expected is done by one party and the unusual or neglegent is done by the other then the second one is in the wrong.

Ped on road = peds fault
Bike on pavement = riders fault

 

[buggi]

i don't think its a case of whether the pedestrian is liable, rather than a case of whether the driver is "not liable".

if a ped stepped out unexpectedly then it is likely that the driver would be found to be "not liable" rather than the ped being "liable" and it would be put down as an accident.

however, if you are turning a corner and the ped has already stepped off the pavement into the road you are turning into, then this is one instance where the driver would be liable definitely, i was taught that in my lessons. for some reason, something i specifically remember even though its never happened to me. it's something to do with you should only be going slow round the corner anyway so you would be able to stop in time.

 

[Mr Pig]

If you go with the idea that all drivers must drive expecting every ped to leap out then all would have to go at 5mph.

I agree with your whole post. If however the driver is paying attention to the peds he should be able to stop pretty much whatever the peds do.

Say for instance you're passing a small group of children on the pavement. You should be dropping your speed a bit just in case but even if you don't and are doing 30mph. The oft heard remark that 'they came out of nowhere' only applies if the driver is not looking. The kids are not invisible and if one runs out you will see it. You may have very little time between the kid starting to move and being in front of your car but if you're driving properly it should be enough.

At the point of passing the kids, having seen that the kids are larking about and not paying attention to you, you should have moved your foot over from the accelerator to cover the brake for a second. As you're half expecting it, as soon as the kid moves towards the road you're on the brake. Even at thirty you should have enough time to drop to a non-fatal speed.

Obviously the above won't always work, which is why I agree with Over The Hill's post, and the truth is that in practice drivers are not always held responsible for hitting peds. However it's important for drivers to be aware that they are expected to drive a safely as possible or their neck could be on the block! Drivers should be assessing the likelihood of people walking onto the road and driving accordingly.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Can you bring your vehicle to a halt safely in the distance you see to be clear?

If the answer is yes, then you will be unlikely to have a collision.

If the answer is no you're on borrowed time.

Simple.

Driving/riding along as the person in charge of said vehicle, you should be constantly risk-assessing the area around you.

Is that dog on a lead, will that child run out, is that car going to stop/pull out. These observations, coupled up with Sod's Law and the 'Can I Stop?' will keep you safe.

In any 'accident' at least one of the drivers/riders/peds will not have been so careful.

 

[Plax]

I had an old lady quite literally step out in front of me once. Thankfully I always go slower than 30mph in a built up area, particularly if there are parked cars along one side. Out steps little old lady - didn't look at all. I stopped with literally inches to spare. She seemed completely oblivious (quite weird was I had a kind of premonition she was going to step out before she did, so maybe I was unconsiously prepped to stamp on the brakes). Any faster and she'd have copped it. In this case I'd have said she'd have been liable, particularly as she was on the side where there was no parked cars and didn't bother looking at all, there is no way she couldn't have seen me otherwise.

I'm now hyper vigilant as the other day I turned up a road only to find slightly afterwards another old lady, complete with zimmer frame this time, walking down my side of the road looking quite distressed. She must gave got caught out trying to cross the road, and couldn't then get the zimmer back up the curb. I completely stopped and eventually one of the cars on the other side of the road twigged and stopped for her to cross over. She mouthed thank you. So I felt quite good about being patient for her. In this instance I think had I hit her I'd have been liable.

 

[Davidc]

This gets messier on cycle paths. On the mixed use ones where there's no separation of pedestrian and bike parts clearly theres an expectation that bikes need to be ridden past pedestrians at snail's pace. What about the ones where there's a white line dividing the path into defined pedestrian and cycle sections?

Do we have to pass all pedestrians assuming they're going to step in front of us, or can we assume some degree of sense?

When I have to use either of these I tend to use the bell, and try to be sure pedestrians have seen me. If they then still step in front of me what's the position?

Ultimately it just makes sense to be insured in case you're sued!