Driving to the conditions?

[Another Bill]

A nearby town, Wallingford, was recently given a blanket 20mph limit. I drove there this evening on a shopping trip. A lovely driving evening, bright and dry.

As I drove around town, I realised that I was ‘disregarding’ the 20mph limit. That speed would have been dangerously high in some places such as pulling away from the traffic lights where, because of the sequencing, you’re always faced with an oncoming traffic queue waiting their turn, from wherein a pedestrian might emerge at any moment to cross the road. I occasionally have to cross that road myself after picking up a take away curry, and you really want a kind of horizontal periscope to see past the stationary traffic whilst crossing. I’d not want to put an upper limit on safe speed there as it depends on the traffic, but if there’s a couple of big vans, I suspect my choice is circa 15mph max. I’d expect no sympathy for hitting a pedestrian at anything more..

Even away from the traffic lights, around the narrow 1 way system, there’s people milling around the bus stops. There’s delivery vans on the pavement outside a pizza shop, potentially hiding customers, possibly drunk, with pizza box in hand. Again, 20mph far too fast for me.

Dark and wet? Even less.

[Horse]

... a pedestrian ...

Dark and wet?

I drove through Wallingford a few weeks ago, in good dry conditions. Lots happening, all around.

FWIW, pedestrians vastly over-estimate how conspicuous they are at night to approaching drivers.

[Another Bill]

... a pedestrian ...

Dark and wet?

I drove through Wallingford a few weeks ago, in good dry conditions. Lots happening, all around.

FWIW, pedestrians vastly over-estimate how conspicuous they are at night to approaching drivers.

Like most 20mph limits I regard Wallingford as unnecessary and wrong, but here it’s wrong as it may, just possibly, encourage people to drive too fast.

I witnessed an accident there last year, in bright summer sunshine. A car was pulling out of a commonly used parking spot on double yellow lines. I was opposite and a bit further back, queuing for the lights. The car driver, focused on getting into lane and aligning with the queue of traffic opposite, failed to notice a motor cycle approaching from behind who was knocked off his bike, falling in front of the lead queuing vehicle.

Fault entirely attributable to the car driver I’d imagine. My impression was that the bike was (correctly imo) travelling a lot less than 20mph, but hard to be certain when relying on an imaginary ‘action replay’. If he’d been doing anywhere near 20 I’d personally have had less sympathy, though fault still with car driver obviously.

[GTR1400MAN]

I'd like to think I would be losing some speed for that. (Edit:- it was raining).

We all would. The question is how much and can a judge make a ruling on how much?

Unless there's video/GPS data how can 60% responsibility be apportioned?

I suspect this will be appealed.

[akirk]

I am not sure that if I were the driver I would appeal - I think they have got away lightly with only 60% allocation of blame...
the Highway Code has its 'new' hierarchy of road users which firmly puts more responsibilities onto a car driver, and even before that there has long been an obligation to not run over pedestrians

the issue here i that we have become so fixated on speed limits as a means of controlling people that we have new generations of drivers who believe them - above 30mph and you will explode, below that - well it is safe up to 30mph because that is the speed limit. This attitude takes away the need for the driver to engage with their surroundings or actually think at all - as long as I am within the speed limit I am safe... Of course the reality is that it might be safe to do 120mph through a stretch of 30mph limit one day and only 10mph the next - context being the decider for safety not some arbitrary limit

I live in Bristol with our 20mph zones spread widely around - my road is 20mph but is basically a single lane country road with no pavements and a high hedge to a 30ft drop on one side (though in Bristol), and 20mph would be challenging to achieve - 5-10mph is about the norm - leave our road onto the next road which is still 20mph and it is hugely wide with pavements both sides and you could do 60mph up there quite safely as long as you kept a look out... The vast majority of drivers in Bristol ignore the 20mph limits and tend to drive to the conditions - but there are those who prioritise the limit on the post first and then conditions afterwards - and they don't always read the context well...

Back to this example - I would agree that stating an arbitrary figure below the limit and saying that someone should not have driven above that is challenging, but it is fairly clear that driving at 28 in a 30 was too much as the driver was unable to stop in time to avoid the child...

[Another Bill]

It’s possible that the relevance of 28 is, it’s a speed that typically corresponds to precisely 30 on the speedometer on a car with part-worn tyres, allowing for deliberately optimistic calibration. If 28mph was somehow proven to be the accurate speed it may mean the car was being ‘driven on the limit’.

Back on the article again, it mentions a 30mph zone. I didn’t think ‘zones’ were common, for 30mph. Pedantic perhaps, but if that was the expression used in prosecution, and was wrong, then a bit lazy…?

[Gareth]

The hazard perception test includes the concept of a developing hazard but, as experienced drivers, we know that the roots of a developing hazard can often be spotted before they become sufficiently developed for the developing hazard as tested.

We see someone at the side of the road, irrespective of whether there's a crossing, and know there's a chance they'll step out. More likely if they're not looking or (obviously) not hearing, and we might lift off and/or move further away.

One question the judge might have been asking is whether the driver was paying sufficient attention. Another might have been how easy or difficult would it have been to see the person in those conditions if the driver had been paying full attention to both what was directly in front and what was ahead but to the side.

[userLeft1]

For those with the time and the inclination the judgment is here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1671.html#

I've higlighted some of the more pertinent parts below. This judgement does not set a precedent that 20 mph is the correct speed to approach a pedestrian crossing and/or bus stop when there are children in the vicinity.

Paragraph 14.
I add finally that I derive next to no assistance from previous decisions on the facts in previous trials of road traffic collisions. These are intensely fact-specific decisions. They do not help.


10. The court received an electronic trial bundle (in two parts) extending to 757 pages, plus video footage from the defendant's dashboard camera and from the CCTV system of the nearby Domino's Pizza restaurant. The court heard live evidence from two instructed accident reconstruction experts, Mr Hill and Ms Eyres, and then from Dr Chandran herself.

12. The Highway Code …

• Rule 125: the maximum speed stated by signage indicates the "absolute maximum speed" for the particular stretch of road. But adjustments must be made for prevailing conditions and hazards, including other road users and "particularly" children;

• Rule 146: drivers should particularly anticipate what children might do (by suddenly stepping out into the road et cetera) and drivers should be prepared to stop at pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary;

• Rules 204 and 207: drivers should be particularly cautious about children, who are among the most vulnerable road users;

• Rule 205: cautions drivers to drive at a speed suitable to the conditions and with "the safety of children in mind";

• Rule 206: cautions drivers to drive carefully in residential areas or when driving past bus stops.


13. The general law of negligence …

• (1) The claimant must prove breach of duty on a balance of probabilities;

• (2) The standard is the "competent and experienced driver" (Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691); this is the reasonable prudent driver, not a counsel of perfection or an ideal, infallible driver; that is unrealistic, unfair and not in the public interest, setting the standard unattainably and exactingly high;

• (3) The duty is to take reasonable care;

• (4) A motor vehicle is a potentially lethal device or "weapon" (Lunt v Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801, per Latham LJ at [20]);

• (5) Children can be unpredictable, imprudent and are highly vulnerable; therefore, caution must be exercised when they are in the vicinity of the road, and drivers should drive with children in mind and anticipate how they might behave (Moore v Pointer [1975] RTR 127, per Buckley LJ).

• (6) A reasonable prudent driver knows the provisions of the Highway Code...



32. The following facts can be derived from the testimony of the experts.

1. The traffic lights were green for approximately 8s before the accident;

2. The child was stationary at the crossing for approximately 2.3s;

3. The child started to move 0.7s before impact; [she broke into a run and stepped onto the carriageway when the car was 5 metres from her. See para 83]

4. The child's average speed once she started moving was approximately 4.8 m/s;

5. The child was on the carriageway for 0.4s before impact;

6. The child was moving on the carriageway for approximately 0.1s;

7. The child was stationary on the carriageway for approximately 0.3s (about ¾ of the time); [she froze]

8. While she was moving on the carriageway, she covered approximately 1 metre;

9. The defendant could have seen the claimant from 30 metres approximately.

33. As to 9., the court makes a finding of fact … that the defendant should have seen the claimant in the immediate vicinity of the pedestrian crossing when the defendant's vehicle was approximately 30 metres from the crossing.

45. I accept the evidence of the account Dr Chandran gave in (1) her immediate report to the police; (2) her witness statement; and (3) her evidence on oath that she was not aware of the child. She plainly was not – at least she was not conscious of seeing the child.

52. My conclusion is that Dr Chandran was principally guided by two factors (1) the maximum speed limit – she was just below it; (2) her own safety, a sentiment she repeated in various guises, "why would I put myself at risk from unsafe driving?" This is why she was able to say that she was driving, as she put it, at "the optimum speed". She said that if she had seen the child at the bus stop on her side of the road (northbound), she would have reduced her speed "dramatically". But there is no credible evidence that she adjusted her speed at all for the children at the bus stop on the southbound side, who could just as readily have stepped "unexpectedly" into the road (Rule 205). I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the defendant that it would be "ludicrous" to assume a child on the other side of the road may step out in front of a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. Regrettably, exactly this would happen within seconds on the defendant's carriageway.

53. I do not accept the defendant's submission that "mere presence of children" is not enough to require an adjustment of speed. Having children in the immediate vicinity of the road is certainly capable of requiring an adjustment of speed. It is not necessary, as the defendant submits, for the children to be "doing something" or that there must be "something more going on".

60. Towards the end of her cross-examination, she was asked by claimant counsel about the degree of speed reduction she would have made if she had seen the claimant standing by the controlled crossing waiting to cross. She said: "It would probably be between 15 and 20 mph if I had seen a child."

64. Her approach to the requirements of the Highway Code was flawed. She said, "My understanding is you judge your speed to the visibility at the front of the road, and it's the same with darkness". This approach was confirmed by the fact that she said, "If I felt unsafe due to wet or darkness, I would have reduced [speed]", but she did not feel unsafe. Thus, rather than adjusting her speed due to rain or darkness, she relied upon whether she was feeling unsafe herself. The focus was on herself rather than the possible impact on other road users. This is confirmed by the answer, "If any factor had impacted on my safety, I would have reduced." This reveals a troubling absence of concern for other road users and the potential danger her vehicle moving at speed in suboptimal conditions presents. This flawed approach is confirmed by her belief that "the speed limit has been worked out to allow you to drive safely". Further, "I did not feel unsafe".


65. The net result of her belief is that if she was driving under the speed limit and she did not feel unsafe herself, that would be the appropriate speed. That this was her approach on the day of the collision is supported by the fact that despite the prevailing conditions and the road situation, she was driving at very nearly the maximum permitted speed. Therefore, I find that the defendant's approach to the Highway Code was flawed.

70. I must resolve the dispute between parties about what constitutes the reasonable speed for the road situation and driving conditions that prevailed on that stretch of Buckingham Road at the time of the accident. Rule 125 provides: "The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists."

71. The Rule makes it plain that the designated 30 mph is the absolute maximum. It must be adjusted due to prevailing conditions. The reasonable driver must "always reduce your speed" when sharing the road with pedestrians and "particularly" children. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that:
"The only obligation for reasonable driver is to drive below the speed limit and to have a very heightened sense of alertness."

72. This cannot be correct. This submission would mean that irrespective of conditions, it would be permissible when the absolute speed limit is 30 mph to drive at 29 mph. The fallacy in this argument is that it omits the essential requirement for the reasonable driver to adjust his or her speed to reflect the prevailing hazards of the conditions. If the rain were so heavy or the fog so dense that visibility was severely restricted to a couple of metres beyond the windscreen, it would obviously be very dangerous to drive at 29 mph and thus "below the speed limit". To gauge what the reasonable speed for any relevant stretch of road in the prevailing conditions should be, all the obviously relevant factors should be taken into account, something that reasonable drivers habitually do. In this case, the collision occurred on a school day, at a time when children were on the way to school and likely to be using the bus stops (there were in fact children at the bus stop on the southbound side). It was an urban area with residential housing bordering the road in places, and certainly on the northbound side in the vicinity of the bus stop and pedestrian crossing. Front gardens of houses lead directly onto the pavement bordering the road right next to the northbound bus stop (Figs. 8 and 10., B140). It was both raining and dark. The BMW was approaching two bus stops and a pedestrian crossing.

78. Dr Chandran has driven the route "lots of times before" at a "similar time in the morning". She was "very familiar with the route" and was "just driving looking ahead". She was not consciously aware of the claimant waiting at the pedestrian crossing. That was because she was not paying sufficient attention. Without concluding she was in a state of approaching automatism, I find that her driving was likely to contain an element of autopilot. She had driven the precise route at the similar time so many (possibly hundreds) of times before in what her counsel called her "five-days-a-week-ritual". This resulted in her not adapting her driving to the obvious risks of the prevailing situation – all the listed hazard factors – because she did not feel "unsafe" and felt if she felt safe and was "within the speed limit", that was the "optimum speed". She did not make the reasonable and necessary adjustments for, as the Highway Code puts it, "road users requiring extra care" because children are among "the most vulnerable road users". That was an approach materially inconsistent with the Highway Code's safety principles. She drove in breach of and inconsistent with Rules 125, 146, 204, 205, 206 and 207. No breach of the Highway Code is determinative of negligence. But the court should have regard to them and weigh their cumulative effect.

79. Having done so, I find that the defendant's conduct demonstrated an approach that fell below the standard of a reasonable competent and experienced driver. I find that the breaches of the Code cumulatively amounted to a breach of duty of care in the circumstances that prevailed: a combination of her excessive and unsafe speed and lack of sufficient attention to conditions and other road users.

102. Let me draw this together. I reduce the court's analysis into the following ten critical findings.

1. I find that a reasonable and competent driver would have been driving the BMW more slowly at around 20 mph;

2. The corollary is that I find that the defendant was driving too fast given the situation and prevailing circumstances;

3. If the defendant had been paying proper and reasonable attention as she should have been, even if travelling at 28 mph, she should have seen the claimant from approximately 30 metres out. On this, I prefer the evidence of Mr Hill, although Ms Eyres accepted she was wrong about the vehicle in front obscuring the claimant at 40 metres (and thus also at 30 metres);

4. I find that the suggestion that she would have been distracted by the oncoming lights of the vehicle in opposite carriageway to have little merit.

5. I find that the taillights of V1 [the car in front] did not have any significant impact on Dr Chandran.

6. I find that if the defendant's vehicle were that extra significant distance away, as it should have been, when the claimant stepped into the road, that the claimant is unlikely to have frozen and stopped, but instead she is likely to have kept running.

7. I find that the extra time and distance created by Dr Chandran driving at the reasonable speed would have been sufficient, and not just marginally, for the claimant to have crossed most of the way across the road towards the southbound side.

8. I find that if the claimant had kept moving at her significant speed across the road, the defendant is likely to have braked. This is because the child would have been in front of the defendant and likely to be in the middle of the carriageway or slightly to the defendant's right. There would have been significantly less likelihood of the defendant swerving to the right in the direction in which the child was running.

9. Putting the above findings together, I find on a balance of probabilities that there would not have been a collision if the defendant had been driving at the safe and reasonable speed and there would have been no injury to the claimant.

10. I find, therefore, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the claimant's loss and damage.

[GTR1400MAN]

Ahh, so there WAS video evidence plus she failed the attitude test.

[irf520]

Unless I'm missing something she would have still hit the child at 20mph.
0.7 seconds between child starting to move and impact. At 20mph the car would have covered the same distance in 0.7*28/20 = 0.98sec.
Reaction time before starting to brake = 0.66s (from the classic formula)
So brake is applied for 0.32sec
20mph = approx 9m/s
Retardation from braking = 7m/s^2 (from classic formula)
So after 0.32s speed is still 9-0.32*7 = 6.7m/s
So there would still have been a collision, although at lower speed so should be less severe.