Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Articles of interest to the AD community, currently in the news.
User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby akirk » Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:26 pm

http://eurekar.co.uk/articles/2015-10-0 ... ians-about

IAM requested figures on causes of accidents (police can note up to 6 from 77 possible factors), to find that in 18,000 pedestrian injuries involving a car, in 23% of cases pedestrian issues were top of the list (failed to look / hurry / etc.)...

This raises a couple of very separate issues:
- is it appropriate that the general belief is that the car driver is responsible by default, unless proved otherwise (figures suggest that in 77% of the time this might be true)
- how as advanced drivers do we protect ourselves from this scenario - if a pedestrian might be the cause, we perhaps need to think beyond just our driving to how we manage the whole scenario...

Alasdair

User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:01 pm
Location: Swindon

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:40 pm

I'm surprised it's as low as 23%. Unless cars are continually mounting the pavements, pedestrian vs. car accidents generally involve pedestrians in the road, and I'm surprised that 77% of the time cars are hitting them if they're in a legitimate place with priority over the car.
Nick

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby akirk » Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:02 pm

I think that 23% of the time is perhaps where it is seen as the top reason - but is perhaps still in there on other occasions - without seeing the full facts it is difficult to know...

Alasdair

Rick448
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:48 pm
Location: Hessle

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby Rick448 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:33 am

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I'm surprised it's as low as 23%. Unless cars are continually mounting the pavements, pedestrian vs. car accidents generally involve pedestrians in the road, and I'm surprised that 77% of the time cars are hitting them if they're in a legitimate place with priority over the car.


My thoughts exactly.

User avatar
StressedDave
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:27 am

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby StressedDave » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:10 am

You'd be amazed just how long a pedestrian needs to be in the road before TCMOTCO actually spots them. An inability in urban situations to look more than 10m in front of the end of the bonnet may well be a cause. Out of the accidents I dealt with less that 10% were down to the pedestrian getting the timings wrong.
All posts are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Do what you like with it, just don't make money off it.

sussex2
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby sussex2 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:23 am

In the UK we provide very few places where the wheeled road user and pedestrians can assume people may be crossing.
We have invested heavily in a very few and expensive controlled crossings, but otherwise ignored the simple basics of priority.
In those places where the pedestrian has priority it is not even given or taken; such as when actually in the road.
To sum up it is almost as if the most vulnerable of road users is, for a great part of the time, invisible.
The dated article I quote IMO pretty much sums up the prevailing attitude:

http://camdencyclists.org.uk/wp-content ... lists1.pdf

User avatar
StressedDave
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:27 am

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby StressedDave » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:31 am

You can't take priority for a start and the Highway Code says 'should' not 'must' with regards to pedestrians. Whilst I agree that there's more than enough stupidity on both sides, the has to be a degree of acceptance on both sides as to the 'local vernacular'. It's all well and good quoting statute but if it's wholesale ignored then it's worthless. And anything that says 'should' in the Highway Code does not have the backing of the law. Feel free to c.f. with vehicle speed.
All posts are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Do what you like with it, just don't make money off it.

Rick448
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:48 pm
Location: Hessle

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby Rick448 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:47 am

I'm not sure if it's just rife in my locality but we have a large amount of muppets who think it's cool to walk out in front of a moving vehicle and saunter across in the knowledge (or hope) that that vehicle will slow down for them. This tends to be male youths in small groups, and especially with some girls in tow. It's also interesting that the girls tend to wait on the roadside until the vehicle has past. Maybe there is a correlation between testosterone and behaving like a knob.

sussex2
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby sussex2 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:52 am

Perhaps it is about time that those who compose the Highway Code changed the vernacular.
Many of our neighbouring countries did this years ago but we have not.
In fact I seem to remember the 70s/80s Highway Code (with regard to zebra crossings) stated that the wheeled road user must 'see and give way to those crossing or intending to cross'. The modern version is not so distinct.
I also strongly believe that 'pedestrian failed to look' is a get out clause that should be removed.

User avatar
StressedDave
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:27 am

Re: Pedestrians - victim or cause?

Postby StressedDave » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:18 am

sussex2 wrote:Perhaps it is about time that those who compose the Highway Code changed the vernacular.
Many of our neighbouring countries did this years ago but we have not.
In fact I seem to remember the 70s/80s Highway Code (with regard to zebra crossings) stated that the wheeled road user must 'see and give way to those crossing or intending to cross'. The modern version is not so distinct.
I also strongly believe that 'pedestrian failed to look' is a get out clause that should be removed.

No, it's an example of Darwinism in action. Removing idiots from the gene pool is a good thing. It's bad enough that chavs keep pissing in the shallow end.

As for changing the wording - you'd have to change the RTA as well. The current one seems to be working fine.
All posts are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Do what you like with it, just don't make money off it.


Return to “In The News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests