Who would be at fault?

[ital916]

Hey all,

Just a quick question regarding pedestrian crossing.

I was riding home from work the other day, nice straight road with a pedestrian crossing half way down. I see that a mother and her child are crossing so all the traffic slows down before getting there, they cross and are well clear so traffic speeds up.

About three metres before I go over the crossing this lady who was jogging downa side path came belting out, and ran straight across the crossing without checking. The anchors go on *ashamedly even though the front was hard on I managed to lock the rear...more braking practice needed* and I come to a stop a little bit past the pedestrian crossing, luckily she stopped half way across * a momentary gain of sanity*, she gave me a sorry nod and continued jogging.

SO if a pedestrian runs across and the vehicle has no chance to stop in time, who is at fault. Motorvehicle or pedestrian. Key phrase being the pedestrian has not given a vehicle that is too close time to stop, though pedetrians always have right of way.

[nallac]

the pedestrian would be at fault as not allowing the driver/rider enough time
to stop.

[Blossom]

My understanding also.
At school the children are all taught to look both ways and check there are no vehicles about to pass by before they use the pedestrian crossing. Seems to be common law really, but I have no actual laws to back that up. :lol:

[Duke girl]

At all pedestrian crossing there is a white diamond painted on the road just before the crossing. If a person is standing at the crossing waiting to cross and the driver or rider hasn't reach that painted diamond on the road then the pedestrain has right of way to cross. If it was the other way around and the rider or driver has already gone pass the diamond then the pedestrain has to wait for them to go pass before stepping out onto the crossing. Grab a road code and check in there to see if i am right.
Anyone running onto the road without looking is not only a danger to themselves but also to those of us who use it to ride or drive on. Isnt there a saying that saids look to your right, look to your left then look to your right again before crossing.

[TOTO]

At all pedestrian crossing there is a white diamond painted on the road just before the crossing. If a person is standing at the crossing waiting to cross and the driver or rider hasn't reach that painted diamond on the road then the pedestrain has right of way to cross. If it was the other way around and the rider or driver has already gone pass the diamond then the pedestrain has to wait for them to go pass before stepping out onto the crossing. Grab a road code and check in there to see if i am right.
Anyone running onto the road without looking is not only a danger to themselves but also to those of us who use it to ride or drive on. Isnt there a saying that saids look to your right, look to your left then look to your right again before crossing.


Oh cool , I never knew that ...cheers for that :niceone:

[PrincessBandit]

Legally and "in practice" are often two different things. but it's probably a good idea to treat any pedestrian in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing with caution. She was extremely rude to just run out like that but I'm picking you would have been more alert if she had been a child. Children are highly unpredictable therefore you would have been ready for an unexpected dash out onto the road; perhaps adults need to be treated like children!
From a legal standpoint though my suspicions are that you would still be held at fault since it was on a marked crossing. But I could be wrong, must look to see if there is anything in the road code about it. Otherwise googling might yeild the answer.

[Fatt Max]

Legally and "in practice" are often two different things. but it's probably a good idea to treat any pedestrian in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing with caution. She was extremely rude to just run out like that but I'm picking you would have been more alert if she had been a child. Children are highly unpredictable therefore you would have been ready for an unexpected dash out onto the road; perhaps adults need to be treated like children!
From a legal standpoint though my suspicions are that you would still be held at fault since it was on a marked crossing. But I could be wrong, must look to see if there is anything in the road code about it. Otherwise googling might yeild the answer.

PB is right as far as I know, mate had a similar incient in his cage a few years back and wound up with a fine for careless driving.

The "rule of thumb" as explained by the cops at the time is that the road belongs to vehicles, but the crossings and space 10m - 15m either side of it belong to pedestrians.

I must say, that does sound a bit crap but there you go. Unfortunatley there can be very little movement when human behaviour comes into it.

Still, I always keep my eyes out approaching crossings, especially early mornings when the running / power walking brigade are out.

[BMWST?]

PB is right as far as I know, mate had a similar incient in his cage a few years back and wound up with a fine for careless driving.

The "rule of thumb" as explained by the cops at the time is that the road belongs to vehicles, but the crossings and space 10m - 15m either side of it belong to pedestrians.

I must say, that does sound a bit crap but there you go. Unfortunatley there can be very little movement when human behaviour comes into it.

Still, I always keep my eyes out approaching crossings, especially early mornings when the running / power walking brigade are out.

the space INSIDE the diamonds belongs to pedestrians...but i always treat any pedestrians in the vicinity of crossings with caution.The worst ones are crossings where there are plants fences etc close to crossings which may hide approaching pedestrians.I think that judges would err on the side of pedestrians,but they need to be aware that vehicles cant stop on a sixpence.Wellington pedestrians are suicidal

[martybabe]

It's a dodgy area innit, In Britain the driver would almost certainly be seen as at fault although we all know in reality the jogger is at fault, however Pedestrian crossings are protected by a marked zig zag area in which you are not allowed to park, punishable by death. One of the few good ideas to come from there, it allows a damn good view for pedestrian and driver.

Two things I've noticed about NZ crossings, a lot of them have approaches which are almost totally obscured from the drivers view point, there are 2 in Inglewood and there is a near miss every single day! Secondly; those people that approach crossings as if about to cross then lean against the crossing marker and have a nice chat or start texting or pie eating whilst half a dozen bewildered drivers slow down,speed up,lurch to a halt, all trying to second guess the the intention of the crossing lurker. :angry2:

[ManDownUnder]

I understand the rider/driver is at fault because you need to be able to stop the vehicle in time to avoid an accident at all times. Remember a while back that ambo that was done for hittnig someone while on the way to a callout. Lights and sirens going and someone ran out in front of it - and the ambo got done?

We all have a "duty of care" under the law too to some responsibility could be placed on the pedestrian but that doesn't seem to have been exercised in the various events I know of

[Badjelly]

As I understand it, vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians on a crossing (or on their half of of the crossing if there is a central divider).

A law change is being considered to require vehicles to give way to pedestrians "obviously waiting to cross". (I think those are the words.)

So a driver who fails to give way to someone who runs onto a crossing without warning has not committed a traffic offence under the present law, or the proposed one.

However when it comes to questions of legal liability and "whose fault it is" I think it comes down to whether people have exercised due care. In the case you describe, it seems to me that the driver did exercise due care and the runner did not.

[Badjelly]

...those people that approach crossings as if about to cross then lean against the crossing marker and have a nice chat or start texting or pie eating whilst half a dozen bewildered drivers slow down,speed up,lurch to a halt, all trying to second guess the the intention of the crossing lurker. :angry2:

Tell me about it. :angry2: :angry2:

[bsasuper]

If the jogger keeps doing this, sooner or later a big truck wont stop, pedestrions still have to use care when crossing.

[MsKABC]

Two things I've noticed about NZ crossings, a lot of them have approaches which are almost totally obscured from the drivers view point

Or else they put them in ridiculous places like right next to a roundabout. There is one like this in Pakuranga, totally takes you by surprise as you've just finished negotiating the roundabout safely, speeding up and then bang!

[bull]

If the jogger keeps doing this, sooner or later a big truck wont stop, pedestrions still have to use care when crossing.

Yep - being right but dead is still a FAIL.

Whats the deal with people cycling across the pedestrian crossings? are thy in the right or do they need to dismount and walk across?

[MsKABC]

As I understand it, vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians on a crossing (or on their half of of the crossing if there is a central divider).


But if you compared it to say, giving way to a car: You spy a car near an intersection, you don't know what it is going to do, but you have to be prepared that it might all of a sudden, without indicating, take a course that you are required to give way to. If you hit it, you are at fault. Apply this to the pedestrian crossing situation and you may be at fault there too?

Not saying this is right of course, silly jogger should have been a little more careful.

[Mystic13]

As I understand it, vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians on a crossing (or on their half of of the crossing if there is a central divider).


And I thought it was you had to give way and stay stopped till they left the crossing completely...under a recent rule.

As for the bike and pedestrian thing I'd put the bike at fault.

Some bikes and cars only seem to see pedestrians when they get to the kerb and only slow then.

It's a pedestrian crossing. They have right of way and when I see a crossing I always visually check the foot path leading up to the crossing and slow if need be.

I have two kids that drive and younger kids at school. Kids can be on the crossing before the school crossing signs go up and cars try and shoot through and come close at times. Well it seems they try and shoot through. it may just be that they are otherwise occupied and didn't see the kids.

I'm surprised more kids aren't run over.

[firefighter]

At all pedestrian crossing there is a white diamond painted on the road just before the crossing. If a person is standing at the crossing waiting to cross and the driver or rider hasn't reach that painted diamond on the road then the pedestrain has right of way to cross. If it was the other way around and the rider or driver has already gone pass the diamond then the pedestrain has to wait for them to go pass before stepping out onto the crossing.

Oh cool , I never knew that ...cheers for that :niceone:

Aaaaaactually, this exact thing came up when I was doing my class 2, driving instructor asked me what the diamonds are for.....i gave the same answer - It is wrong.....

The diamonds are there puerly as an extra added warning to let you know you are approaching a pedestrian crossing, and they have NEVER meant anything else (my next question to the man)


And I thought it was you had to give way and stay stopped till they left the crossing completely...under a recent rule.

Half right, if there is an island in the middle of the road, you can go as soon as they have finished crossing on your half, if there is none you have to wait until they have left the entire crossing.




As for the bike and pedestrian thing I'd put the bike at fault.

Pedestrians have the right of way- BUT they must give the vehicle a reasonable time to stop- otherwise you could wait for a car to drive through and jump at it......

[MsKABC]

The diamonds are there puerly as an extra added warning to let you know you are approaching a pedestrian crossing, and they have NEVER meant anything else (my next question to the man)


I thought there was a rule about it being illegal to cross the road between a ped crossing and a diamond?



otherwise you could wait for a car to drive through and jump at it......

Imagine that! :stupid:

[breakaway]

In theory you're sweet, but in real life, all everyone's gonna see is "This guy ran over someone at a pedestrian crossing".

[firefighter]

I thought there was a rule about it being illegal to cross the road between a ped crossing and a diamond?

I thought I just answered that! lol......seriously, I answered the same thing, driving instructor tells me the real answer.....the guy is in his 50's and is a defence driving instructor, he knows everything you need to know about road rules, and all updates- he has to he can give you a licence for anything! But he bloody makes you work for it!

[MsKABC]

I thought I just answered that! lol......seriously, I answered the same thing, driving instructor tells me the real answer.....the guy is in his 50's and is a defence driving instructor, he knows everything you need to know about road rules, and all updates- he has to he can give you a licence for anything! But he bloody makes you work for it!

Sorry Mr. Firefighter. To the back of the class I go. :laugh:

[90s]

In court there is no defence that will work against hitting somebody on a crossing whatever the circumstances unless they admit liability or its witnesses by the police and they support your version of events.

Otherwise all the other stuff about the circumstances is just wishful thinking, and the legal onus is on drivers to be prepared to stop and there is virtually no way to satisfy the burden of proof that the pedestrian aceted in a way that made the accident their responsibility (other than possibly CCTV).

And yes cyclists are required to dismount to use a pedestrian crossing.

[portokiwi]

I got stopped by a mufti cop who told me off for not stopping at a crossing where a lady hadnt even reached to cross.
That was outside the Glen Innes police station. He stoped his mufti cop car in the middle of the road to tell me the rights and wrongs of what I did.
So now if I even see someone near a crossing I stop just in case. She was on the other side of the road too.
Stupid policeman.

[Badjelly]

The section of the road code dealing with pedestrian crossings is here

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians.html

It refers to stopping and giving way to pedestrians on the crossing, or on your half of the crossing if there is a central refuge. I believe that these days this is interpreted to mean that you have to stop until the pedestrian has left the crossing (or half thereof) though it doesn't actually say that.

As 90s and others have said, hitting a pedestrian on a crossing is a bad look, and I am sure 90s is right when he says you are unlikely to get away with it in court without a police officer to back up your version of events.

There have been various versions of the road rules relating to pedestrians over the years. A 3 m clearance rule was introduced in the 70s and caused huge uncertainty and distress at the time. I remember being asked by an old lady to help her cross the road because she felt unsafe under the 3 m rule. I don't think she had the slightest clue how far 3 m is. She interpreted the rule to mean open slather.

But what strikes me is that all these rules have ignored the fact that pedestrians move! You have to give way to pedestrians on the crossing, even when they've passed and it would be perfectly safe to continue, but not (currently) to pedestrians who are about to walk onto the crossing. WTF! (Of course if they do walk or run onto the crossing and you hit them, does that necessarily mean you must have failed to give way to them on the crossing? Buggered if I know. )

I think all this dicking around with the rules has been unproductive. I think there should be 2 rules:

Drivers must give way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrians must pause briefly at the crossing edge before walking onto the crossing.

Then the onus is on the driver who is giving way to judge whether the pedestrian is in a position where it is necessary to stop, just as we do with respect to other cars at every intersection. Sure, this is a judgement call that people will get wrong from time to time, but how is that different from what we've got now?

[Hitcher]

who is at fault

That's easy. Based on recent feedback, either the Moron Few or the Moderators.

[swbarnett]

From the Road Code web site (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/road-user-safety/walking-and-cycling/crossing.html):

How to use pedestrian crossings

* If you're within 20 metres of a pedestrian crossing, you must use the crossing to cross the road.
* You must not step out suddenly onto a pedestrian crossing if any vehicles are so close to the crossing that they can't stop.
* Don't walk slowly on a pedestrian crossing.

[Naki Rat]

I got stopped by a mufti cop who told me off for not stopping at a crossing where a lady hadnt even reached to cross.
That was outside the Glen Innes police station. He stoped his mufti cop car in the middle of the road to tell me the rights and wrongs of what I did.
So now if I even see someone near a crossing I stop just in case. She was on the other side of the road too.
Stupid policeman.

While living in Nova Scotia a few years ago I was amused to see motorists stop for pedestrians based solely on the pedestrian waiting at the kerbside with the intention of crossing, where there wasn't even a pedestrian crossing (called cross walks or 'X walk' in Canada).

Small town or suburban Halifax, life moves at a slower pace than here :zzzz:

[mctshirt]

It's always against the law to run someone over no matter where they are or what the circumstances.

Whether the Crown decides to prosecute or not is the question.

You are NOT allowed to run someone over.

[swbarnett]

It's always against the law to run someone over no matter where they are or what the circumstances.

Whether the Crown decides to prosecute or not is the question.

You are NOT allowed to run someone over.
If a pedestrian runs out in front of me and I have no chance of stopping I did not run them over. They ran under me.

[klingon]

I have a policy of treating pedestrian crossings like other types of intersections. As a driver/rider, I must give way to pedestrians. If I don't have a clear view of the approaches to the crossing, I slow down to an appropriate speed so I would be able to stop if someone stepped out. As I approach a crossing, I actively scan the footpath looking for pedestrians who might be going to use the crossing.

It's not like the things aren't well marked - they have the diamonds on the road, the stripey black and white poles, the flashing orange globe (or in some cases a fluoro orange disk).

I can just hear the excuses of a driver/rider who hits a pedestrian...
"She came out of nowhere!" and "I just didn't see her!" Sound familiar?

I'm not saying pedestrians should be able to just run out without looking. Just as we shouldn't just ride through an intersection because we have right of way. But I do think as bikers we should
a) Have empathy for other vulnerable road users and
b) Use our (supposedly) superior observational skills to avoid hitting pedestrians, just as we use them to avoid hitting cars and trucks.

[Maki]

In my experience there are a lot of pedestrians out there with a death wish. On a stretch of road I often ride or drive I noticed a person who would walk along the road and then suddenly turn and cross the road on the ped crossing without looking right or left. I saw a drawn outline of a crash victim on that crossing a while ago and after that I never saw that reckless ped again so I assum he or she was hit.

If in doubt, slow down. The last thing you want to do is hit someone.

[Ixion]

What is annoying a bout pedestrian crossings is when the silly dodderers dodder onto them from nowhere . Which in itself does not worry me, I will have allowed for the possibility. Except, that the law and the dodderer expect one to STOP, not to avoid. My normal response to a sudden hazard is to avoid it, not to brake. With pedestrians I must counter intuitively do that which is NOT safest.

[swbarnett]

I'm not saying pedestrians should be able to just run out without looking. Just as we shouldn't just ride through an intersection because we have right of way.
The two situations are quite different. The pedestrian in question did not have the right of way.

I agree with the jist of what you're saying though. Errant pedestrians are just another hazard and should be treated accordingly.

[Max Preload]

I thought there was a rule about it being illegal to cross the road between a ped crossing and a diamond?

Depends how far the diamonds are from the crossing. I know that a pedestrian must not cross a road within 20m of a pedestrian crossing without using it. That goes for traffic lights as well as 'zebra' crossings.

[Pascal]

SO if a pedestrian runs across and the vehicle has no chance to stop in time, who is at fault. Motorvehicle or pedestrian. Key phrase being the pedestrian has not given a vehicle that is too close time to stop, though pedetrians always have right of way.

We had a similar discussion in the office the other day. I've not confirmed this yet, so please take it with a drop of scepticism, but David said he understands from years ago that the diamonds before a pedestrian crossing serves two purposes.

1. Indicates to motorists a pedestrian crossing is near
2. Indicates to pedestrians the spot where a vehicle traveling at the speed limit will no longer be able to safely stop for them.

If what he said is correct, I would guess the pedestrian would be at fault if they started crossing once you were past that point. But, I've been checking and noit all the pedestrian crossings have those little diamonds. So ... dunno.

[Max Preload]

We had a similar discussion in the office the other day. I've not confirmed this yet, so please take it with a drop of scepticism, but David said he understands from years ago that the diamonds before a pedestrian crossing serves two purposes.

1. Indicates to motorists a pedestrian crossing is near
2. Indicates to pedestrians the spot where a vehicle traveling at the speed limit will no longer be able to safely stop for them.

If what he said is correct, I would guess the pedestrian would be at fault if they started crossing once you were past that point. But, I've been checking and not all the pedestrian crossings have those little diamonds. So ... dunno.

Not quite right. While the onus is placed on the pedestrian not to enter the crossing when the vehicle is too close the fact is the driver will probably be held accountable regardless as he is supposed to stop.
Rule for pedestrians. (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303671.html)
Rule for drivers. (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303663.html)

As for the diamonds, there's no reference in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004-427) (as at 01 August 2008) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html) to the diamonds being a guideline of any sort and in fact their use is not even compulsory.


Land Transport Rule - Traffic Control Devices 2004 - Rule 54002 (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/rules/traffic-control-devices-2004.html#82)
8.2(11) To inform approaching traffic of the presence of a pedestrian crossing, a road controlling authority, on each approach to the pedestrian crossing:
(c) may mark a pedestrian crossing warning marking in the form of a diamond on the road surface.

[Pascal]

Not quite right. While the onus is placed on the pedestrian not to enter the crossing when the vehicle is too close the fact is the driver will probably be held accountable regardless as he is supposed to stop.

Great links, thanks Max. I haven't been in the office since we started this discussion, but I'll flick them to David on Monday. Reading those though, it seems to me if the pedestrian entered the crossing at a point where the driver was unable to stop the pedestrian would be at fault.

And 18 wheeler doesn't stop on faith and road rules alone, that amount of mass has a certain amount of inertia and the rules of physics won't be suspended just because a pedestrian believes they have right of way.

I'd still say the driver shouldn't (wouldn't?) be held accountable if there was no reasonable way they could stop. And some pedestrian crossings (New North Road, just down from the train tracks as you're heading out of New Lynn) is just stupidly placed. Vehicles have preciously little visibility to actually see pedestrians that might be rushing out to cross.

[carver]

That's easy. Based on recent feedback, either the Moron Few or the Moderators.

mormon you fck'n moron!

[madbikeboy]

I think the legalities are an interesting discussion, but the real question to me - why didn't your internal radar go off a lot faster, and have you been practising your situational awareness and braking? You're a person width wide, you can brake and go behind, or not brake and go in front - point is, if you're panic braking, overshooting, and not planning, there's an issue with your headspace.

At every intersection, and at every ped crossing, you should have an escape route, and a plan for what if's. And if you're not paying attention to everything that might nail you, then maybe you should take up being a cheeky and sarcastic person.

Of course, this is how I got to be a middle aged sad old fuck (isn't that what you called it?), and I guess having these skills are part of "what's wrong with" me (sic).

[MarkH]

mormon you fck'n moron!

Anyone that has read your posts on these forums would most likely agree with Hitcher - definitely moron!

[vgcspares]

from a purely observational standpoint, I've noticed that while peds will step out without looking when there's a car coming the vast majority won't when I approach on my bike (I'm talking principally within shopping mall road networks but it does seem to apply elsewhere) ..

which either proves they do know the car's there but have a "bugger you" attitude (considering they're mostly car drivers a bit odd don't you think?)

or

as with cars (they're aware of your proximity even though you don't see them see you) but they don't fancy their chances against someone whose "bugger you" attitude might be more real than imagined

[G-spot]

Anyone that has read your posts on these forums would most likely agree with Hitcher - definitely moron!

Yes I agree with that!

[G-spot]

That's easy. Based on recent feedback, either the Moron Few or the Moderators.

Love your choice of words!

[imdying]

Doesn't matter who's to blame, you'll kill the pedestrian, and you'll get away with it as it's legal to kill people with a vehicle in NZ :yes:

[ital916]

I think the legalities are an interesting discussion, but the real question to me - why didn't your internal radar go off a lot faster, and have you been practising your situational awareness and braking? You're a person width wide, you can brake and go behind, or not brake and go in front - point is, if you're panic braking, overshooting, and not planning, there's an issue with your headspace.

At every intersection, and at every ped crossing, you should have an escape route, and a plan for what if's. And if you're not paying attention to everything that might nail you, then maybe you should take up being a cheeky and sarcastic person.

Of course, this is how I got to be a middle aged sad old fuck (isn't that what you called it?), and I guess having these skills are part of "what's wrong with" me (sic).

well I have been practising but I will admit Im not a perfect rider haha and more practice is always welcome, the thing that confused my brain in this situation is I didnt know whether she would continue or stop and go left or right so I just put the anchors on and went straight hoping she would either stop or run past, the space in which I had to stop was miniscule, but then I should make no excuses. Like katman says, its my fault lol,

[madbikeboy]

well I have been practising but I will admit Im not a perfect rider haha and more practice is always welcome, the thing that confused my brain in this situation is I didnt know whether she would continue or stop and go left or right so I just put the anchors on and went straight hoping she would either stop or run past, the space in which I had to stop was miniscule, but then I should make no excuses. Like katman says, its my fault lol,

I've seen the damage a dead pedestrian did to a car in the process of becoming dead - I'd imagine that a motorcyclist would also stand a good chance of injury.

Regardless, planning, and practice would help. Very few people understand how their bike actually handles under emergency braking - I'm 35 years old and I still practice emergency braking about once per week. I also practice the escape route every moment of being on the bike. It's worked so far.

Of course, I sad old middleaged fuck - what the hell am I thinking? - this is your cue to apologise for being an asshole btw.

[ital916]

I've seen the damage a dead pedestrian did to a car in the process of becoming dead - I'd imagine that a motorcyclist would also stand a good chance of injury.

Regardless, planning, and practice would help. Very few people understand how their bike actually handles under emergency braking - I'm 35 years old and I still practice emergency braking about once per week. I also practice the escape route every moment of being on the bike. It's worked so far.

Of course, I sad old middleaged fuck - what the hell am I thinking? - this is your cue to apologise for being an asshole btw.

Yeah I agree, braking practice at least once per week will be on the agenda.

Apologise..for what....cant apologise for being an Asshole, an asshole *cmon sing it with me MBB*, A-S-S-HO-L-E, im an asshole, im an asshole.I park my bike in handicap spaces while handicap people make handicap faces, im an asshole, im an asshole....*trails off*

[klingon]

Apologise..for what....cant apologise for being an Asshole, an asshole *cmon sing it with me MBB*, A-S-S-HO-L-E, im an asshole, im an asshole.I park my bike in handicap spaces while handicap people make handicap faces, im an asshole, im an asshole....*trails off*

BDOTGNZA is having conniptions.

Gah. Thud.

:thud:

[ital916]

BDOTGNZA is having conniptions.

Gah. Thud.

:thud:

I know it is spelt arse but in the song they pronounce it ass so I spelt it that way