Who would be at fault?

[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

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!

[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.

[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/roa...destrians.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/roa.../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

[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.