Who would be at fault?

**klingon** · 8th February 2009, 16:28

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** · 8th February 2009, 16:34

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** · 8th February 2009, 17:12

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** · 8th February 2009, 21:03

Originally Posted by klingon

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** · 13th February 2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by MsKABC

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** · 13th February 2009, 13:43

Originally Posted by Drider87

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** · 13th February 2009, 15:35

Originally Posted by Pascal

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.
Rule for drivers.

As for the diamonds, there's no reference in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004-427) (as at 01 August 2008) 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
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** · 13th February 2009, 15:59

Originally Posted by Max Preload

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** · 17th February 2009, 16:26

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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

mormon you fck'n moron!

**madbikeboy** · 18th February 2009, 09:14

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** · 18th February 2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by carver

mormon you fck'n moron!

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

**vgcspares** · 18th February 2009, 10:28

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