Who is at fault? Pedestrian or driver?

barthez · 17-10-2008, 04:42 PM

Scenario:

Driver stopped at traffic lights driving a small car (ie suzuki swift) with blocked vision to the right by a landcruiser...The light turns green and the swift takes off from the lights in a safe manner.....A pedestrian runs out from the right hand side illegally and is hit by the swift...

Who is at fault??

68XTFairmont · 17-10-2008, 04:47 PM

Regardless of line of vision pedestrian has the right of way, although in a situation like that the pedestrian should be deemed as being in the wrong the law is written so that pedestrians aren't held accountable for just about anything.

By law the driver of the car is legally bound to check that the intersection is safe to enter regardless of light colour.

irlewy86 · 17-10-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68XTFairmont

By law the driver of the car is legally bound to check that the intersection is safe to enter regardless of light colour.

Which translated would mean you would have to wait for the LC to move to give clear vision.

68XTFairmont · 17-10-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Which translated would mean you would have to wait for the LC to move to give clear vision.

Legally that is pretty much the case.

In reality this is never a common practice but after reading peoples opinions on running amber lights maybe we should all be practicing this lmao

2002xr6 · 17-10-2008, 04:48 PM

wouldnt be any damageto car or person if it took off in a safe manner

barthez · 17-10-2008, 05:05 PM

person no damage, but person jumped onto bonnet and landed on windscreen causing damage to windscreen......

Busted · 17-10-2008, 05:06 PM

If the pedestrian "ran" from the right. Than the pedestrian could be deamed as in the wrong (J walking). The thing to remember is that he ran from a blind spot. one can asume that the pedestrian was running a red don't walk signal. The driver can not be to blame if he/she left in a safe manner.

4Vman · 17-10-2008, 05:12 PM

Both in the wrong: but there's not allot of solace being in the right if you're dead, or have just killed someone...

bob^ · 17-10-2008, 05:13 PM

No one looks left and right when they leave a set of traffic lights?

uranium_death · 17-10-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob^

No one looks left and right when they leave a set of traffic lights?

Quote:

Driver stopped at traffic lights driving a small car (ie suzuki swift) with blocked vision to the right by a landcruiser.

Perhaps this might clear something up.

Now for my customary and pointless spiel, not that I am any great example, but I always look left and right before entering an intersection, even when I have the green light, for the oppotunity for somebody to do something completely stupid is probable.

People don't take responsibility for their actions anymore. They expect people to look out for them, and accept responsibility when they stuff up.

Hint to pedestrians: Use the lights, walk with the green man, and even then, make sure all cars around you are stopping (my Dad would be dead if he didn't).

Jason[98.EL] · 17-10-2008, 05:19 PM

driver is in the wrong

a mate of mine got a nice doctors bill a few yrs ago when a drunk pedestrian stepped of the footpath and my mates mirror cliped him

it is a dumbass rule but it is there to protect the pedestrian i was in the car as well and didnt see the guy till we hit him and i was the person to call the police and ambulance

Grimus

Wally · 18-10-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimus

driver is in the wrong

a mate of mine got a nice doctors bill a few yrs ago when a drunk pedestrian stepped of the footpath and my mates mirror cliped him

it is a dumbass rule but it is there to protect the pedestrian i was in the car as well and didnt see the guy till we hit him and i was the person to call the police and ambulance

Grimus

That's odd. I ran over a drunk once. He walked out from the side of the road. The cops had him tested and charged him.... I was impressed that common sense prevailed.

barthez · 17-10-2008, 05:19 PM

been informed by a police officer that the pedestrian is in the wrong......

300C-CRD · 17-10-2008, 05:22 PM

How can any driver avoids it when pedestrian decides to jump onto the road when the traffic light is green for cars and the road ahead is clear?

Jack91 · 17-10-2008, 06:20 PM

Ive seen so many of these close calls before its not funny. Some pedestrians are just tools. It only takes a minute, if that, to press the button and wait for another green man.

Keepleft · 17-10-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barthez

Scenario:

Driver stopped at traffic lights driving a small car (ie suzuki swift) with blocked vision to the right by a landcruiser...The light turns green and the swift takes off from the lights in a safe manner.....A pedestrian runs out from the right hand side illegally and is hit by the swift...

Who is at fault??

Lol, 'loaded' question. (safe manner & illegally).

PoMmYwOG · 17-10-2008, 07:03 PM

should see how fun it is driving in sydney cbd, you have pedestrians jumping on the road on every intersection regrdless of light colour. One woman even had the nerve to have a go at me when i beeped at her cos she decided to walk out infront of me when i was crossing the intersection on full greens(lights green for at least 30 secs)...she should be thankful i was driving slow (as im aware they do this) and didnt hit her...stupid people....do they really want to run the risk of being hit by 1700kgs...

atec77 · 17-10-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barthez

Scenario:

Driver stopped at traffic lights driving a small car (ie suzuki swift) with blocked vision to the right by a landcruiser...The light turns green and the swift takes off from the lights in a safe manner.....A pedestrian runs out from the right hand side illegally and is hit by the swift...

Who is at fault??

I assume it was a legal marked crossing ?
the pedestrian is breaking the law crossing against the lights and so should be fined for j-walking , the driver might be chastised but should not suffer any legal ramifications and may claim for a new screen. The law states to my understanding a pedestrian must yield and wait until traffic stops before preceding on a controlled xing

Teflon Turbo · 17-10-2008, 09:03 PM

trafficlaw.com.au - sean hardy best in the business, never believe cops as they have no clue and this has been proven time and time again in court with regards to traffic law. Also people's own worst enemy is themselves by providing Police prosecutors with evidence straight out their own moufs.

There is a forum there and I know people that have used him successfully.

Free advice via forum.

chris

4Vman · 17-10-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRT069

trafficlaw.com.au - sean hardy best in the business, never believe cops as they have no clue and this has been proven time and time again in court with regards to traffic law. Also people's own worst enemy is themselves by providing Police prosecutors with evidence straight out their own moufs.

There is a forum there and I know people that have used him successfully.

Free advice via forum.

chris

What a load of garbage....

:

Yellow_Festiva · 17-10-2008, 11:05 PM

Don't know why people are saying that the driver is in the wrong.. seems clear...

I would say that the walker is in the wrong. Similar sutuation happened to me where I almost hit a walker at speed and would hate to think that if I was following the road rules, and some walker was breaking the rules that I would need to accomodate their stupidity, and pay for it if they decided to have an intimate encounter with my car...

geckoGT · 17-10-2008, 11:28 PM

The issue of driving off safely makes it very grey, could be argued that having vision obscured by another vehicle makes driving off safely impossible. Big grey area.

My call is who ever has the best lawer.

joolz · 17-10-2008, 11:47 PM

As i have hit a pedestrian in Geelong almost 8 Years ago which was almost the same scenario but along a main arterial and it wasnt an intersection. To put it straight the boy was jay walking (running) and i didnt see him as i had a truck on my right which braked to miss him but for me it was too late. In your case the pedestrian would have been crossing against a red so they would be in the wrong. But is able to sue as there was an intersection and pedestrian crossing built there. I know it sounds crazy but i was handed a writ even though i did nothing wrong at all. I was represented by TAC and didnt have to front court. The boy is scarred for life and paid dearly for his split second wrong descision. The bottom line if the collision was unavoidable and the pedestrian was J walking you have nothing to worry about.

barthez · 18-10-2008, 12:03 AM

police said they will not investigate it as it was only a "minor accident"......the pedestrian made some stupid story up to his parents and they are not willing to cover the costs of their stupid kids actions..........gotta cop it on the chin..........

just as well its only a windscreen and nothing more

Rob's 76 Effy · 18-10-2008, 06:36 AM

I'd sent them the bill anyway,

Buzz Box · 18-10-2008, 09:26 AM

You could TRY a civil case in small claims court etc

Redrum · 18-10-2008, 09:29 AM

If the pedestrian has crossed the road against a red man, then he/she is at fault. A pedestrian does not always have right of way. Though at an intersection with no control signals traffic generally has to give way to pedestrians crossing the road.

Teflon Turbo · 18-10-2008, 02:37 PM

the lawyer from the forum said the pedestrian is wrong.

4vman what's a load of rubbish? the copper statement or the trafficlaw forum?

geckoGT · 18-10-2008, 02:49 PM

[QUOTE=XRT069]the lawyer from the forum said the pedestrian is wrong.

QUOTE]

Maybe so but another lawer might be able to argue the case the other way.

You may be able to argue that the driver of the swift is negligent as they have a responsibility to ony proceed on the green light when it safe to do so. The Landcruiser was blocking view, the pedestrian was not seen and a collision occured as the swift proceeded without it being safe. The swift drivers defence initially was that the pedestrian was not seen but this statement is what makes defending an accusation of negligence hard to defend because the simple question would be "if you could not ensure to your right was clear, why did you proceed?"

I am not saying this is all there is to it and that this is the end answer, just that it is not clear cut and there is more to consider when it comes to law.

This is probably evidenced by the fact that the cops do not want to touch it.

4Vman · 18-10-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRT069

4vman what's a load of rubbish? the copper statement or the trafficlaw forum?

Your apparent attitude towards Police as well as the need to "work" the legal system to get off on technicalities....