Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17-10-2008, 04:42 PM   #1
barthez
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 374
Default Who is at fault? Pedestrian or driver?

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??

barthez is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 04:47 PM   #2
68XTFairmont
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Simms metal recieving yard SA
Posts: 276
Default

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.
68XTFairmont is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 04:48 PM   #3
2002xr6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: somerville
Posts: 91
Default

wouldnt be any damageto car or person if it took off in a safe manner
__________________
2002 ba xr6, manual, leather, premium sound, 19" ANZ Tazers - sold

2010 xr50 turbo manual with the works!
2002xr6 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:03 PM   #4
irlewy86
Meep Meep
 
irlewy86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southside
Posts: 1,513
Default

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.
__________________
Thundering on....
irlewy86 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:05 PM   #5
barthez
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 374
Default

person no damage, but person jumped onto bonnet and landed on windscreen causing damage to windscreen......
barthez is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:06 PM   #6
Busted
Regular Member
 
Busted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 259
Default

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.
Busted is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:08 PM   #7
68XTFairmont
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Simms metal recieving yard SA
Posts: 276
Default

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
68XTFairmont is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:12 PM   #8
4Vman
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
4Vman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,654
Default

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



__________________
335 S/C GT: The new KING of Australian made performance cars..
4Vman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:13 PM   #9
bob^
LPS
 
bob^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Geelong
Posts: 1,601
Default

No one looks left and right when they leave a set of traffic lights?
bob^ is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:19 PM   #10
Jason[98.EL]
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Jason[98.EL]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: GEELONG
Posts: 7,946
Default

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
__________________
no longer have a ford but a ford man at heart
R.I.P 98 EL MAY YOU HAVE A GOOD LIFE IN FALCON HEAVEN

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Jason[98.EL] is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:19 PM   #11
barthez
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 374
Default

been informed by a police officer that the pedestrian is in the wrong......
barthez is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:22 PM   #12
300C-CRD
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 138
Default

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?
300C-CRD is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 05:55 PM   #13
uranium_death
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
uranium_death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gren A Waverrey
Posts: 2,434
Default

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).
__________________
Practicing - Sleeping with a guitar in your hand counts, as long as you don't drop it.

Don't snap my undies.
uranium_death is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 06:20 PM   #14
Jack91
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Jack91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ballarat
Posts: 2,140
Default

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.
Jack91 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 06:33 PM   #15
Keepleft
Mot Adv-NSW
 
Keepleft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW
Posts: 2,153
Default

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).
__________________
ORDER FORD AUSTRALIA PART NO: AM6U7J19G329AA. This is a European-UN/AS3790B Spec safety-warning triangle used to give advanced warning to approaching traffic of a vehicle breakdown, or crash scene (to prevent secondary). Stow in the boot area. See your Ford dealer for this $35.95 safety item & when you buy a new Ford, please insist on it! See Page 83, part 4.4.1 http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/media...eSafePart4.pdf
Keepleft is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 07:03 PM   #16
PoMmYwOG
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 287
Default

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...
__________________
10' FG XT in Edge (Company Car)
6Spd ZF!!


06' Mazda SP23
5spd auto
Luxury pack
PoMmYwOG is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 07:38 PM   #17
atec77
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,568
Default

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
atec77 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 09:03 PM   #18
Teflon Turbo
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 963
Default

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
Teflon Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 10:07 PM   #19
4Vman
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
4Vman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 14,654
Default

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.... :



__________________
335 S/C GT: The new KING of Australian made performance cars..
4Vman is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 11:05 PM   #20
Yellow_Festiva
Where to next??
 
Yellow_Festiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,893
Default

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...
Yellow_Festiva is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 11:28 PM   #21
geckoGT
Ich bin ein auslander
 
geckoGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always level headed and i notice him being the voice of reason when a thread may be getting heated 
Default

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.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

Last edited by geckoGT; 17-10-2008 at 11:35 PM.
geckoGT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-10-2008, 11:47 PM   #22
joolz
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,119
Default

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.
joolz is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 12:03 AM   #23
barthez
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 374
Default

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
barthez is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 06:36 AM   #24
Rob's 76 Effy
Lion Tammer
 
Rob's 76 Effy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 341
Default

I'd sent them the bill anyway,
Rob's 76 Effy is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 09:13 AM   #25
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

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.
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 09:26 AM   #26
Buzz Box
Wheel Wally
 
Buzz Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ballarat
Posts: 883
Default

You could TRY a civil case in small claims court etc
Buzz Box is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 09:29 AM   #27
Redrum
Force Fed Fords
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Victoria
Posts: 5,556
Default

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.
__________________
2021 Focus ST-3 Mountune Enhanced
Redrum is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 02:37 PM   #28
Teflon Turbo
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 963
Default

the lawyer from the forum said the pedestrian is wrong.

4vman what's a load of rubbish? the copper statement or the trafficlaw forum?
Teflon Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 02:49 PM   #29
geckoGT
Ich bin ein auslander
 
geckoGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Loving the Endorphine Machine
Posts: 7,453
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always level headed and i notice him being the voice of reason when a thread may be getting heated 
Default

[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.
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
geckoGT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-10-2008, 02:54 PM   #30
Teflon Turbo
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 963
Default

could be right there too, ah well, stuff em!
Teflon Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL