Who is at fault here? And what can be learnt?

[glasgowcyclist]

What the drive had a clear view of, none of us knows. We're all looking at it from an elevated vantage point which is drastically different to that from street level. Pedestrian was, I feel, masked by the black car and possibly the driver's A-pillar as she darted across.

Thoroughly reckless behaviour by the pedestrian.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossings-18-to-30

Agreed, but for the crossings to work then the peds have to abide by the rules.

Shaun

The only "Must" rule that applies is Highway Code Rule 195. The driver ignored it, the driver's at fault.

 

[mr messy]

Silver car wasn't stopping no matter if peds were visible at crossing or not. All too common an occurrence at non traffic light crossings. Lost count number of times i've been in middle of a crossing and traffic still doesn't stop! Ped also puts themselves in danger by not looking/relying on cars to stop

 

[ukbabz]

I'd suspect the driver was looking at the left hand side of the road as approaching the crossing as that kid was walking close to the curb.

I'd put this one heavily on the pedestrian for running in front of a car. Regardless of a crossing where cars should yield, it's not a guarantee. I'm not even sure the ped looked as they crossed (hard to tell with the video res).

 

[cd365]

To me this is the ped's fault, they saw the car, started to run, saw they were running into the car and didn't stop.
Maybe the car driver should have guessed that the ped was an idiot and would start to leg it onto the crossing and if they could do that they can give me tomorrow night's lottery number.

 

[Arjimlad]

That is the one circumstance when I would welcome an un-insured driver. "Insurance? What's insurance? Sorry but you just deliberately got hit by my car and you're going to get F all compensation; goodbye!".

That's not how it works. If the driver was uninsured there's an agreement with the motor insurance industry to pay third party claims. If the car is insured by someone but the driver wasn't covered, that particular insurer steps up to the plate.

I acted on one claim where a chap took off in his GF's car without being named on her insurance (he was a banned driver) and ran his brother over with it. The GF's insurer had to cough up when the brother made a claim.

Of course the uninsured driver is still liable to be prosecuted.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

My initial view was it was the pedestrians fault for running across the crossing without looking properly, but after watching it several times my view has changed. Although initially the pedestrian would have been obscured by the other car, there was several seconds where they were in view of the driver. It does seem that he/she seems to accelerate just as they approach the crossing, which seems to intimate that even had somebody been walking across they would not of stopped. I was also amazed at his/her reaction after the incident, I think if that was me I would not of moved the car & be out of the door in a split second to ensure the person was okay, I would not have found somewhere safe to park & then walked back as that seems to be what happened. The end result is that I think the pedestrian was very stupid, but I don't think the driver is clear of blame.

 

[Arjimlad]

I was thinking that the Golf seemed to speed up. I don't think the driver was paying proper attention to the pavements surrounding the crossing but I also think it was stupid of the pedestrian to sprint across like that.

A court would have to assess contributory negligence of the pedestrian.