Pedestrain hit by car

[green_and_mean]

You may say it was an accident, but you are entitled to claim. It wasn't your fault..

 

Which is why the Police no longer use the term RTA road traffic accident and instead use the term RTC road traffic collision, its very rare that a collision is just bad luck someone is usually to blame.

[JoeyJoeC]

To clarify, did the car turn on to the road you were crossing? If so, did you have a foot in the road before the car entered the road?

 

If a car is turning on to another road, and a pedestrian is crossing, the car by law has to wait for the pedestrian to reach the other side before continuing. Otherwise the pedestrian would be in the wrong.

 

The police said the car was not speeding, so unless it entered from another road, you would be in the wrong for crossing at either a bad place where you're not able to see clearly, or you didn't look.

 

Insurance won't pay out unless it is the drivers fault. Car insurance is there to protect the driver only if they are not at fault.

[Desperate Daniella]

Post 5 explains that she did look, there is bend at the top of the road and that she could not see all the way to the top.

 

It has already been accepted that the driver did not see her, or brake, because of the reflection of the sun on the wet road.

 

What you appear to be saying is that if car comes round a bend on to a road that you started crossing when it was clear then you will be at fault?

[JoeyJoeC]

So she crossed where she couldn't see clearly if a car was coming or not?

 

Especially if the car wasn't speeding, she put her self and kid in danger by crossing the road where a car could easily hit her, and it did.

[Desperate Daniella]

She could that there wasn't one in her sight line when she started to cross the road. If a car comes round a bend when you are crossing the road you can hardly expect to see it before it comes round the bend unless you can see round corners.

 

The main point is that the driver could not see where he was going because he was blinded by the reflection of the sun on a wet road. It doesn't really matter whether or not he was speeding, he couldn't see where he was going or what was in front of him. Most people would slow down if they couldn't see the road ahead of them but he didn't.

[JoeyJoeC]

I'm not saying the driver was at fault, I'm saying both were at fault.

 

She shouldn't have crossed next to a blind bend, and the car should have been able to stop.

 

Roads are for cars, pedestrians are allowed to cross certain roads, as long as it doesn't put any one in danger. She decided to cross because she couldn't see a car, even though a car could be (and was) coming around the corner, thus putting herself and the child in danger.

 

You're really only looking at one side of this. If I decided to cross the M25 before I could see a car, and a car was coming along, I don't expect the car to stop for me.

[Desperate Daniella]

It wasn't "next to" a blind bend.

 

We are not talking about the M25. There are thousands of roads in small towns and villages throughout the UK which are winding roads. Pedestrians have to cross them. When I was learning to drive I was always told to be prepared to stop if I was driving around a bend. If I wouldn't be able to stop I was driving too fast - even where there wasn't a 30 mile speed limit. Consequently I have never ploughed into a horse or a flock of sheep in the middle of the road when I came round the bends because I wasn't driving too fast and I could stop on time.

 

Yes, he should have been able to stop but he didn't stop because he couldn't see her, and he couldn't see her because he was blinded by the reflection. Therefore he should have slowed right down until he could see, not just continued to drive blindly.

 

It is not a question of looking at one side of it. Common sense should have told him to slow right down as soon as he couldn't see.

[JoeyJoeC]

Yes, he should have slowed down due to being "blinded" by the sun reflecting off water on the road... but she still walked into the path of an oncoming car. Doesn't matter if she could see it or not. She didn't judge it correctly. Should have walked further down the road where she could have seen clearly. Sorry, but it should occur to someone to think whether a car could come before you finish crossing, not "Oh there's a bend there, any car that comes around it should stop for me to allow me to reach the other side".

[Desperate Daniella]

If you read what she said, it is the "natural" place to cross, and she didn't walk into the path of an oncoming car. There was no oncoming car when she started to cross.

 

I am sure she and others have crossed there countless times and if a car came round the bend it slowed down.

 

Just for your information, I live on a road where we have a 20 mph speed limit but despite this cars frequently race up it at 40-50 mph. The slight bend in the road is about 75 yards away and I can't see beyond that. If I follow your logic and start to cross the road 75 yards from the bend and I get mown down that is entirely my fault???? And 75 yards is the midpoint of the road so the very safest place to cross.

 

We do not know exactly where this accident happened and cannot comment on whether or not there is a safer place to cross.

[JoeyJoeC]

Just for your information, I live on a road where we have a 20 mph speed limit but despite this cars frequently race up it at 40-50 mph. The slight bend in the road is about 75 yards away and I can't see beyond that. If I follow your logic and start to cross the road 75 yards from the bend and I get mown down that is entirely my fault???? And 75 yards is the midpoint of the road so the very safest place to cross.

 

This has nothing to do with speeding. Where did that even come from?!

 

There is no special (eg traffic lights) crossing area but where i crossed would be the natural crossing area (if that makes sense? Where the curb drops and leads straight onto the path forward.

The highway code says nothing about "Natural crossing areas". She assumed she could cross there.

 

She also said the car hit the pushchair and sent it 15ft on the other side of the road. She must have been near the middle of the road when the car hit.

 

It's a double edged sword, she said the car should have seen her in the time and had plently of time to slow down, she MUST have had plenty of time ALSO to see the car and get out of the way.

 

THUS why the police said it was an "accident". Both at fault.

 

I highly doubt insurance would pay out anything for this.

[JoeyJoeC]

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossing-the-road-7-to-17

 

A. First find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it. It is safer to cross using a subway, a footbridge, an island, a zebra, pelican, toucan or puffin crossing, or where there is a crossing point controlled by a police officer, a school crossing patrol or a traffic warden. Otherwise choose a place where you can see clearly in all directions. Try to avoid crossing between parked cars (see Rule 14), on a blind bend, or close to the brow of a hill. Move to a space where drivers and riders can see you clearly. Do not cross the road diagonally.

 

C. Look all around for traffic and listen. Traffic could come from any direction. Listen as well, because you can sometimes hear traffic before you see it.

D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

E. When it is safe, go straight across the road – do not run. Keep looking and listening for traffic while you cross, in case there is any traffic you did not see, or in case other traffic appears suddenly. Look out for cyclists and motorcyclists travelling between lanes of traffic. Do not walk diagonally across the road.

 

Driver should have been able to stop.

 

Pedestrian should have paid more attention.