If this happened in Ireland, whose fault would it be?

CiniO

Situation like on the video.
Pedestrian runs the red light.
Car travels at speed. He runs the early amber light, but that's in line with the law, as it wouldn't be safe (or possible) for him to stop.
Speed limit in this place is 70km/h.
Car takes evasive action to avoid hitting a pedestrian, and eventually ends up destroying his car. No one injured.

If thing like that happened in Ireland - whose fault would it be, and who should pay for damage to the vehicle?

Two video which show action from two different views points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD0FSyKGtks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEFd2cqhpss

Aka Ishur

Drivers fault with a little negligence with pedestrian. Obviously going too fast for the conditions in what is a built up area. I would liken those lights to newlands cross.

mfergus

CiniO wrote: »

Situation like on the video.
Pedestrian runs the red light.
Car travels at speed. He runs the early amber light, but that's in line with the law, as it wouldn't be safe (or possible) for him to stop.
Speed limit in this place is 70km/h.
Car takes action to avoid hitting a pedestrian, and eventually ends up destroying his car. No one injured.

If thing like that happened in Ireland - whose fault would it be, and who should pay for damage to the vehicle?

Two video which show action from two different views points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD0FSyKGtks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEFd2cqhpss

That car was going way too fast taking into account the weather, the traffic and the fact that it was a built up area that was likely to have pedestrians

Crasp

pedestrian rules according to road traffic act as per Irish statute book:

Use of zebra crossings

38.—(1) On a roadway on which a zebra crossing has been provided a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 50 feet of the crossing except by the crossing.

(2) When a vehicle is approaching a zebra crossing a pedestrian shall not step on to that crossing if his action is likely to cause the driver either to brake suddenly or to swerve.




car was doing well over 70
in the wet
approaching lights/pedestrian crossing

muppet.

visual

In my opinion pedestrian forsed the driver to take evasive action that resulted in crash.

Come insurance settlement time the driver will shoulder all the costs.

Pedestrian will walk free

Everyone will have a different opinion but if you swapped pedestrian for a car the same logic and conclusion should apply.

Noccy_Mondy

The fella in the car was going waaay too fast, so he was at fault in a way (I'm sure he was over the speed limit), but the pedestrian was also too. She dashed right across, despite the fact the the man hadn't turned green. Just because the near lane was stopped, she must have assumed that everything was hunky dory to cross. You can even see other pedestrians waiting to cross.

Edit: Jesus Christ CiniO, you're some man for starting the controversial threads, I'll give you that :pac:

CiniO

Crasp wrote: »

pedestrian rules according to road traffic act as per Irish statute book:

Use of zebra crossings

38.—(1) On a roadway on which a zebra crossing has been provided a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 50 feet of the crossing except by the crossing.

(2) When a vehicle is approaching a zebra crossing a pedestrian shall not step on to that crossing if his action is likely to cause the driver either to brake suddenly or to swerve.




car was doing well over 70
in the wet
approaching lights/pedestrian crossing

muppet.

Hence that zebra crossings in Ireland are not controlled by "traffic lights".
In this case you should really treat this crossing, as traffic lights controlled pedestrian crossing.

Aka Ishur

We all know that the pedestrian forced the driver to take evasive action, however take the cause a step further and you would see that evasive action would have been safer if the driver had driven taking weather and built up area into account and just slowed down.

CiniO

Noccy_Mondy wrote: »

The fella in the car was going waaay too fast, so he was at fault in a way (I'm sure he was over the speed limit), but the pedestrian was also too. She dashed right across, despite the fact the the man hadn't turned green. Just because the near lane was stopped, she must have assumed that everything was hunky dory to cross. You can even see other pedestrians waiting to cross.

Other pedestrians still wait to cross, as it's red light for them.
The pedestrians that run early did on red light, which didn't change to green for another 10 seconds.

Bongalongherb

The pedestrian was a complete idiot for risking her life by running across the road, but the driver was speeding without due care in wet conditions like that, no way should the driver be driving that fast coming up to lights.

Both were at fault, and luckily the pedestrian was not killed instantly. Wet...slow the fcuk down especially at a pedestrian crossing.

K.Flyer

Red car driver deserves everything he got. With his car totalled, it keeps that inconsiderate gobsh!te off the road for a while and other road users will be safer.
In the second video compare his speed with the other cars, he is lucky he didn't kill that pedestrian stone dead, what an absolute tool.
In answer to your question, I imagine a judge would laugh red car driver out of the court if he tried to seek compensation.

ardle1

The rain was going too red for the fast had she even crashed wet road a green light! hiccup...... speed kills!!

djimi

Are you asking who is at fault, or who will shoulder the blame? Because it will be two different answers. Pedestrian was at fault for walking out in the middle of traffic, however pedestrians are not held responsible for their actions, and it would be the cars insurance that would pay out for the damage caused.

The car is travelling too fast also.

bear1

ardle1 wrote: »

The rain was going too red for the fast had she even crashed wet road a green light! hiccup...... speed kills!!

what?

The driver would be at fault here. It may be 70 (I doubt that tbh as the junction would be 50) but I'd put his speed closer to 100.
The way the car gets out of control so quickly is testament to the persons stupid speed.
If he were going 50 or even 70 I don't think it would have been so bad.
Besides, the pedestrian could easily just run away so what are you going to do then?

Cabaal

Driver isn't driving a a suitable speed for the conditions,

corktina

it's what Insurance is for.

Completely the pedestrians fault in my opinion, regardless of the drivers speed

If the laws of the land were fair the pedestrian would be paying to fix the car, unfortunately cyclists and pedestrians get special treatment and its always the car driver who has to pay regardless of fault.

ryan101

Amelia Yellow Group wrote: »

Completely the pedestrians fault in my opinion, regardless of the drivers speed

You cannot ever disregard the speed a car is being driven at in any 'accident', if he was doing 60 kph there would have been a different outcome.
That's the whole point of speed limits on public roads, reaction time and ability to lessen any event, whether the initial event is the drivers fault or not.
A good driver will drive at a speed where they can safely deal with, and evade most accidents, or at least lessen their affects, no matter whose fault they initially are. It was a built up area, and it could just have easily been a child running after a ball.
Not drivers initial fault does not = no speed limit applicable to the driver.

corktina

It can't be completely the pedestrians fault. She might be a visitor from a country district who isn't used to crossing main roads and made a mistake. The speed of the car is clearly excessive and the driver will reap the consequences. As I said, it's what Insurance is for

MarkR

Amelia Yellow Group wrote: »

Completely the pedestrians fault in my opinion, regardless of the drivers speed

If the laws of the land were fair the pedestrian would be paying to fix the car, unfortunately cyclists and pedestrians get special treatment and its always the car driver who has to pay regardless of fault.

Why would we disregard the drivers speed? It was a factor in the accident.

keithclancy

The person driving the car obviously.

Pedestrians never have liability in Ireland ... EVER.

NewApproach

Quite cleary the driver's fault. I was taught to always expect the unexpected.

Caliden

If the driver was going 60kmh he still wouldn't have seen the pedestrian until the last second and may still have ended up in a wreck.
That being said, he wouldn't have been near the junction going a slower speed. The pedestrian misjudged the car's speed and ran out in front of it after an initial glance (head down and ran for it).

They appeared from behind stationary traffic and the driver did well to avoid them (and the other pedestrians on the opposite side of the road).

Even at a slower speed the driver could not have stopped in time and would need to take evasive action.


At the end of the day, the driver was at fault but that pedestrian is an utter idiot and I wish there was recourse/punishment for people like them.

NewApproach wrote: »

Quite cleary the driver's fault. I was taught to always expect the unexpected.

Yea but seriously, who expects someone to run out in front of you when the lights have just gone amber?
Nobody would get anywhere if we drove around expecting pedestrians to be running across the road at every turn.

DuckSlice

NewApproach wrote: »

Quite cleary the driver's fault. I was taught to always expect the unexpected.

If you expect the unexpected then it is expected. You are just guessing what speed he is going. It will be perceived to be faster as the other cars are stationary.

Pedestrian caused the accident, if the pedestrian wasn't there the accident wouldn't have happened.

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

If you expect the unexpected then it is expected. You are just guessing what speed he is going. It will be perceived to be faster as the other cars are stationary.

Pedestrian caused the accident, if the pedestrian wasn't there the accident wouldn't have happened.

What was his stopping distance ?
What's the stopping distance in the wet at 100 kph ?
What speed should you approach pedestrian traffic lights in a urban area on a soaking wet dull day ?
What happens if a child had stepped out ?

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

What's the stopping distance in the wet at 100 kph ?

That is irrelevant, stopping distance will increase when the car is spinning as the wheels will not be rolling and less friction.

He might have been speeding I can't say for sure what I do know is that the pedestrian child or not should not be there! That is fact his speed is not

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

That is irrelevant, stopping distance will increase when the car is spinning as the wheels will not be rolling and less friction.

He might have been speeding I can't say for sure what I do know is that the pedestrian child or not should not be there! That is fact his speed is not

Do you not know how much it is ?
How can you say stopping distance approaching the pedestrian lights in the wet is irrelevant ?
It's not a closed personal race track or play station game
What if a child stepped out ?

enda1

100% driver's fault

Caliden

A strawman enters the scene

ryan101

Caliden wrote: »

Yea but seriously, who expects someone to run out in front of you when the lights have just gone amber?
Nobody would get anywhere if we drove around expecting pedestrians to be running across the road at every turn.

That's the exact reason for lower speed limits in urban areas, children, pets, old people, junctions you name it.
What can go wrong, will eventually go wrong.
The concept of stopping distance in the wet seems to be lost on some people.

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

Do you not know how much it is ?
How can you say stopping distance approaching the pedestrian lights in the wet is irrelevant ?
It's not a closed personal race track or play station game
What if a child stepped out ?

I have no idea what his stopping distance is in the wet. I'm not saying it is a race track all I'm saying is the pedestrian should not be there. The pedestrian caused the accident. We don't know his speed. You are presuming it's 100kp/h. I'm not saying i condone the way he was driving, I myself never trust a green light so would be cautious. The op asked who is at fault.

Answer this. If the pedestrian did not run out would there have been an accident?
Now u will probably answer with if he wasn't speeding would it happen? Bit the root cause of the accident is the pedestrian whatever way you look at it.

Caliden

ryan101 wrote: »

That's the exact reason for lower speed limits in urban areas, children, pets, old people, junctions you name it.
What can go wrong, will eventually go wrong.
The concept of stopping distance in the wet seems to be lost on some people.

Ok, let's say they're not going the speed in the video but they enter the frame in the first video going 60kmh.

Stopping distance in the wet is 55metres. She's definitely a lot closer than that so even at 60kmh she's getting hit.

http://www.police.act.gov.au/roads-and-traffic/speeding/stopping-distances-explained.aspx

ryan101

Caliden wrote: »

Ok, let's say they're not going the speed in the video but they enter the frame in the first video going 60kmh.

Stopping distance in the wet is 55metres. She's definitely a lot closer than that so even at 60kmh she's getting hit.

When his car enters the frame his brake lights are already on.
And how many meters would you say it took him to get stopped ?

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

When his car enters the frame his brake lights are already on.
And how many meters would you say it took him to get stopped ?

His brake lights are on but he only about 20 metres away when he comes into shot.

Caliden

ryan101 wrote: »

When his car enters the frame his brake lights are already on.
And how many meters would you say it took him to get stopped ?

His brake lights weren't on when he entered the frame, look again.
If he tried braking, the pedestrian was hit 100%. Instead he took evasive action and applied his brakes while counter steering.

What I'm saying is, if he was going 60kmh (for example) and just applied his brakes (no evasive action) he would've hit the pedestrian.

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

His brake lights are on but he only about 20 metres away when he comes into shot.

How many meters would you say it took him to get stopped overall ?

What speed should you approach pedestrian traffic lights at on a wet day ?

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

How many meters would you say it took him to get stopped overall ?

What speed should you approach pedestrian traffic lights at on a wet day ?

Answer my previous question and I will answer yours.

If the pedestrian had not run out would there have been an accident? Yes or no?

K.Flyer

Caliden wrote: »

Stopping distance in the wet is 55metres. She's definitely a lot closer than that so even at 60kmh she's getting hit.

http://www.police.act.gov.au/roads-and-traffic/speeding/stopping-distances-explained.aspx

When you look carefully at the second vid it is obvious that he is speeding, especially compared to other drivers.
Agreed, when a car goes into a slide the "stopping" distance increases dramatically due to less traction.
However, had he been going slower, theoretically there would then have been a greater distance between the driver and the pedestrian, in turn allowing for a longer and quite possibly safer stopping distance.

corktina

It was tipping rain, the pedestrian saw the vehicles stop in the lane closest and thought it was OK to go, running because of the rain. She made a bit of an error in judgement but that car was lifting and bears the bulk of the responsibility in my eyes.

Caliden

Never disputed he was going to fast, see my earlier reply.

What I'm disputing is how can a driver realistically expect a pedestrian to run across the road when the lights have just turned amber?

'Expect the unexpected' applies to something that could be there, not a pedestrian sprinting across the road in front of you while you still have right of way.

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

Answer my previous question and I will answer yours.

If the pedestrian had not run out would there have been an accident? Yes or no?

No, but other road users make mistakes all the time, that's why you have to drive at a safe speed.
The courts could easily convict both of them.
The driver, who is partially protected in a one ton steel cage lined with airbags, that is capable of 100+ mph has a greater duty of care to others.
Now perhaps you'll answer.

corktina

Caliden wrote: »

Never disputed he was going to fast, see my earlier reply.

What I'm disputing is how can a driver realistically expect a pedestrian to run across the road when the lights have just turned amber?

'Expect the unexpected' applies to something that could be there, not a pedestrian sprinting across the road in front of you while you still have right of way.

Well you should expect something like that to happen, that's why you don't drive at speeds like that in conditions and areas like that. You should expect to have to stop at the lights and drive accordingly.

mickdw

Pedestrians actions directly caused the crash but yes driver was obviously not driving to the conditions.
Regardless, that pedestrian should be thanking their lucky stars that the driver had a bit of car control because imo, ALOT of drivers in that same situation even driving much more slowly would have hit and killed them. Driver appeared to avoid people waiting to cross at the other end of the junction as well. In that situation, a car wreck with no injuries is a fantastic outcome.

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

No, but other road users make mistakes all the time, that's why you have to drive at a safe speed.
The courts could easily convict both of them.
Now perhaps you'll answer.

So the cause if the accident was the pedestrian! They are at fault for the accident, who gets the blame is a different story.

I'd say it took him less than 100 metres to stop. But if he had to stop in a straight line probably less. The loss of traction increases the stopping distance.

On a wet day I would approach traffic lights at 10 below the speed limit And be prepared to slow down if they change.

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

So the cause if the accident was the pedestrian! They are at fault for the accident, who gets the blame is a different story.

I'd say it took him less than 100 metres to stop. But if he had to stop in a straight line probably less. The loss of traction increases the stopping distance.

On a wet day I would approach traffic lights at 10 below the speed limit And be prepared to slow down if they change.

The initial cause yes, entirely exacerbated by his dangerous driving.
Kids can run out in front of cars all the time, so it's no excuse if you're driving dangerously.

DuckSlice

ryan101 wrote: »

The initial cause yes, entirely exacerbated by his dangerous driving.
Kids can run out in front of cars all the time, so it's no excuse if you're driving dangerously.

It doesn't matter, the pedestrian caused the accident. The magnitude of the accident was caused by his speed or lack of being able to stop. I'm out of here!

ryan101

etxp wrote: »

It doesn't matter, the pedestrian caused the accident. The magnitude of the accident was caused by his speed or lack of being able to stop. I'm out of here!

It does matter, other people will always make mistakes, you can't drive in urban areas at that speed, especially in the wet, for very good reason.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

As I said, it's what Insurance is for

So the driver is punished with increased premiums because of a gobshi*e of a pedestrian. The pedestrian should be forking out at least some money towards the accident they caused.

corktina wrote: »

She made a bit of an error in judgement but that car was lifting and bears the bulk of the responsibility in my eyes.

The error of judgment caused the accident, if she didn't make that error then we would no be discussing this as there would have been no crash.

If you replace the pedestrian with another car then its the other cars fault all day long, pedestrians should not get special treatment and should be found at fault for accidents they cause and made to pay up.

I'm sick and tired of the special treatment given in particular to cyclists as they are actually driving a vehicle but also pedestrians who think they can just walk out in front of you and expect you to stop.

ryan101

Amelia Yellow Group wrote: »

So the driver is punished with increased premiums because of a gobshi*e of a pedestrian. The pedestrian should be forking out at least some money towards the accident they caused.



The error of judgment caused the accident, if she didn't make that error then we would no be discussing this as there would have been no crash.

If you replace the pedestrian with another car then its the other cars fault all day long, pedestrians should not get special treatment and should be found at fault for accidents they cause and made to pay up.

I'm sick and tired of the special treatment given in particular to cyclists as they are actually driving a vehicle but also pedestrians who think they can just walk out in front of you and expect you to stop.

The pedestrian was wrong, but the damage was caused by the drivers dangerous driving speed, dangerous in the dry, never mind in the wet.
If you can't achieve a safe stopping distance in the event of an accident or unforeseen eventuality, for the public area you're driving in, you're driving dangerously, end of story.

celica00

I would love to know how that actually ended and whos fault it was.
Driver seems way too fast!

I'd call it half and half