Accident at roundabout

P_Fitz

Hi, i was out running last night and came up to a roundabout, there was a car driving in the same direction up to the roundabout too. I looked at the car and it wasn't indicating left so i presumed he was going straight on so i crossed the road. Yes, you guessed it, he did turn left and hit me and i ended up in A&E. I've to pay €100 for staying the night in hospital, would i be entitled to have it paid by the driver (or his insurance). He spoke to a Garda and said he didn't know whether or not he had indicated. Thanks.

MarkAnthony

Speak to a solicitor or go through the PIAB process yourself. While the guards will probably pass on the guy's insurance details and you guys might come to an agreement the insurer might advise the guy against it. I certainly wouldn't engage with you who know what this is going to turn into, generally; not a reflection on you personally.

While the situation is not ideal and the benefit of the doubt is usually given to the pedestrian (for my very limited experience) it sounds like there is contributory negligence, again in my very limited experience.

Feel better.

Zambia

Never trust motorists on roundabouts or even junctions. Indicators don't always work.

P. Breathnach

The use of indicators does not create a right of way; neither does the failure to use them mean that the driver does not have it. I think this is particularly true at roundabouts, because a driver has the right to exit the roundabout at any proper exit point.

I hope you were not badly hurt.

OldmanMondeo

As a driver I would guess the car is responsible, strange considering you ran out onto the to the road.

P_Fitz

I think I'll just pay the €100 and forget about it. I'd say the driver got enough of a fright.

MarkAnthony

It's simple hazard perception though. The driver should have been aware of the runner and alive to the possibility of him darting out in front. On exiting a roundabout you should be accelerating out of second, I've a fairly cheap car that's been involved in the same scenario and stopped on a dime.

The lack of indication and fact that the accident was so serious as to land the OP in hospital suggests a distracted driver.

Little CuChulainn

I must be missing this. You were both approaching the roundabout from the same direction? Surely he had to turn left? There's no other direction to go when entering a roundabout. And when you say you were crossing, do you mean cutting across the roundabout?

P_Fitz

The left turn refers to the first exit from the roundabout. He could have turned left (first exit), straight (second exit) or turned right (third exit).

I crossed the road at the first exit.

I hope that makes sense.

ABajaninCork

Zambia wrote: »

Never trust motorists on roundabouts or even junctions. Indicators don't always work.

Indicators aren't always used! A lot of drivers seem to think fellow drivers work by ESP...

Little CuChulainn

P_Fitz wrote: »

The left turn refers to the first exit from the roundabout. He could have turned left (first exit), straight (second exit) or turned right (third exit).

I crossed the road at the first exit.

I hope that makes sense.

Where there pedestrian lights?

Markcheese

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where there pedestrian lights?

Or a pedestrian fly-over or bridge ?

P_Fitz

There was no lights or bridge

listermint

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Where there pedestrian lights?

Drivers have to be aware of obstacles in front of them, So it is not fair to completely devolve them from blame.

I am a driver, I also hate indicators that are either broken or unused. it should be a points offence tbh.

Little CuChulainn

P_Fitz wrote: »

There was no lights or bridge

As far as I can see you were both wrong. You for running in front of a car and him for failing to indicate and hitting a pedestrian. I would think he'd be only too delighted to pay your €100 bill if that was the end of it.

schemingbohemia

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I can see you were both wrong. You for running in front of a car and him for failing to indicate and hitting a pedestrian. I would think he'd be only too delighted to pay your €100 bill if that was the end of it.

Both made mistakes but the Driver has a greater responsibility to vulnerable road users and would, if this went to court, be found much more responsible for the incident than the runner.

seamus

At every exit of a roundabout, pedestrians crossing the road have right of way. So if he was still on the roundabout when you started crossing, you had right of way.

MarkAnthony

seamus wrote: »

At every exit of a roundabout, pedestrians crossing the road have right of way. So if he was still on the roundabout when you started crossing, you had right of way.

Could I ask for a citation for this please? I don't doubt you for one second I'd just be curious where this is laid down.

degsie

seamus wrote: »

At every exit of a roundabout, pedestrians crossing the road have right of way. So if he was still on the roundabout when you started crossing, you had right of way.

That doesn't sound right. If that was the case, why do some roundabouts have marked pedestrian crossings while most don't?

Grolschevik

@MarkAnthony re Seamus' post above:

It's just that, if a pedestrian has started crossing a road, they have right of way before traffic turning onto that road (or, I believe, traffic some distance away).

So if the pedestrian has started crossing exit 1 of the roundabout before the motorist has turned in to exit 1, the pedestrian would have right of way.

But I don't think that's what happened here. It looks like both were moving faster than they should have been, and that neither anticipated accurately what the other might do, and neither gave any indication that they were going to do what they did.

TheQuietFella

The use of an indicator is only a curtsey to other road users & I too
get tired of the lack of use of them but to be fair, you ran out into traffic
not knowing where the driver had intended going!

You are lucky to be alive!

ezra_pound

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Indicators aren't always used! A lot of drivers seem to think fellow drivers work by ESP...

I hope that's not your attitude towards using indicators!

Why do some drivers think that indicators are for signaling to other DRIVERS? Indicators are for signaling to anyone be they driver or not, regardless of whether the driver can see them and are aware of their existence or not!

ABajaninCork

ezra_pound wrote: »

I hope that's not your attitude towards using indicators!

Why do some drivers think that indicators are for signaling to other DRIVERS? Indicators are for signaling to anyone be they driver or not, regardless of whether the driver can see them and are aware of their existence or not!

It isn't. And I don't. But then I never learned to drive here...

ezra_pound

Grolschevik wrote: »

@MarkAnthony re Seamus' post above:

It's just that, if a pedestrian has started crossing a road, they have right of way before traffic turning onto that road (or, I believe, traffic some distance away).

So if the pedestrian has started crossing exit 1 of the roundabout before the motorist has turned in to exit 1, the pedestrian would have right of way.

But I don't think that's what happened here. It looks like both were moving faster than they should have been, and that neither anticipated accurately what the other might do, and neither gave any indication that they were going to do what they did.

What indication is a pedestrian meant to make to show that he's going to cross the road? The chicken dance?

TheQuietFella

seamus wrote: »

At every exit of a roundabout, pedestrians crossing the road have right of way.

I would strongly disagree with this. I assume that it's the entry on to a roundabout there are pedestrian crossings where vehicles must stop.
You couldn't have vehicles stopping on the ring of the roundabout!
I know some idiots that do though!:mad::mad:

ezra_pound

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with this. I assume that it's the entry on to a roundabout there are pedestrian crossings where vehicles must stop.
You couldn't have vehicles stopping on the ring of the roundabout!
I know some idiots that do though!:mad::mad:

Well if it means not killing a pedestrian then I think you should stop.

MarkAnthony

ezra_pound wrote: »

What indication is a pedestrian meant to make to show that he's going to cross the road? The chicken dance?

A bit needlessly aggressive. The point was from a legal standpoint the runner didn't give the driver cause to believe he was going to take the action he did. While I don't agree with this assessment it's a perfectly valid one and presumably the one that would be put forward by defence counsel.

seamus

Every exit of a roundabout is the same as taking a left turn from one road to another.

As such, any pedestrians already crossing at that junction have right of way.

There's nothing actually wrong with people stopping on the roundabout with good reason, people do it all the time in heavy traffic.

moc moc a moc

TheQuietFella wrote: »

you ran out into traffic

Negative. He ran across a side road, onto which the car subsequently turned (without indication, no less).

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with this. I assume that it's the entry on to a roundabout there are pedestrian crossings where vehicles must stop

Your agreement or disagreement (and even worse, your assumptions) are irrelevant. The law states that a pedestrian crossing a road that is not currently in use by a vehicle has right of way over said vehicle.

ezra_pound

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A bit needlessly aggressive. The point was from a legal standpoint the runner didn't give the driver cause to believe he was going to take the action he did. While I don't agree with this assessment it's a perfectly valid one and presumably the one that would be put forward by defence counsel.

Well the runner, approached the road to cross it, looked to make sure that no cars were turning into the road he was going to cross, did the safe cross code, and crossed when he deemed it to be safe based on the indication of the driver.

MarkAnthony

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well the runner, approached the road to cross it, looked to make sure that no cars were turning into the road he was going to cross, did the safe cross code, and crossed when he deemed it to be safe based on the indication of the driver.

While we're both making assumptions, my assumption is that the runner did not stop and hence the contributory negligence. You assumption and post mortem are just as valid.

slimjimmc

ezra_pound wrote: »

What indication is a pedestrian meant to make to show that he's going to cross the road? The chicken dance?

The standard indication is for the pedestrian to stop and wait at the edge of the road then look right/left to see if the road is clear.

ezra_pound

Grolschevik wrote: »

@MarkAnthony re Seamus' post above:

It's just that, if a pedestrian has started crossing a road, they have right of way before traffic turning onto that road (or, I believe, traffic some distance away).

So if the pedestrian has started crossing exit 1 of the roundabout before the motorist has turned in to exit 1, the pedestrian would have right of way.

But I don't think that's what happened here. It looks like both were moving faster than they should have been, and that neither anticipated accurately what the other might do, and neither gave any indication that they were going to do what they did.

Pedestrians are not meant to indicate their intentions. Their actions can certainly be contributory if they're reckless, but they have no obligation to indicate intention.

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

The standard indication is for the pedestrian to stop and wait at the edge of the road then look right/left to see if the road is clear.

Exactly. That's what he did.

slimjimmc

ezra_pound wrote: »

Exactly. That's what he did.

I don't see where he says that in any of his posts, can you quote it?

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

I don't see where he says that in any of his posts, can you quote it?

He says that he checked the car and crossed based on its indication of intention of going straight ahead. In other words he waited until it was safe to cross.

Grolschevik

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well the runner, approached the road to cross it, looked to make sure that no cars were turning into the road he was going to cross, did the safe cross code, and crossed when he deemed it to be safe based on the indication of the driver.

Obviously not. You asked what he should have done? "Stop, look, listen", I believe it went back in the day.

At the very least he should have done that, not simply assume and run out.

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

The standard indication is for the pedestrian to stop and wait at the edge of the road then look right/left to see if the road is clear.

This isn't an indication though. It's the act of checking that it is safe to cross the road. You don't do this to ensure that cars know that you are going to criss, you do it so as not to recklessly fling yourself out in front of a car.

Grolschevik

I read it as: both approach roundabout at the same time, from the same direction.

Runner: "Yer man hasn't indicated left, therefore it's a certainty he's going straight, so I don't need to break stride and stop to check before I cross"

Driver (if he even noticed the runner): "Yer man must be going left and keeping to the pavement as he's showing no signs of breaking stride and stopping. I'll be grand to take the turn here".

slimjimmc

ezra_pound wrote: »

He says that he checked the car and crossed based on its indication of intention of going straight ahead. In other words he waited until it was safe to cross.

He said he "looked at the car" but didn't mention anything about stopping or waiting and performing a proper check. Never assume (like the OP did) that no indicators means an intention of going straight ahead, it's not reliable. Had he waited until safe to cross he would have waited until he saw the car drive past the junction.

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

He said he "looked at the car" but didn't mention anything about stopping or waiting and performing a proper check. Never assume (like the OP did) that no indicators means an intention of going straight ahead, it's not reliable. Had he waited until safe to cross he would have waited until he saw the car drive past the junction.

That's ridiculous. At most busy roundabouts it would be almost impossible to cross at m many times of the day if you couldn't base your decision to cross on the driver's indicator.

Grolschevik

ezra_pound wrote: »

That's ridiculous. At most busy roundabouts it would be almost impossible to cross at m many times of the day if you couldn't base your decision to cross on the driver's indicator.

Yes. Roundabouts tend to be awkward to cross at, even when walking and stopping and looking.

Let alone running, not stopping, and not looking.

Even driving, I won't trust the intention of a car with its indicator on until I see it start to turn.

ezra_pound

Grolschevik wrote: »

Yes. Roundabouts tend to be awkward to cross at, even when walking and stopping and looking.

Let alone running, not stopping, and not looking.

He did look! That's the one thing we're sure of.

slimjimmc

ezra_pound wrote: »

This isn't an indication though. It's the act of checking that it is safe to cross the road. You don't do this to ensure that cars know that you are going to criss, you do it so as not to recklessly fling yourself out in front of a car.

If you're driving/cycling along and you see a pedestrian doing this up what do think he intends to do, cross the road or perform that chicken dance you mentioned? It's still an indication to other road users nonetheless.

Call me Al

ezra_pound wrote: »

He says that he checked the car and crossed based on its indication of intention of going straight ahead. In other words he waited until it was safe to cross.

But he didn't wait until it was safe to cross, he just assumed it was. They are not the same thing.

Op, as either a driver, pedestrian or road user of any kind never assume anything about other people's actions when approaching junctions. Some people forget they have their indicators on, while others seem to think they are a decoration on their steering wheel and dashboard. Always be prepared to stop suddenly. The fact that he didn't have his indicator on when you saw him was never any guarantee that he wasn't going to turn left.
No point in having the high moral ground if you are 6 feet under.

ezra_pound

slimjimmc wrote: »

If you're driving/cycling along and you see a pedestrian doing this up what do think he intends to do, cross the road or perform that chicken dance you mentioned? It's still an indication to other road users nonetheless.

Well yes. But there is no duty or obligation for the pedestrian to indicate. There is a duty in the driver to indicate and drive safely in which case he would have been able to stop in time and not hit him.

ezra_pound

Call me Al wrote: »

But he didn't wait until it was safe to cross, he just assumed it was. They are not the same thing.

Op, as either a driver, pedestrian or road user of any kind never assume anything about other people's actions when approaching junctions. Some people forget they have theirs on, while others seem to think they are a decoration on their steering wheel and dashboard. Always be prepared to stop suddenly. The fact that he didn't have his indicator on when you saw him was never any guarantee that he wasn't going to turn left.
No point in having the high moral ground if you are 6 feet under.

Yes but in order to prevent this poor dangerous and reckless driving habit we have to blame the culprit and address it as a serious danger, not spread and apportion the blame to the victim.

Grolschevik

ezra_pound wrote: »

He did look! That's the one thing we're sure of.

He looked at the car while running and made an assumption. He didn't stop to verify what the car would do.

There's no indication he even paused before, as I think you put it, "recklessly flinging himself into traffic".

(For what it's worth, I actually think that the onus was on the driver to properly anticipate the possibility and drive accordingly. I just think the runner contributed to the outcome)

ezra_pound

Grolschevik wrote: »

He looked at the car while running and made an assumption. He didn't stop to verify what the car would do.

There's no indication he even paused before, as I think you put it, "recklessly flinging himself into traffic".

(For what it's worth, I actually think that the onus was on the driver to properly anticipate the possibility and drive accordingly. I just think the runner contributed to the outcome)

Well to be honest I'm basing my interpretation of this on my own experiences crossing roads where I carefully waited until it was safe to cross and suddenly a car turns in to the road I'm crossing without indicating.

Call me Al

ezra_pound wrote: »

Yes but in order to prevent this poor dangerous and reckless driving habit we have to blame the culprit and address it as a serious danger, not spread and apportion the blame to the victim.

Reckless or not, and lack of use of indicators drives me scatty, a pedestrian will always come off worse if they are hit by a car.
I think it's in their best interests never to assume anything about traffic flow at junctions and roundabouts where they are crossing lanes.
In this case if the op had waited the extra 2-3 seconds until the car had passed his junction he wouldn't have ended up in A&E.

the_syco

P_Fitz wrote: »

Hi, i was out running last night

Were you wearing any lights? Was the area lit up?

ezra_pound wrote: »

He says that he checked the car and crossed based on its indication of intention of going straight ahead. In other words he waited until it was safe to cross.

Incorrect. He said that the car didn't indicate, and thus crossed the road, and got hit. It didn't say anything about waiting.

It seems the fault may be shared, with both sides in the wrong.