Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Accident at roundabout

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #36
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #40
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭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)


  • Options
    #49
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Call me Al wrote: »
    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.

    Yes. I agree. However you have argued in terms of contributory negligence, which I disagree with.


  • Options
    #53
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    Yes. I agree. However you have argued in terms of contributory negligence, which I disagree with.

    But a driver doesn't have to indicate. He has a duty to drive safely. And I believe that due to his inattention the op is partly responsible for what has happened and that the driver isnt the only culprit.
    He is the only one uninjured though.


  • Options
    #54
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    moc moc a moc wrote: »
    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.

    I agree completely but if a vehicle is in the process of driving on a roundabout with the obvious intention of exiting the roundabout a pedestrian should not second guess their exit point or expect a driver to stop prior to the exit point. Bad manners!


  • Options
    #55
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Call me Al wrote: »
    But a driver doesn't have to indicate. He has a duty to drive safely. And I believe that due to his inattention the op is partly responsible for what has happened and that the driver isnt the only culprit.
    He is the only one uninjured though.

    A driver does have to indicate.

    And not indicating is not driving safely.


  • Options
    #56
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    I agree completely but if a vehicle is in the process of driving on a roundabout with the obvious intention of exiting the roundabout a pedestrian should not second guess their exit point or expect a driver to stop prior to the exit point. Bad manners!

    Bad manners!

    Bad manners not indicating.


  • Options
    #57
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    A driver does have to indicate.

    And not indicating is not driving safely.
    Yes indeed, and he should have done so.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a18
    Signals by Drivers
    18. (1) A driver intending to slow down, stop, or alter course, shall either give a signal by using a direction indicator or stop lamp, as appropriate, or give the appropriate hand signal set out in Table A in the Second Schedule.
    (2) A driver shall indicate the direction in which the vehicle is to be driven to a member of the Garda Síochána by giving either a signal by using a direction indicator or the appropriate hand signal set out in Table B in the Second Schedule.
    (3) A driver shall give a signal in sufficient time before altering course and in such a manner as to be clearly visible and clearly understood by those for whom such signal is intended.
    (4) A driver shall not give simultaneous contradictory signals.
    Pedestrians also have obligations.
    Rules for Pedestrians
    46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46


  • Options
    #58
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    A driver does have to indicate...
    At the time I learned to drive (decades ago!) I was told that it was not a requirement to indicate when turning left, which is what the driver in this instance was doing.

    Was my driving instructor in the wrong, or have I missed some legislation since?

    [I do indicate when turning left, because I consider it a proper courtesy to other road users.]

    Another thing my driving instructor advised was never to trust another driver's indicators, to wait until his or her intention is clear.


  • Options
    #59
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    At the time I learned to drive (decades ago!) I was told that it was not a requirement to indicate when turning left, which is what the driver in this instance was doing.

    Was my driving instructor in the wrong, or have I missed some legislation since?

    [I do indicate when turning left, because I consider it a proper courtesy to other road users.]

    Another thing my driving instructor advised was never to trust another driver's indicators, to wait until his or her intention is clear.

    You have got to be joking.


  • Options
    #60
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Yes indeed, and he should have done so.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a18
    Pedestrians also have obligations.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

    Yes. Where does it say that pedestrians must d demonstrate their intention of crossing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    At the time I learned to drive (decades ago!) I was told that it was not a requirement to indicate when turning left, which is what the driver in this instance was doing.

    Was my driving instructor in the wrong    , or have I missed some legislation since?

    [I do indicate when turning left, because I consider it a proper courtesy to other road users.]

    Another thing my driving instructor advised was never to trust another driver's indicators, to wait until his or her intention is clear.

    It's been law since 1964, possibly before.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a23


    (It's ok, I won't ask when you learned ;) :P)


Advertisement