Who would be at fault

[d2d4j]

Hi

I very nearly was involved in an accident yesterday afternoon and my wife is telling me it was my fault!

I was driving down a hill which is a 30mph road and a man came out of a horrible pizza takeaway, moving very briskly and I nearly hit him. My wife said I was mm away from hitting him

If you look at the 2 pictures, would I have been at fault, would the man be at fault or would the blame be on both parties

Luckily I did not hit him but my wife has left me wondering

Many thanks

John

[Kremmen]

No pictures for me

[trebor1652]

I would guess you would be at fault.
Driving without due care and attention.
Mind you dick heads like that don't seem to have any sense of self preservation.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[sparky Paul]

I see the photos, but it's not easy to determine what exactly is going on. Did the man carry on across the road, or get in the Yaris?

I would think it would come down to whether you could reasonably have foreseen the man's actions. Just because someone does something stupid in front of you doesn't give you a free pass to run them over. If you could have reasonably avoided a collision and didn't, then it would come under the banner of "driving without due care and attention", at least.

When did you see the man, what did you expect he was going to do, and what actions did you take?

[John Ratsey]

From the pedestrian's perspective, how visible was your car in what was evidently gloomy conditions? What colour is it and does it have DRLs? (If so, are they good DRLs or just the side lights?). While the pedestrian should stop and look as per the requirements of the Highway Code, they are more likely to notice a highly visible vehicle even if they aren't looking.

[ColinB]

Isn't this what the hazard perception part of the test is supposed to teach? The driver should look ahead to detect potential hazards and take appropriate action in good time.

There's just been a consultation about changes to the Highway Code ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-to-improve-road-safety-for-cyclists-pedestrians-and-horse-riders
... to introduce "a hierarchy of road users which ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others". That would seem to put the responsibility (and liability for any damage or injury) firmly with the car driver.

Edit: typo corrected, “Highway” not “Highest”!

[d2d4j]

Hi

Many thanks

I was driving down the hill.

The man took about half a second (4 or 5 paces) to arrive where he did at the first photo

I was slowing down when I saw he was still heading towards the road and not turned or stopped and just passed the car I was traveling around 10mph

He did not look and my thought was he was going to cross the road. As it turned out, he was the driver of the Yaris and he opened the door fully when the car behind me was passing. I have rear cam as well

My car is white, has proper DRL lights and I had side lights on. The headlights have DRL strips on which also give motion turn signals from indicator.

There are pictures of the front of my car on the forum for DRL, and all LED lights at front of car. The car is very easy to see

I do not intentionally go to hit anyone! So the distance from first seeing him exit shop and approach roadside is small and just prior would have been traveling at around 28 mph...


Many thanks

John

[Jocko]

It would be best if you had had headlights on as it was after sunset. According to your dashcam, you were doing 22 mph. Unless there are cars parked further back on your side, you should have seen him heading in your direction. Much as I feel pedestrians have a deathwish, I am afraid I must side with your wife.

[MicktheMonster]

As said above, we don't have enough information to make a firm decision.
However if you do everything that would be expected of a competent & alert driver I would say you wouldn't be to blame.
Use of lights, horn if you have time and changing your course and speed to avoid hazards would demonstrate you have seen the pedestrian and tried to avoid danger, even if the worst happened, you can't predict what random strangers will do all of the time.
There's nothing in the pictures that show me you have done anything wrong.
Obviously the pedestrian shouldn't have stepped out in front of you, but you are expected to take all mitigating action to avoid injury or damage.

[hemming]

Difficult to say what a court would decide on the information supplied. However, if it was a civil case for damages I would expect , even if the pedestrian proved his case , his monetary settlement would be reduced by a very significant amount to account for his contributory negligence. There may be differing views in Scotland.
Luckily there is no point agonising over it!

[Westy36]

From the first photo, I would question your lane positioning on approach to a parked car. You appear to be in the middle of your lane, yet there is no oncoming traffic requiring you to be so. The centre line is broken, so you are free to drive slightly on the other side of the road. This would have enabled you to keep the Highway Codes recommended min 1 meter clearance from a parked car.

Is anyone else old enough to remember the Tufty road safety film about the dangers of children and icecream vans. The same is true of people rushing about to get their "horrible" pizza home whilst it's still warm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8MR0ssk7c

Defensive driving. Keep a big bubble around your car at all times. You had plenty of room available.

 

[sparky Paul]

From the first photo, I would question your lane positioning on approach to a parked car. You appear to be in the middle of your lane, yet there is no oncoming traffic requiring you to be so. The centre line is broken, so you are free to drive slightly on the other side of the road. This would have enabled you to keep the Highway Codes recommended min 1 meter clearance from a parked car.

I was just in the process of typing almost the same reply.

Personally, with nothing coming the other way, I would have moved over to the crown of the road whilst slowing and covering the brake. Regardless of the kamikaze pedestrian, it's not unknown for parked cars to fling their doors open without looking.

Good point by Jocko too, looks like it's dark enough for headlights. Whilst sidelights are the minimum requiirement for lit roads, it does look a bit gloomy. You do see plenty of people driving around with DRLs alone after dusk, they don't seem to grasp that they have no rear lights, which are a legal requirement between sunset and sunrise.

[d2d4j]

Hi

Many thanks for all your replies.

I’m not sure myself now but a few points

The street lighting was not on
I was on sidelights (DRL stay on)
The speed shown on the picture is always faster then the actual speed at time. So not 22 mph but 16mph from 28 mph. Not sure why but think it is because of rear cam - nextbase 512rw - see picture
Road position is a fair point
Hazard Perception - saw the man exit the pizza shop and his actions. He never looked at road (up or down)

Thinking I owe my wife an apology and perhaps learned something

I passed my driving test by not knocking a child down when the examiner did not see her

Many thanks

John

Highway Code extract

THE HIGHWAY CODE
 
4. Lighting requirements (113 to 116)
 
113
 
You MUST
 
ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).
Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).
Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched )

[Westy36]

I think you're brave posting this. Not many would be prepared to have their driving critiqued, even it is just from a couple of stills. 

All that drive should ask themselves what could they have done better at the end of every journey. Every time I drive I make mistakes, without fail. We all do, the perfect driver doesnt exist. It's learning from those mistakes that is important. Your post is a good reminder regarding clearance to parked cars.

 
 

[sparky Paul]

I think you're brave posting this. Not many would be prepared to have their driving critiqued, even it is just from a couple of stills. 

All that drive should ask themselves what could they have done better at the end of every journey. Every time I drive I make mistakes, without fail. We all do, the perfect driver doesnt exist. It's learning from those mistakes that is important. Your post is a good reminder regarding clearance to parked cars.

I agree with all that. We all make mistakes, and I've made a few blinders - it's learning from them, as you say.

The street lighting was not on
I was on sidelights (DRL stay on)

I wasn't having a dig at you, just the ones that drive round at night with DRLs on and nothing else.

I noticed that there were no streetlights on, but other drivers seem to be illuminated. Although your lights were perfectly legal, and probably over and above that required, I always tend to err on the side of caution and put headlights on when it gets dusky... and I never drive on sidelights myself.

You obviously saw the danger from the pedestrian and adjusted your speed, the only thing I would have done differently is to give him a wider berth, and I may or may not have had headlights on. Hard to tell unless you were actually there.

Not sure if you should apologise to your wife, or get her a blindfold 

Start apologising for things, and it's a slippery slope