demerit points and speading fines

I think that all of them would be just as effective in stopping any
young children from jumping out in front of cars. (and you could
probably use household cats and dogs instead of large, hungry
carnivores)

'Innocent' or not, the only true way of stopping vehicle vs pedestrian
accidents, is to remove the cars from the street, or remove the
pedestrians from the street.

Slowing down the cars only increases the 'odds' that a pedestrian will
jump out onto the street far enough in front of the car to allow the car
to stop. A determined (or innocent) pedestrian that jumps out onto the
street a meter in front of a car is going to get hurt/killed. Even if
you slowed cars down to 10kph, some pedestrian is still going to manage
to get hit and hurt/killed.

The point I was trying to make, is that the government can legislate to
reduce the limit in residential streets, which improves the odds a bit,
but they cannot legislate to keep children from running out onto the
street, which would stop the problem entirely.

Interestingly, they can legislate to stop dogs from running around
(untethered, as atec77 put it) on the streets.

Rob.

 

Wow, what a wonderfully though out and concise argument. You really
should run for parliament. I can see you have a future as foreign
minister.

To answer your question, my car won't fit up my arse. Your welcome to
try fitting it up your own arse if that's what your into. (pity the Jag
was sold, you probably would have enjoyed it more being such a big car.)

Rob.

 

Give way to pedestrians is still a rule and still enforced. Try to get
your licence as a teenager without observing it. No way.

 

In Qld rules determine if they are not walking on an approved xing , no
xing still wont allow running over but the peddy is in the wrong , your
state ?

 

Pedestrian must be stopped for if seen about to step onto the road.
Anywhere.

NSW.

 

Not according to this. (Victoria, which contrary to popular belief, is
in part of 'Anywhere'.)
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/rdsafe/DrivinginVicRR.pdf

Or if you want to search the detailed rules, find me where it says that
here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne...0241C35-F27B22E07E690758CA256FEB0026B1F9?open

In fact what you say directly contradicts rule 236 for pedestrians here:
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrpdf/randl/part_14.pdf

Rob.

 

When I said "anywhere" I meant anywhere on a NSW road (that is, not just
at a pedestrian crossing). A car must stop for a pedestrian, or do
whatever it takes to avoid hitting a pedestrian.

That's what I understood from reading the NSW handbook, which I reread a
bout four years ago when going for my motorcycle licence.

I can see that under Vic rules a pedestrian may be in the wrong if on
the road in certain places, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't give a car
the right to hit them.

 

It says NSW.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/internationalinterstate/pedestrians.html

 

While what you say there is true (you must take action to avoid hitting
them), it's not even close to 'vehicles give way to pedestrians'.
Perhaps we are just being a bit pedantic over wording, and not intent.

If I see a pedestrian waiting at the curb, wanting to cross a road (not
at any sort of intersection or crossing), I'm not going to stomp on the
brakes and let him cross. I, in my car, have 'right of way'. If he
jumps out in front of me, I am legaly (and moraly) obliged to try and
avoid hitting him, but the law still says that he was in the wrong for
not giving way to me. (he can be charged with jaywalking, if he lives.
)

I remember an episode of 'The Brittas Empire", where he is run down on a
pedestrian crossing. When asked if he saw the truck comming towards the
crossing before he stepped onto it, he replied 'yes, but I had right of
way'.

Rob.

 

Not in NSW.

 

Nor can they legislate for drivers to drive sensibly.

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:40:19 +1000

Well.. the relevant bit from the handbook is "Pedestrians have a right
to share the road. As a driver you are legally required to give way to
a pedestrian at crossings and when turning at intersections. However,
you should always be prepared to stop for pedestrians."

The road rules are less encompassing, they have more emphasis on peds
not wandering about unthinkingly.

However, if you are in a residential street, and you hit a ped, your
chances of being patted on the back with "there there, not your fault"
are zero to negative unless said ped was witnessed to be attempting to
commit suicide.

Certainly if you rammed through a street cricket game you'd be stone
out of luck.

If you were around kids on the road, you'd have trouble saying "I had
right of way!" too. Remember - there is no right of way, there is only
duty to give way. Which people who know anything at all about kids
know they don't tend to comprehend that well. People who don't know
anything about kids should learn, because you really really don't want
to be standing by a kid's body saying "but... but... She shouldn't have
run out like that, it's not my fault! I had right of way, it's not my
fault!". It might not have been, but you really don't want to be there.

And all your life you will remember that broken bloody body and think
"if I'd been a bit more careful, if I'd been paying a bit more
attention, if I hadn't been such a selfish careless prick". All your
life.

Zebee

 

Drivers must always give way to pedestrians if there is danger of
colliding with them, however pedestrians should not rely on this and
should take great care when crossing any road.

In particular, both drivers and pedestrians need to be careful and look
out for one another around shopping centres, schools and parked cars, at
night or in wet weather.
SO effectly if a pedestrain steps out with insufficient norice you
should make a reasonable attempt to stop , but they are in the wrong and
if unable to stop they should not assume your going to .

 

Zeebee, you must be a writer. The poetic licence you practice on simple
factual statements is breathtaking.

I disagree. If your driving safely and considerately down a street (at
less than the limit even), and some ped runs out from behind a car a few
meters in front of you and you hit them, it is NOT your fault. (unless
you fail to stop and render assistance, but that is another law.) It
has (unfortunately) happened to people, and they are not charged with
any offence. (although they have to live with the consequences of
someone's else's actions for the rest of their life)

I don't disagree. I also never said or implied that you would.

I never said anything else. I postulated that if they were waiting to
cross the road (not at a crossing), I would not be expected to stop my
vehicle to let them cross the road. I also said that if they proceeded
onto the road, that you would be required to stop for them. (or at least
try to)

I'm guessing you've got kids. Rational argument tends to go out the
door when your talking about kids to parents. Someone said in another
forum, that they would do anything for their kids. I asked if that
included arranging to have someone else's kid murdered to keep their kid
out of jail. They could not give a definitive response to that. (google
for the actual case in Sydney) I'd rather not think that every parent
is a potential murderer when it comes to protecting their kids, but I'm
not willing to bet my life on it. (let the flames begin. ;-) )

True, I don't want to be there, which is why I am careful driving down
residential streets, especially when kids are around. Still, I realise
that aside from not driving at all, shit can happen, and there may be
nothing that I can do to stop an accident happening. I'm certainly not
going to demonise anyone unfortunate enough to hit a ped until the facts
are know, and it is clear that some negligence on the drivers part was
the major contributing factor.

Now your just being silly. If there was nothing I could do about it,
I'm not going to think I'm a selfish, careless or a prick (well, I might
cop the last one). I'm sure I would feel very bad, but I would probably
direct that anger at the selfish, careless, suicidal, innocent, young,
old (pick your own adjective) ped who jumped out in front of my vehicle
in such a way that it was physically impossible to avoid hitting them.
(or their parents/carers/guardians for letting them get in such a
dangerous situation)
(of course if your trying to imply that I'm a selfish careless prick for
disagreeing with you, then you can go f$%k yourself. ;-) )

Rob.

 

The actual bits from the RTA web site are: (you obviously don't want to
believe anything I say, so here is the supposed responsible authority.)
Search for 'pedestrian'.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/arrguide.pdf and
don't forget to look in the dictionary for the definition of 'give way'.
Also, the site suggests the Australian road rules are relevant. (which
appear to be the same as on the Vicroads site)
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/downloads/p14.pdf

Now don't get me wrong (again). I'm not advocating that everyone should
speed down residential streets. (I don't) I'm not saying that it's ok
to run down any pedestrian that is on the road. (I don't, but I've
occasionally been tempted. ;-) ) What I am saying is that you can't
always blame the driver of a vehicle in a pedestrian vs vehicle
collision. The blame often lies with both parties, sometimes more on
one side than the other. Like most 'accidents' it's not one thing that
causes them, but a series of things. The removal of any one of the
factors can stop the accident from ever happening. The trick is to find
out the 'best' factor to remove from the equation.

Rob.

 

These are the commonsense principles which will be applied, this is not
however the law

JL

 

Oooh I love a good gauntlet being thrown down, I believe you're entirely
incorrect. Let me have a dig...hmmm:

NSW Consol. Regs
Australian Road Rules Reg 236

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/arr210/s236.html?query=pedestrian

Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction
236 Pedestrians not to cause a traffic hazard or obstruction

(1) A <<pedestrian>> must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into
the path of a driver.

Penalty: Offence provision.

(2) A <<pedestrian>> must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any
driver or another <<pedestrian>>.

Penalty: Offence provision

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/arr210/s238.html?query=pedestrian
238 Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled
recreational device or toy)

(1) A <<pedestrian>> must not travel along a road if there is a
footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is
impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.

Penalty: Offence provision.

Note: "Footpath"and "nature strip"are defined in the dictionary.

(2) A <<pedestrian>> travelling along a road:

(a) must keep as far to the left or right side of the road as
is practicable, and

(b) must not travel on the road alongside more than 1 other
<<pedestrian>> or vehicle travelling on the road in the same direction
as the <<pedestrian, unless the pedestrian>> is overtaking other
pedestrians.

Of course, as we well know, cars must give way at a pedestrian crossing:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/arr210/s81.html?query=pedestrian

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 81
Giving way at a <<pedestrian>> crossing
81 Giving way at a <<pedestrian crossing
(2) A driver must give way to any <<pedestrian on a pedestrian>>
crossing.

Penalty: Offence provision.

Note: For this rule, "give way"means the driver must slow down
and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision—see the definition in the
dictionary.

Mate. The regs don't support you, got some case law to back it up ?

A cursory search gives ALLDRIDGE v. MULCAHEY (1950) 81 CLR 337
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/81clr337.html?query=pedestrian

Which gave a majority in favour of the appellant (the knocked down
pedestrian), in short there was contributory negligence but not enough
to get the driver off the hook.

However

Derrick v Cheung (S151/2000)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/d...1/48.html?query=title(derrick+ near+ cheung+)

The appeal to this Court must be upheld. There was no basis upon which
any finding of negligence on the part of the appellant could be made.
That the facts of the case are tragic, and the collision a parent's
worst nightmare, as the trial judge accurately described them, did not
relieve his Honour of his obligation to determine the issues according
to law: in this case, by not finding an absence of care in circumstances
in which reasonable care was, as Davies AJA correctly held, in fact
being exercised. Even if the inference which the trial judge drew, that
if the appellant's speed had been slower by a few kilometres per hour
she would have been able to avoid the collision, was more than mere
speculation, it is still not an inference upon which a finding of
negligence could be based. Few occurrences in human affairs, in
retrospect, can be said to have been, in absolute terms, inevitable.
Different conduct on the part of those involved in them almost always
would have produced a different result. But the possibility of a
different result is not the issue and does not represent the proper test
for negligence. That test remains whether the plaintiff has proved that
the defendant, who owed a duty of care, has not acted in accordance with
reasonable care. To offer, as the majority in the Court of Appeal did,
its consolation that the appellant does not bear any moral, as distinct
from legal, responsibility for what occurred is to obscure that issue.


Unless there's something obvious I've missed in my admittedly brief
research I think you're dead in the water (although I doubt you read
this far)

JL

 

relevant paragraph:

Or to put it another way, drivers have a duty of care, which they do.
That is not the same as a carte blanche "pedestrians have right of way",
they don't. See Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48

JL
(see other note for full details)

 

my headlights don't go as far a 200m straight ahead, they point down a bit.

 

But if they run across the road in front of you, it's their fault. At least
it was the last time I ran one over.

Al