http://www.dailymail...l#axzz2KElhc8PM

Should pedestrians be culpable if they don't make an effort at being visible? What do ye all think?

Although I truly wish people would not wear head-to-toe black because they just can't be seen, would not wearing something white or reflective be seen as a readymade excuse for careless drivers who "couldn't be expected to see them".

Interested in what people think on here.

Edited 7 February, 201313 yr by heresmo

I saw a little bit about this on yesterday morning's 'The Wright Stuff'. I remember years back in the 70's or 80's, a PI film that told you to take care when walking along unlit or dark roads. The advice was, IIRC, to wear a light coloured jacket, carry a rolled up newspaper etc, which seemed sensible. The girl in the story knew the road, she was also a rider and a lot of riders I know won't take their horses out onto a road unless they're well hi-viz'd up. I mean leg bands, ear covers, hi-viz riding jacket etc etc. IMO if you are walking in such an area, it should be your responsibility to BE VISIBLE. As a driver, would you be expected to drive without lights when it's dark?

Personal saftey is, well personal. I'd assume in that case there are other factors that the daily scare everyone cos the boogey mans coming mail arent saying.

At ghe end of the day everyone should take responsibility for their own well being, be that having some sort of visibility item on when on a dark road or not sticking knives into plug sockets and licking it.

In this case, I wouldnt want to comment.

Sympathy to the injured girl and her family though.

Long time, no post, Mo!

I don't really like the approach of deciding proportions of blame and I think people (be they drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc) have a responsibility to do what they can to make themselves visible/aware of their surroundings and be proactive in maximising their own safety.

Chris

I feel the media never portrays the full story, so find it hard to give an opinion on this.

Although I'm not sure I agree with the view Churchill have on it, "She should have known to wear reflective clothing because she was an experienced horse rider". I don't feel you can expect someone to do something just because of a certain hobby or interest they have.

Either way a devastating story.

Sad story.

Interesting where this could go with insurance companies..

If she was a scuba diver would they be OK on paying out if there was a Black Wet Suit and weight belt being worn?

A martial artist might be expected to wear the white suit rather than there Ninja Black outfit.

Luckily i have spotted a few Stealth Cyclists all in black recently, but not always easy.

a car in front of me failed to spot one, and did a full on lock up emergency stop when he did not spot him till almost too late, there was another car coming towards us and no way the first driver could of pulled across to miss hitting the 'Cool Plonker dressed all in black' riding in a tree lined road.

(Passed Camperdown Park outside Dundee)

george

Everyone is responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure their own safety and the safety of their actions, in my opinion. In this case I do think the age of the girl is a factor but you could argue that her parents or the riding school had a responsibility to get her home safely, which could have been walk with a dayglo vest on.

There was similarish thing a few years back for motorcyclists when the highway code mentioned the use of white helmets. Most bikers do not wear white helmets and some reporters started to scaremonger about lower payouts as a result as they weren't doing their best to be seen. Just don't remember if there were any real cases.

Did see a thing on one of the traffic police shows about a woman who hit a cyclist at night on dual carriageway. He had no lights, and no reflective stuff and had probably been drinking, unfortunately he died as a result but she was absolved of any responsibility by the police, or at least not charged as I remember.

Round near me and my route to work it seems to be a local sport to be out on your bike at night with no lights and wearing dark clothing. Several times I have come across cyclists weaving across the road with no lights on blind bends.

As drivers we are required to be able to stop short of any obstruction. If we cannot do so then we are at fault. No question the driver bears full responsibility. This is just an insurance company using its resources to try and cut down future bills.

Don't forget that Bethany had the right to be there, the driver only had a licence to use the road,

He should have been able to stop, yes. But The point I think important generally is that you have to be able to be seen. Some clothing blends into the background making people less visible. Some of the cyclists I have seen mean you are almost on top of them before you know they are there, even though the amount of clear road is large.

I remember seeing a program where a cyclist was hit by a driver in the dark. The cyclistwas wearing dark clothing and had no lights on or any reflectors. the Police's view was that as a driver you should be able to react to what they would reasonably be expect to come across for the road conditions. The driver had dipped beam on because of the traffic conditions and it was judged that this was not something the driver could expect to come across in that case and no chanrges were bought against the driver.

The point of my post being that everything is not always black and white, so this case will (hopefully) be judged on it's individual merits and will reach a fair outcome to both sides. No mention was made in the article on what (if any) affect this had on the driver, so as usual the press looks as if they are being selective in what they report in order to sell papers

Nevermind the post it's Mo ........

Where the hell have you been hiding ??

I think Bethany wasn't taking as much care as she could have been, since she was listening to music on earphones. Clearly the driver should have been taking more care as well. I don't know whether the driver was necessarily going too fast - not paying proper attention seems far more likely.

Edited 7 February, 201313 yr by AnotherGareth

Walking down a road in the direction of traffic (although other verge unusable),therefore unable to see the vehicle listening to music in dark clothing. Car goes tight to the left to avoid oncoming car and driver no doubt concentrating on that as well as momentary less vision due to oncoming headlights. Probably too fast at estimated 50, however, would 40 have been much different we'll never no and can only surmise; 10 would be safe but could take a while to get places.

Now in this case she was 13 so probably less culpable, however, at what point should people/parents have responsibility.

At some point people have got to take responsibility for there own action or inaction.

As drivers we are required to be able to stop short of any obstruction. If we cannot do so then we are at fault. No question the driver bears full responsibility. This is just an insurance company using its resources to try and cut down future bills.

Don't forget that Bethany had the right to be there, the driver only had a licence to use the road,

Although the first paragraph is partly correct there is instances where this isn't true, your statement suggests that it's always the drivers fault. Since it doesn't mention the driver being prosecuted in the article, I'll assume the CPS saw fit not to charge.

As for the second paragraph, what a complete load of crap!

contributory negligence.

Already exists.

The Judge hearing the original Civil Case for compensation decided that the driver was going to fast for the conditions.

There is no mention of the Insurance Company contesting that at the appeal.

"Moore was found to be driving at about 50mph-which the judge considered to be too fast for such a road in darkness."

No word of the driver having a prosecution made against him,

if the speed was judged to be 50 & it is a 60 limit and there was possibly a decision made not to prosecute for Careless Driving, Dngerous Driving or driving without due care and attention.

No witnesses or evidence.

(does make me wonder what the Judge was going on, was it an Accident Investigation Report by a police officer from the scene of the accident.)

There but for the grace of god go many of us on dark unlit roads.

george

*No idea if this article better covers what the Judge said.*

As drivers we are required to be able to stop short of any obstruction. If we cannot do so then we are at fault. No question the driver bears full responsibility. This is just an insurance company using its resources to try and cut down future bills.

Don't forget that Bethany had the right to be there, the driver only had a licence to use the road,

Highway Code rules 2, 3 and 4 https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 seem to apply.

I'm sorry but walking down a unlit lane in dark clothes is rediculous.

Anyone else see the road wars episode where a woman smashed into a cyclist killing him, the police brought no charges against her because the cyclist had no lights, reflective clothing and was dressed in black.

If pedestrians are walking in the dark on the road they should surely have the same rules as cyclists?

Since becoming a teenager & ever since,

do you and have you always been wearing Hi-viz clothing while being on or near a road/lane when there is poor visability?

No idea if it was a lane or road or how wide, road markings, centre line or side marking lines,

but it must have been a public highway

'On a road',

'By a road'

'On a Verge'

'On a Pavement'

'On a Public Highway'.

Walking down a verge until our lift arrives, even standing on a verge is not 'on a road'.

Animals, such as a cow straying on a country road are unlit and have probably never read a highway code, the driver needs to be in a position to see them or anything else on a highway, the responsibility is theirs for them self, passengers or other road users.

That means driving at a sensible and safe speed for the conditions and the likely hood of unlit things on the road.

Able to see and avoid/stop,

on Unlit lanes or roads type thing.

Probably why the Original judgement and upheld at appeal that the driver was 100% responsible and speed was a possible factor.

george

Animals, such as a cow straying on a country road are unlit and have probably never read a highway code, the driver needs to be in a position to see them or anything else on a highway, the responsibility is theirs for them self, passengers or other road users.

It's not much consolation when you're lying injured in a ditch though, is it? I can't understand why people are reluctant to be proactive and take basic precautions to make themselves more visible and take a responsibility for their own safety...

Perhaps it's just me

Chris

Don't forget that Bethany had the right to be there, the driver only had a licence to use the road,

this is the most concise answer... Couldn't have put it better myself.. it's one of your fundamental common law rights to travel along a highway and that can be done wearing whatever clothing you like, this is hard fast law and will never change, however the motorist has the obligation to ensure they are in control of their vehicle at all times, if a pedestrian is 'not seen' then the driver shouldn't be behind the wheel...

I've nearly taken out cyclists and pedestrians on dark roads before and it would have been entirely my fault as a motorist, it's not even speed being a factor, it's just not reading the road and adjusting the driving to suit.

Even in suburban London, too many kids cyclling around on dark wiinter nights without the sense they were born with, dark clothing, no lights, no hi-vis - usually riding between pavement and road.

Whatever happened to The Cycling Proficiency Test and training ?

Perhaos there should be a combined Pedestrian/Cycling Proficiency Test for school kids, to get the right babits engrained from early on - assuming that "Mums know best" disaster area allow it. In the 1960s road sense was drilled into kids.

And the horsey lot need that as well. Locally, we have kids in the saddle transiting horses between a local stables and a wood. Trouble is they use a busy countryfied suburban road to make the journey and the road has a 50 mph limit. IMHO they shouldn't be using the road -too dangerous, especially in poor light conditions. Or if they have to, treat them in the same way as a "Hazardous load" i.e. Warning Landrover in front and behind or better still run them down to the exercise area in a horse box.

Nick

I don't think the point is about the right to be there or not or even the driver's responsibility to be in control. In this case it sounds like he wasn't in control as the judge apparently deemed his speed too fast for the conditions. However I still belive that the pedestrian has a responsibility just like any other road user to make themselves visible and not undertake any risky situations.

For me the age she was it wasn't her responsibility but maybe there should have been something done by her parents or the riding school she was at, surely they had a duty of care towards her? Would anyone on her let a young person walk alone at night on an unlit road with no pavements? I sure as hell wouldn't, even before knowing about this story.

this is the most concise answer... Couldn't have put it better myself.. it's one of your fundamental common law rights to travel along a highway and that can be done wearing whatever clothing you like,

Or driving whatever vehicle you like.

A pedestrian has no right of way over and above that of a car.

There's many times pedestrians can't be seen and it is not always the drivers fault. I myself have hit a pedestrian on a road at night, luckily the little chap was ok (he was 11 at the time) and it was deemed to be his fault, It is not always the car drivers fault, I have seen many RTCs car v pedestrian/cyclist when the car driver was not a fault.

There are bound to be road traffic incidents where one or all of the drivers were not at fault.

Accidents happen just so easily.

There are some insurance claims for accidents that you must think, how did they manage that while keeping within the National speed limit. or driving safely to the conditions?

especially in possibly one of the best handling road cars in the world.

Then how do they manage to do it twice, is their driving ability with fast road cars suspect.