Jaywalkers
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge, TEng (CEO. MIMI, AMIRTE WHEN I was considering the driver's liability at pedestrian crossings last week, I said that the courts interpreted the law very strictly. Further evidence of this can be found in a civil case Kozimor v Adey 1962 S.J. 431, where the judge said that a driver was in breach of the regulation if in fact he collided with or interfered with the free passage of any pedestrian, and that the only possible exception was if a suicidal pedestrian deliberately walked in front of a vehicle. He could only be certain of avoiding a breach by approaching the crossing at such a slow speed that he could stop in time to avoid any conceivable use of it by any conceivable pedestrian, however unexpected and however foolish.
Some readers may 'feel this decision is from a council of perfection; that sometimes a foolhardy pedestrian behaves in such a way that the driver who collides with him is blameless. Nevertheless, in the eyes of the Law such a driver is guilty of an offence.
Not at fault
The duty to give precedence • to pedestrians on crossings is .almost "absolute"; that is, there is no possible excuse for colliding with one. But this is not quite the case for in Burns v Bidder 1967, 2 QB227 dt was held there was no breach of the regulation where the failure to accord precedence occurs solely because the driver's control of his vehicle is taken away from him by the occurrence of an event which is outside his possible or reasonable control and In respect of which he is in no way at fault. An attack by a swarm of bees, an epileptic fit, being pushed from behind and a latent defect in the vehicle are the sort of circumstances which are likely to substantiate this defence.
It was held in MeKerrell v Robertson 1956. S.L.T. 290 that a woman pushing a perambulator is entitled to precedence as soon as she has lowered the pram from the pavement on to the crossing and before she herself has stepped on lit.
Lights sequence
While dealing with pedestrian crossings, consideration must be given to the " Pelican" crossing established by the "Pelican " Pedestrian Crossing Regulations and General Directions 1969.
Traffic at these crossings is con trolled by light signals operated by a pedestrian pushing a button situated on the traffic light post. Regulation 6 sets out precisely the significance of the light signals to vehicular traffic as follows: (a) When the green light is showing, traffie may proceed across the crossing.
(b) When a steady amber light is showing vehicular traffic must stop, except in the case where a vehicle is so close to the stop line when the lights change to amber that it cannot be safely stopped Imfore passing the stop line or signal.
(c) The red light means stop.
(d) When the amber light is flashing vehicular traffic may proceed across the crossing, but any foot passenger who is on the crossing before the vehicle has entered on to the crossing must be given precedence. In other words a vehicle can only proceed if there is no pedestrian on the crossing.
Provision is made in the Regulations for an audible sig nal giving a regular pulsed sound to supplement the light signal visible to pedestrians.
Presumably this is for the bene fit of blind persons. This signal sounds only when the signals facing the vehicular traffic are at red, making it safe for pedestrians to cross.
As a matter of interest, it was held in Lockie v Soppit 1956. Crim 1.„ R. 487 in a case at Nottingham magistrates' court, that the driver of a police car' answering an emergency call must give precedence at a pedestrian crossing in the same way as the driver of any other car.