Excessive driver courtesy nearly causes accident

[Tim Woodall]

On 4 Jun 2004 09:52:13 GMT, Anthony Campbell
<[email protected]> wrote: <snip>
> by the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let
> her by and braked quite sharply; she set off briskly
> without waiting to see if
<snip>
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
> practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm
> still pondering what I would
<snip>

No The driver wasn't doing "a Good Thing". IIRC there was a
case where a woman stopped to drop her kids off at school, a
kid waiting to cross thought she was stopping to let them
cross and was killed by a following car/car coming the other
way. The woman who stopped was prosecuted. (This will have
been 15ish years ago in the West Midlands - I remember
reading of it in the local paper - but then I though the
prosecution was for manslaughter although I suspect the case
would be better known if that were the case)

(I'm assuming that in your case the car hadn't stopped
because he had to
- i.e. the person hadn't already started to cross)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H
= J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/
http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Anthony Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this
> one, unless it is that pedestrians should take more care
> when waved on by courteous drivers if they can't see the
> near side of the road. But they seldom do, of course.

This is exactly the reason why it's actually stupid for a
driver to do this. They can actually be held responsible for
an incident if they directed someone else.

Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous,
they were probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I
would guess on causing an obstruction, and hesitation.
Possibly even driving without due care and attention, as
they had not considered their action might have caused an
accident behind them.

Of course it's up to all parties involved to avoid an
incident, regardless of who is in the right.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

 

[Anthony Campbel]

On 2004-06-04, Iain Cullen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> snipped
>> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
>> practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm
>> still pondering what I would have done if I'd been the
>> driver. Instinctively I would have done the same as he,
>> but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not
>> have known what was happening and might not be able to
>> stop. Situations like this are really a dilemma.
>>
>> AC
>
> Unless the traffic was so heavy that a safe gap for the
> ped to finish crossing was unlikely to appear the driver
> should not have braked.The roads work best where everybody
> follows clear rules and can understand what everyone else
> is likely to do. The same reason cyclists should cycle as
> vehicles. If the driver was going brake and allow the ped
> to cross he should have ensured it was safe to do so. Of
> course had you hit the ped then you would have been at
> fault to some degree for an unsafe overtake as you should
> (as you did) look for the reason why the car slowed and
> take (as you did) the appropriate action. Iain

I agree with the above. In general, I always take it as a
sign of a possible hazard when a car near me slows for no
apparent reason: there may be a pedestrian, the car may be
going to turn left across my path, etc.

I also agree that drivers should not stop for pedestrians
on a major road when there is no zebra crossing, unless
there is no possibility of someone behind running into them
AND there is no vehicle in another lane who might run into
the pedestrians. The first of these requirements was
satisfied (no following cars) but the second wasn't,
because I was there
- but of course we all know that drivers often fail to "see"
cyclists or considerably underestimate their speed.

It is possible that the driver thought that the woman was
having difficulty controlling her children or was about to
step off regardless, and therefore felt he had little
choice. He might have thought that even if I did run into
the group the damage would be less than if he did, which is
probably true - though I doubt if he would have had the time
to calculate all this.

To reinterate for the benefit of everyone who has missed it:
there was NO zebra crossing. The road is fairly wide at that
point and there is room for a car and a bike even at the
site of the island, but in fact we would not have arrived
there simultaneously if the driver had not stopped.

For anyone who lives in N. London, this is Chase Side
between Southgate and Cockfosters.

Anthony

--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
[email protected] (Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-

>Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous,
>they were probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I
>would guess on causing an obstruction, and hesitation.

So, which part of the law describes the offence of
hesitation?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Jon Senior]

David Hansen [email protected] opined the
following...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
> [email protected] (Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-
>
> >Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous,
> >they were probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I
> >would guess on causing an obstruction, and hesitation.
>
> So, which part of the law describes the offence of
> hesitation?

I remember being told that in your driving test, they'll
pick up on hesitation, but never that it was an offence. And
with regard to obstruction, pretty much every time a vehicle
is taken on the road, it causes an obstruction. I think that
to be charge with that as an offence, you'd probably have to
abandon the vehicle and block the road.

Jon

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Jon Senior wrote:

>> So, which part of the law describes the offence of
>> hesitation?

> I remember being told that in your driving test, they'll
> pick up on hesitation, but never that it was an offence.

Mainly because they want to exclude those who are not
sufficiently confident that they can make reasonable
progress.

> And with regard to obstruction, pretty much every time a
> vehicle is taken on the road, it causes an obstruction. I
> think that to be charge with that as an offence, you'd
> probably have to abandon the vehicle and block the road.

I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so
close to me as to make a driveway inaccessible. Although I
was parked legally, clear of the drive itself, and was there
first, we both got done. Plod said that there was no hope of
getting off the charge as any stationary vehicle can be
ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-all used for things
like thoughless but notionally legal parking. Plod may have
been lying, of course.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Jon Senior]

Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined
the following...
> I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so
> close to me as to make a driveway inaccessible. Although I
> was parked legally, clear of the drive itself, and was
> there first, we both got done. Plod said that there was no
> hope of getting off the charge as any stationary vehicle
> can be ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-all used
> for things like thoughless but notionally legal parking.
> Plod may have been lying, of course.

Entirely possible.

In Germany (I have been not-very-reliably informed) there is
a genuine catch-all offence for driving. Essentially, it is
illegal to drive and drivers are allowed to do so under
sufference. This way you are guaranteed to be guilty of some
traffic offence and they can hold you while they work out
what it is!

Jon

 

[Andy Hewitt]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:37:38 +0100 someone who may be
> [email protected] (Andy Hewitt) wrote this:-
>
> >Assuming that the driver was intending to be courteous,
> >they were probably breaking at least two laws anyway, I
> >would guess on causing an obstruction, and hesitation.
>
> So, which part of the law describes the offence of
> hesitation?

Please note the word 'probably', and the phrase 'I
would guess'.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined
> the following...
>> I got done for it once because another vehicle parked so
>> close to me as to make a driveway inaccessible. Although
>> I was parked legally, clear of the drive itself, and was
>> there first, we both got done. Plod said that there was
>> no hope of getting off the charge as any stationary
>> vehicle can be ticketed for obstruction, it is a catch-
>> all used for things like thoughless but notionally legal
>> parking. Plod may have been lying, of course.
>
> Entirely possible.
>
> In Germany (I have been not-very-reliably informed) there
> is a genuine catch-all offence for driving. Essentially,
> it is illegal to drive and drivers are allowed to do so
> under sufference. This way you are guaranteed to be guilty
> of some traffic offence and they can hold you while they
> work out what it is!

Allegedly in English case-law there is a case in which a
line of argument was advanced that it wasn't legal to drive
a car on the road and the Judge said, in effect, that he
agreed the argument had merit but he wasn't going to make a
ruling on it because of the chaos it would cause. But this
may be an urban myth.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world
wide spider?