[shibujp]

Originally Posted by for_cars1

The law stating that "Pedestrians have the right of way at zebra crossing" implies that a motorist is bound by law to stop and allow the pedestrian to cross on a zebra crossing crossing if they happen to see a pedestrian cross the road.

The expectation is for motorists to slow down while approaching a pedestrian crossing to be prepared to stop if they find someone already crossing the road.

However in this case, the biker is clearly not in a position to see the person crossing the road due to the bus obstructing his view.

The pedestrian happened to hurry and suddenly put himself in front of the biker. There is no way the bike could have stopped in an instant and prevented from hitting the pedestrian, simple laws of physics.

Its very clearly the fault of the pedestrian, having the right of way to cross does not mean that they can throw themselves in front of a vehicle at the last second and expect the vehicle to stop.

The motorists in this video don't appear to be slowing down at the crossing and they are wrong to that extent.

Even in other countries where the pedestrian crossing rule is strictly enforced, pedestrians indicate their desire to cross the road by pressing a button and cross only after the lights turn green for the pedestrians and red for the vehicles.

Part of the problem is also that pedestrians tend to cross from any part of the road that catches their fancy. It's the rare breed that bothers themselves to walk up to the zebra crossing.

Drive on,
Shibu

[longhorn]

Right of way does not mean you can barge in onto the road as though your dad owns it, do your belly dance and then walk / run / bolt away as your please. Right of way means as the pedestrian appears on the edge of the road, vehicles should slow down and gradually come to a stop. The pedestrian should then cross the road after vehicles have come to a stop on both the lanes. Whether our drivers would stop for such a pedestrian waiting to cross is a different matter, although they ought to by law. Running into oncoming traffic doesn't justify their pea brained actions, just because someone painted a few white boxes on the road.

[deathwalkr]

Oh wow. Such anger. Zebra crossings are the safe haven for pedestrians. If you don't have line of sight, you slow down!

All the more when it is a crossing without a signal.

As for buttons in the west, i have experienced people stopping even at speed just to let me cross. It is a strange feeling no doubt but it is ingrained in them to stop.

But then jaywalking is also a crime there. It has to work both ways for balance to remain. Here we have jaywalkers and motorists who drive on footpaths. Go figure.

People on wheels, if you are about to approach a zebra crossing, slow down. Would that be too hard to do?

But would i run across a crossing on a busy road? Hell no. If and when something goes wrong, i would be the one to take the maximum damage.

[binand]

Originally Posted by longhorn

Right of way does not mean you can barge in onto the road as though your dad owns it, do your belly dance and then walk / run / bolt away as your please.

You've got it wrong. Right of way (or to use the correct term, yielding the right of way) is a mandatory requirement and every road user is expected to know the yielding rules and be always prepared to abide by them. So if a pedestrian appears on a zebra crossing, any passing vehicle is required to stop and yield to them. "I couldn't slow down in time" is not a valid defense.

[SCORPION]

Originally Posted by binand

You've got it wrong. Right of way (or to use the correct term, yielding the right of way) is a mandatory requirement and every road user is expected to know the yielding rules and be always prepared to abide by them. So if a pedestrian appears on a zebra crossing, any passing vehicle is required to stop and yield to them. "I couldn't slow down in time" is not a valid defense.

Yes, may be in Utopia. Just like how motorists have a moral and legal obligation to abide by the rules, pedestrians too have the obligation to use their common sense and consider the limitations of an automobile and it's driver. You cannot suddenly 'appear' in front of a vehicle and expect them to stop defying all laws of physics. It is your moral obligation to make it clear to the traffic that you intend to cross the road, and give them enough time to slow down before they reach the crossing. If the motorist still fails to do so, then he is at fault.

A speed limit of 50 kmph, gives you the right to drive at 50 kmph. But does that mean you will drive at 50 no matter what? You have to slow down, crawl or stop depending on the traffic conditions around you. Similarly, a zebra crossing gives you the right to cross the road at that place, but you may have to wait to allow a vehicle to pass to allow a safe crossing. You cannot jump in front of a vehicle when he is 2 metres away and expect the driver to save you from your stupidity. You have to look both left and right and then decide to cross, or wait for a few more seconds. Not cross blindly just because a rule gives you the right to do so. A rule will not save your life. Your common sense and presence of mind will.

Why would you slow down at a zebra crossing when there is apparently no one waiting to cross the road, or is in the process of crossing. You cannot be held responsible for other peoples stupidity. That is why it is called an accident.

[airbus]

Originally Posted by binand

So if a pedestrian appears on a zebra crossing, any passing vehicle is required to stop and yield to them. "I couldn't slow down in time" is not a valid defense.

Exactly, here is a frame from the video.



Clearly pedestrians were on the zebra crossing and crossed half of the road already. Apart from the bus driver, biker should also have noticed it. Your speed should be such that you can slow down or stop when you see pedestrians on a zebra crossing. I see people giving same excuse for rear-ending that vehicle in-front braked suddenly.

As to why pedestrians were running, we need to ask the same question to motorists also about how many of us respect pedestrians? Why I regularly see bikers on footpaths? Why people block zebra crossings at traffic signals? Not supporting jaywalking here, but these people were crossing the road where they are supposed to cross.

[SCORPION]

Originally Posted by airbus

As to why pedestrians were running, we need to ask the same question to motorists also how many of us respect pedestrians? Why I regularly see bikers on footpaths? Why people block zebra crossings at traffic signals? Not supporting jaywalking here, but these people were crossing the road where they are supposed to cross.

They were running because they clearly knew the bus, or any vehicle on the blind side of the bus, wouldn't be able to stop in time to let them cross, especially the second one. Still they decided to take a chance and not wait for a few more seconds. If they had been at walking speed, which is how you would normally cross a zebra crossing, they would have definitely been run over by the bus, even if the driver had slammed on his brakes. You may argue that the bus could have stopped on time if he had slammed his brakes. But that filament of doubt exists, right? So they should have waited, instead of trying their luck and testing if the bus driver or the biker knew the rule which says they have the right of way. In the end, one of them paid the price.

Bikers on foot paths, blocking zebra crossings - irrelevant to the topic in discussion. Let's stick to this particular accident. Else there would be no end to it.

[venkyhere]

I think we should stop the argument about "the law" and how we must follow it into its last detail of every word. If that was the case, we must never drive at 60kph though some 50kph limit state highway, in the middle of the night when there is zero traffic, never park on roadside where there is no "P" sign, never overtake where there is a solid lane marker, never get down from a bus anywhere other than a designated bus stop, etc etc , even never buy anything at all, without a GST bill. Are we following all this perfectly ?

What must prevail is common sense, slow down and be alert for a zebra crossing, watching the edges. This is possible only if your vision is not blocked.
If your vision is blocked by a giant bus, what are you supposed to do ? If we face the same situation as the biker (who did not even slow down a bit after spotting the zebra - thats his mistake) in the video did, most of us would have slowed down a bit, but can never avoid hitting a person suddenly appearing in your front. Just no way. May be avoidable if you have the reflexes of a racing driver. For normal people, the only way to avoid this would have been to come to a city-crawl/standstill because you did not see one edge of the zebra crossing. Hand on heart, how many of us will claim "yes I will do that" ?
If somebody is paranoid enough to say yes to the above, its better the person stay off the road altogether (even public transport, how to know whether the driver is a stickler for rules, you are still not safe)

Defensive driving does not mean driving in primal fear. We must accept the risk involved (compared to sitting at home) in the task called driving, and move on.

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

I think we should stop the argument about "the law"....... Are we following all this perfectly ?

100% agree with every single word written above.

The members talking all the utopian terms above, I request them to kindly share their dash cam footage of last 30 hours spent on the city roads. I am not someone who always talk about what the law is and what is wrong or right; if I know I will get killed or injured and I protect myself from it - that is the biggest law for me, let the court and judges take care of the rest.

What must prevail is common sense, slow down and be alert for a zebra crossing, watching the edges. This is possible only if your vision is not blocked.

A pedestrian crossing the road is fine but nobody can expect the entire traffic coming to a screeching halt or start moving at 5 kph on every 100th meter, where the rules are properly followed by 'EVERYONE', let this be applied there. Everyone says in their job interviews "sir I am highly adaptable", that statement means something, believe me gentlemen. The thing is, if a pedestrian expects that a motorist will alter all the rules of physics and then stop causing a chain collision of 100 vehicles behind his/her vehicle - then definitely there is somethign wrong. Pressing a button and crossing the road is a different thing and just throwing yourself in front of a moving vehicle is a different thing. Directly calling the motorcyclist a convict is wrong IMO, both the parties are equally responsible in this case.

At the risk of being called heartless, my friend sitting next to me literally had a ROFL moment looking at the video while he said "o bhai, hawan ki itni jaldi thi ki yeh toh pandit ji ko sadak se hi utha ke ghar le gaya(Brother, the biker was so much hurried for a hawan that he picked a priest from road itself and took him home)".

I must say that the biker has still managed to control the bike quite well!

[longhorn]

Originally Posted by binand

You've got it wrong. Right of way (or to use the correct term, yielding the right of way) is a mandatory requirement and every road user is expected to know the yielding rules and be always prepared to abide by them. So if a pedestrian appears on a zebra crossing, any passing vehicle is required to stop and yield to them. "I couldn't slow down in time" is not a valid defense.

This is not for argument but for the sake of education.

Taken from the UK Highway Code :-

At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

(a) always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
(b) always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
(c) You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.

Link below :-

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rule...crossings.html

Its basic common sense. Its much easier for a person who can walk / run at a max of 15 kmph to stop than to stop a car that is travelling at say 40 kmph.

Pedestrians have the right of way. A driver of a motor vehicle must stop to yield way at a pedestrian crossing. That doesn't mean you are expected to slam the brakes or induce a drift or pull up the handbrake because some moron turned up in the blink of an eye at a crossing.

EDIT : Why are children in school taught to turn your head right, left and right again before crossing the road ?

I would actually applaud the biker for being able to avoid the first moron and then still be able to have some control over the bike after hitting the second moron and not run over him. Should he have slowed down after narrowly missing the first guy? Absolutely.

[deathwalkr]

I see a lot of pointers about an Utopian situation. As responsible members i suggest we at least try and do these simple things on the road. A good change however small is change for the better.

Yield to others [our ego seldom allows that]

Slow down/Stop at zebra crossings. Slow just in case, stop if pedestrians wait to cross or are already crossing.

Maintain distance.

Avoid high beam if there is a car in front of you

Avoid needless honking

Stop at the stop line at signals

Slow down if signal counter is almost at zero

Wait for green before you move from stop line at junctions

Utopia is possible only when the people desire it to be. So unless we change why should we expect others to?

[shubhodeepdas@g]

Originally Posted by airbus

...Clearly pedestrians were on the zebra crossing and crossed half of the road already. Apart from the bus driver, biker should also have noticed it. Your speed should be such that you can slow down or stop when you see pedestrians on a zebra crossing. I see people giving same excuse for rear-ending that vehicle in-front braked suddenly....

From the image and video it is very very clear that the biker has no option to claim that he missed the duo crossing the road, however he seems to be busy overtaking the bus from the left and to some extent fixating on the first guy and missing the second one completely. No one is in a blind spot here.

The bus slows down, so should have the biker instead of trying to capitalise on the opportunity to overtake.

Meanwhile, just a hand gesture from the priest would have been enough to slow down the bus driver, who comes across as the educated one of the four, and thereafter not running would have avoided this whole incident completely.

[BenjiRoss]

Lots of points brought about above. One of the key things I've noticed is that our traffic markings and pedestrian crossings are not rational in a lot of places. This reflects both some ignorance on the part of authorities and the fact that our population and inhabitation distribution results in people living all around highways (or rather lots of highway stretches going through populated areas). I still think overbridges instead of pedestrian crossings are a good option and should be explored where possible. Logistically more challenging and you are still faced with a lot of people who don't use overbridges.
There's a lot of compromise in our traffic system and road designs and this is a natural recipe for mishaps given the fact that people don't follow road rules and do not have road sense.

[sushantr5]

Originally Posted by longhorn

Right of way does not mean you can barge in onto the road as though your dad owns it, do your belly dance and then walk / run / bolt away as your please. Right of way means as the pedestrian appears on the edge of the road, vehicles should slow down and gradually come to a stop. The pedestrian should then cross the road after vehicles have come to a stop on both the lanes. Whether our drivers would stop for such a pedestrian waiting to cross is a different matter, although they ought to by law. Running into oncoming traffic doesn't justify their pea brained actions, just because someone painted a few white boxes on the road.

It is absolute priority of the pedestrian fullstop; no matter if pedestrian wants dart or fly or roll. I am saying this because I am trained by Germanys strict driving license process. Motorist has to be ready for any situation. I see in Germany, pedestrian directly dart in on zebra crossing without even having a look on the road but German drivers are fine with it. Driver has to take care when there is no visibility in such scenarios. Driver has to expect that there might be someone crossing the road. During training, there was special emphasis on this factor.

This is from purely law perspective. When I casually checked Indian rules, I found it to be same but for right hand drive. There are rules clearly defined for right of ways like, Germany has Right Before Left rule at crossroads, India has left before right.

But all things come down to general awareness and following of law in India. We are really not doing anything to make roads better place. Even well educated people are not aware of rules, when I was driving in India I was also not aware of so many rules.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Soumyajit9

Those blaming the biker should keep their "honest team-bhp member views" aside and think realistically / practicality of the situation.

Firstly, whether TBHP mode or not, wherever there is a pedestrian crossing, where there are no traffic lights, the vehicle has to watch out for pedestrians. If there are, then either let them cross or indicate to pedestrians that the vehicle will be going ahead and when pedestrian positively confirms by body language, the vehicle may go ahead. This whole communication might take a second or less. But body language of pedestrian must be watched at all times.

In case there are no pedestrians, the vehicle may continue without slowing down. But some in countries, it is required by law for the vehicle to halt and then proceed.

In our country where the bigger the vehicle, more the right of way, pedestrians are lowest in the hierarchy and hence face the brunt.

Originally Posted by longhorn

Right of way does not mean you can barge in onto the road as though your dad owns it, do your belly dance and then walk / run / bolt away as your please.

Secondly, like we talk about defensive driving, there are defensive pedestrian habits. In the video, the folks crossing the road didn't exhibit defensive behavior. Defensive measures are for own safety and cannot fault somebody if they don't follow defensive habits.