To think it is 100% this runner’s fault that I almost hit him?!

[AngeloMysterioso]

On my way to pick DS2 up from nursery with DS1 and DS3 up, around 20 past 5 so it’s already dark. There’s a queue to turn at a T junction and a small cul-de-sac on the left so I’d stopped just before the cul-de-sac to let people out/in. A few cars have pulled out so I’m slowly moving forward after checking mirrors when a runner goes diagonally across the road from behind my right, directly in front of another car going the other way and then in front of my car and I have to stamp on my brake so I don’t hit him. He is wearing:

• trainers- I didn’t see what colour but they definitely weren’t white or anything particularly bright or visible
• black running leggings and shorts
• a dark green long sleeved tshirt
• black gloves
• a dark grey beanie
• literally no bright or reflective items of clothing or accessories whatsoever.

After narrowly avoiding him I beeped my horn, at which point he turned around, swore at me and carried on running. I saw him running up and then around the corner, and further down that road I witnessed him running straight across a zebra crossing without pausing at all to make sure there were no cars approaching.

I didn’t hit him. But AIBU to think if I had, it would not have been my fault, given that he was wearing dark clothing and nothing reflective so he was barely visible, and ran straight in front of my car? I mean how fucking stupid can you be?

No, I have the popular number of eyes... unless you're under-endowed in that respect?

It seems to me that nobody has taken into account the particular conditions that the driver found herself in at the time. She was in a queue of traffic (plenty of light), edging forward slowly, stop-starting to let traffic in from a side road. In such circumstances there is plenty of opportunity to be keeping an eye on all mirrors. I am hyper aware of what's going on all around me, particularly when I'm in slow moving stop-start traffic. That's my responsibility as a driver. It beggars belief that people think they only need to/can only keep an eye on what's happening in front of them.

Maybe it's because I'm also a cyclist and I keep an eye out for cyclists who will likely not be moving at the same pace as the car in front of me or behind me. Perhaps that gives me greater awareness and higher standards as a driver than people with fewer eyes than the standard number.

I dunnno about legally but he was an idiot. Especially for swearing at you.

I am a runner (and cyclist) myself, wear brightly coloured clothing all year round and after dark a high vis reflective jacket and lights

but regardless I don’t cross roads unless it’s 100% safe to do so

runners round here are sensible but we have plenty of idiotic cyclists riding on major a roads with black clothing, no lights high vis or helmet. Yet if I hit them it’s my fault. Idiots.

My DC's shit secondary school only allows black or navy coats. I've complained about the safety aspect and they won't budge. It makes my blood boil.

Our school eventually backed down on this when there was an accident. It beggars belief doesn’t it

@ImustLearn2Cook
yes you are correct in that all are supposed to be responsible for road safety. However only one group are tested and licenced on the basis of passing that test, that’s those in charge of motorised vehicles. The testing for those is based on likely harm in the event of a collision so more testing on HGV drivers and in some cities more requirements for additional safety features.

you are missing a few things on your reading, that’s the rules for drivers - I’ve posted about rule 151 which bud applicable here, and the hierarchy on road users which was an important amendment a couple of years ago. Most people won’t have read this. They should. Staying up to date is a condition of their licence.

From rule h1: Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

So as I’ve said the runner was stupid, but OP should anticipate someone running in front in slow moving traffic. She says she saw his cross behind then claimed not to be able to see behind her, despite having a mirror but still managed to describe his attire accurately although she says it was getting dark, she also blows the horn at him, contravening what it’s for, after the event causing an altercation.

so that isn’t someone that respects the hierarchy or obeys the rules. I get she probably had a shock, I’ve sympathy as it would frighten the beejasus out of me too, and the guy was really only thinking of himself and his run, but in slow moving traffic in an urban environment this type of person will be encountered. She did see him and she did react and avoided an accident but in terms of fault it isn’t his 100% personally I don’t think it’s 100% hers either. But she does have fault.

@Pupinskipops i cycled for many years in the city before I learned to drive and the instructor said that every cyclist he taught had really good observation skills and were usually pretty good at predicting what cars would do. So I think as a group we are pretty good at using our eyes. I joked to him that’s how I’m still alive, because the number of BMWs and Audis without working indicators is insane.

These days it’s people on phones. Yes even dangerous in slow moving traffic. The indicator problem on those cars hasn’t improved much.

Yes, exactly that... coupled with the fact that the very first thing my driving instructor said to me on my first lesson, before I'd even turned on the engine, was that I was now in charge of a killing machine. Too many drivers forget that.

Circumstances alter cases. Obviously the phone thing is bad and indeed, illegal. But- in my dog walking days, I walked quietish country roads from time to time. Realised by all weather gear was mud brown (design, not filth) and wore a hi-viz vest and walked where possible on the side of the road where I'd be easily seen.
Common sense but some people seem to lack it.

@Clearinguptheclutter and @Stretchedresources

heres the ROSPA report on KSI stats around schools. British drivers injure or kill 1,200 children within 500m of a school every month.

im going to go out on a limb and says that it’s not dark every month, and they aren’t all wearing black and invisible, I’ll say that kids going to and from school can be distracted, be messing about and showing off, they are still kids. The onus is still on us as adults to protect and safeguard them. Particularly if we are driving a vehicle, I’ll also say that the standard of driving around schools is terrible in general, parking on zig zags and double yellows which is prohibited precisely to improve safety and visibility.

these are shameful stats and behind every one there’s huge consequences for families and those young people. Fact is people aren’t careful enough. They take risks. Parents take risks to deliver their kids to school, eg letting them out in slow moving traffic but still on the road. Teens in particular take risks - see the stat around boys on bikes. They are evolutionally programmed to do so. They shouldn’t take these risks but we know they do. So as responsible drivers we have to be hyper vigilant around them. Or simply ban cars within 500 metres of schools which many schools have done and it does reduce these statistics as you’re taking away the thing that can cause the most harm,

www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/factsheets/home-to-school-travel-guide.pdf

I agree completely. We live quite in quite a rural area and the number of young boys out on bikes after dark, no helmet, all in black, on unlit country roads is really scary. I don't know how they can see to know where they are going, and I can't understand why their parents aren't enforcing some rules around safety! It's great that they are being active and spending time outdoors but a reflective jacket or armbands is surely not that hard to insist on.

@Pupinskipops I’m so aware of that when I drive. I could - by mistake or poor judgement- devastate a family. I actually don’t enjoy driving in the city, it’s slow often and frustrating and far quicker and more pleasant to leave the car at home. I do object to anyone using their phone when driving. Too many drivers - especially those who’ve never cycled in traffic - see it as completely harmless.

heres the ROSPA report on KSI stats around schools. British drivers injure or kill 1,200 children within 500m of a school every month.

Would be interesting to know just how many of those children are hit by parents dropping off or picking up their own children, and the number injured/killed due to a non-parent having to suddenly manoeuvre due to a parent stopping dead in the middle of the road with no indication whatsoever to drop their kids off. Or the parents parked on blind corners, or the ones moving out into the traffic after drop off or pick up without looking first. Some of the worst near misses I've had have been caused by parents doing this - the very people who should be most aware.

But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.

Greatest responsibility maybe, but many people (including some on here) seem to think they need to take 100% of the responsibility and that pedestrians can go about their merry way completely oblivious about anything going on around them. As I suggested earlier, we ALL need to take at least some responsibility and act in a way that considers other road users. In most cases we aren't even talking about roads that need to be shared by pedestrians and cars, most (though not all of course) have pavements and the pedestrian is moving from a pedestrian zone into a car zone - surely worth just a quick glance just in case someone is coming down the road?

Are you referring to my pp where I referred to the highway code rules for pedestrians? The pedestrian broke the rules by running across the road, crossing diagonally and not ensuring that he was visible.

How does rule 151 of the highway code nullify the rules for pedestrians as outlined in the highway code?

And where does the highway code refer to a hierarchy of road users that means that people driving vehicles will always be at fault if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle? Could you please post a link to that particular section regarding this hierarchy?

https://highwaycode.org.uk/rule-151/

In slow-moving traffic. You should

• reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow
• never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely
• leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past
• not change lanes to the left to overtake
• allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion
• be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

Is this the rule 151 that you are referring to? I can’t see any way that the Op broke this rule. And how does this rule support any of your argument at all.

@Allergictoironing but more people it seems by voting seem to think that OP bears no fault. And she does. There’s a lot of victim blaming on this thread. Including of children.

yes pedestrians and cyclists etc should take responsibility. But remember some are blind/partially sighted. They obviously should only use designated crossing and usually do. But still people don’t stop on crossings. I see it literally every week where I live, there’s no excuse but it happens. That is why you need to consider diminished responsibility in the case of kids, those with mobility issues or other impairments and the onus is on drivers to bear greater responsibility. The code reflects that. But too many people here are acting like it’s equal and it’s just not.

but more people it seems by voting seem to think that OP bears no fault.

There's fault in a legal sense, and fault in a moral sense, though.

Legally speaking, yes, the driver is pretty much always at fault for a crash involving a bike, runner or pedestrian, but in moral/practical terms, it's not quite so clear cut. It's impossible for a driver to be able to see what's happening all around them, all the time, no matter how good the visibility or how slowly they might be driving, and if a pedestrian dressed all in black appears suddenly from your blind spot and walks in front of your vehicle in the pitch black, there's practically nothing you can do to prevent a collision - even if you notice them right away and have lightning fast reactions.

I also think that now dashcams are becoming more and more commonplace, it will be easier for drivers to "prove" that there was nothing more they could have done in the event of a collision.

The OP says specifically that it was already dark. She also says she was edging forward, after checking her mirrors. The runner ran in front of a car going the other way which would have obscured him from OP's view and then approached her car diagonally before crossing in front of her.

Not one person has suggested that drivers only need to be aware of what is in front of them or that they have no responsibility to be considerate toward other road users and maintain safety for everyone but all road users have an obligation to behave in a safe way and the runner was certainly not doing that.

I have been a road user as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and a driver, do I win road user top trumps? I have also seen, in a professional capacity, what happens to pedestrians when they get hit by a car, as the driving instructor up thread pointed out, "Arguing about responsibility means nothing in the face of a disaster."

I've just looked out of the window and seen a woman walking her dog, it's pouring with rain and the light is low, the woman is in bright orange high vis and her dog is in pink hi vis, I guess some people would rather take basic steps to protect themselves than rely on other people being perfect under all conditions.

I have also seen, in a professional capacity, what happens to pedestrians when they get hit by a car, as the driving instructor up thread pointed out, "Arguing about responsibility means nothing in the face of a disaster."

Well, this is the thing, isn't it? You can shout about how drivers should have 360 degree vision and are always responsible for any accident, no matter what, but that won't help when you're the one in hospital because you've run out into traffic dressed in black at 5pm in November.

Ultimately, pedestrians/runners/cyclists are more vulnerable than drivers - and the number of them who just wander into the road or stand in the middle of traffic never ceases to amaze me. It's like they think they're invincible.

Yet schools demand their coats are all black with no logos. surprised more teens are not killed the way they behave.

I think people have got the argument back to front, they think drivers are more responsible because they can do more harm but you will have no satisfaction in holding a driver accountable if you are dead. It's a baffling mindset.

As a runner I always light myself up like a Xmas tree, why wouldn’t you want to make yourself as visible as possible? Saying that the majority of motorists don’t realise that pedestrians have right of way when motorists are turning left into a new road.

Ok I found it. I don’t interpret this to mean that drivers of vehicles will always be found at fault when a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. While people driving do have a high level of responsibility for how they operate their vehicles, they cannot defy the laws of physics. Pedestrians simply cannot suddenly run in front of a vehicle and expect the driver to be able to stop in time. There is a reason why there are rules for pedestrians not to run across the road, not to cross diagonally and to ensure that they are visible. Because drivers cannot defy the laws of physics and actually have very human limitations.

If the pedestrian was running diagonally across the road as the Op described then he wasn’t crossing at the junction like he should have been and he wasn’t obeying the rules for pedestrians. There is a paragraph in rule h1 that makes it very clear that: None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.

So clearly having the highest level of responsibility does not equate to being the only ones responsible or being at fault in an accident solely caused by the actions of a pedestrian breaking the rules and being reckless.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#ruleh1

The ‘hierarchy of road users’ is a concept that places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly. The road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists, with children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk. The following H rules clarify this concept.

But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.

Yep.

I find it really baffling that so many people on here don't think they have any kind of responsibility to make themselves as visible as possible when out walking along roads. I'm a professional dog walker and have high-vis for myself, as well as lights etc. for all the dogs if needed. I don't do many walks where it's necessary, but always have the gear in my car - because even if a driver is technically at fault for any accident, that won't make me feel any better when I'm stuck in hospital or dealing with a dead or injured dog.

I know someone who hit a runner, who later died.
He was wearing all black on an unlit road, thick trees either side with speed limit 50mph, and was crossing just after a bend.

Luckily for them his family all said something along the lines of "we'd told him for years..."
However they had to go through a police investigation which checked things like if they had reacted appropriately (eg checking tyre marks to check when they'd started braking etc), which was very stressful for them, and they were told that if they could be charged if the investigation showed that they'd been negligent or their driving had effected the collision negatively.

@coffeesaveslives I agree with your legal/moral distinction. But prosecutions and sentences for dangerous or careless driving in this country are woefully low, the sentencing nearly always favours the driver. I mean if I wanted to kill someone I would get in a car to do it as there’s a lot of instances where there’s not even jail time. In my area the woman who killed an elderly pedestrian on a wide signalled crossing in broad daylight (he didn’t suddenly run across the road) got some points on her licence. I’ve spoken to school mums about speeding awareness courses 5/7 have done one. I’ve never even had a ticket and they were all appalled by what they learned but all of them still said they speed “sometimes”. People minimise the risks to others and when you’re in tonnes of metal that can crush a human body you don’t get to do that. They are very keen to say things like - using a phone in slow moving traffic is fine (no). Speeding cause I was in a hurry, know the road, there was nobody on it, is ok sometimes (no). Parking on double yellows/at a junction/in a disabled bay just for a minute is fine (no). I’d say the vast majority of people saying that the pedestrian is a fault have done these things. And actually in the Highway Code these are MUST NOT do.

Whereas the pedestrian guidance is just that. There’s no MUST.

People don’t fear having their licence revoked - it hardly ever happens. The case this week where someone previously banned twice from driving, kills a child on a crossing and only gets a ban for 7 years. It’s laughable. drivers need to take their privilege to use the roads seriously. And too many don’t but they are quick to point out faults of others.

drivers need to take their privilege to use the roads seriously. And too many don’t but they are quick to point out faults of others.

Yep - I don't disagree with you. But the fact that some drivers break the law in some situations doesn't change the fact that, in other scenarios (like in the OP) there's often nothing they can do to prevent an accident when some idiot dressed all in black decides to wander out into moving traffic at 7pm in November.