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?

This.

There’s a difference between vulnerable and reckless.

Perhaps people should drive as if there are pedestrians, cyclists and runners who wear black at night.

You’re supposed to drive in a way that’s safe for the conditions, and the conditions are that the roads include people wearing dark clothing. I run in hi vis because of terrible drivers, but the onus should be on drivers to drive safely.

I remember a couple of years ago I was in a traffic jam in the city centre - three passengers in the car. It was dark and absolutely pouring down. The lights at a junction had failed and I crawled forward alongside the car in the other lane, looking for oncoming traffic.

Suddenly there was something bashing the bonnet of the car. I stopped and a policeman in a bright yellow long hi viz coat banged on the window and told me to pull over. He had been directing traffic and neither I, nor my three passengers, or the driver of the car alongside me (who was also pulled over) had seen him. The reason ? He was standing directly in front of a giant neon billboard screen which was flashing adverts and the screen was lit up in exactly the same colour as his hi viz coat. No one saw him. He was so angry with myself and the other driver and determined we weren’t paying attention. Until I pointed out what was behind him and it suddenly clicked. He wasn’t happy but he sent us on our way. Happily for him, and us, the traffic had slowed to a crawl because of the weather and failure of the lights, but it highlights the issue here - you can’t avoid what you can’t see.

So by that logic we should all drive as though a runner is going to cross in front of us at any second without a second thought for their own safety ? How would that work ? Perhaps if pedestrians, runners, and yes, some cyclists, behaved with some consideration for other road users there would be less accidents for which posters here seem to think motorists should be entirely responsible, regardless of the actions leading up to them.

So everyone should drive along at 10mph, just in case?

Oh stop now with your common sense. Everyone knows that when you do something reckless the laws of physics don't apply and you can blame someone else for the consequences.

I sincerely hope posters on this thread aren't responsible for teaching children about road safety.

I think under the circumstances, if you'd hit him, it would be investigated, but you'd have a case on the grounds of what he was wearing, and that he approached from your rear. Assuming you were slowly moving up in the queue, you wouldn't hopefully have it him with much force.
He was an idiot risk-taker, hopefully your horn will have made him think twice about that, and if he relays the tail to other's , they might set him straight, so he thinks twice about doing it again.

I saw a woman, dressed in dark colours, walking on a narrow unlit road at about 9 pm last night. She had a torch in her hand but was walking with her back to the traffic, thankfully I was driving towards her but when I looked in my rearview mirror, after I'd passed her, she was invisible.

I believe it was a runner not a cyclist in the OP. The hierarchy is there to protect vulnerable pedestrians and other road users. Yes there’s a responsibility on all parties in the code. And clearly some people do stupid things, cyclists with no lights (illegal, should be fined, or bikes not sold without lights) but some pedestrians are young, may have vision impairment, mobility issues so the onus is on drivers of vehicles to be more aware.

He knew she was there, he ran around the front of the car. And rule 151 of the Highway Code allows for this. It states in slow moving traffic you should allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross in front of you. OP said he crossed in front. Sure he seemed to do a sort of indirect manoeuvre so maybe was hard to see but he is allowed to cross in front of slow moving traffic and the code says she should allow it,

The beep wasn’t a warning it was an admonishment. The rules state the horn is used only to warn users of imminent danger. OP used it when danger had passed,

Look I’d have been annoyed and upset if I thought I nearly hit someone, and I think was the runner did was spectacularly stupid. But in slow moving traffic you expect people to cross/ cyclists to pass simply because they will take that chance. That’s what rule 151 acknowledges. And the use of the horn was inappropriate and used in anger, not as a warning. It tells me OP is perhaps not a very safe driver, as she thinks the runner is entirely at fault. He isn’t.

OP then doubles down and says she’d tell hypothetical grieving parents that it’s their child’s fault they died. I knew she would, that’s why I asked. As I encounter plenty of drivers like that and nothing is ever their fault,

Fact is penalties for poor driving are woeful, a guy just got banned for 7 years for killing a 12 year old on a pedestrian crossing. He’s had two driving bans previously. He should never drive again. He’s not safe.

Far too many people are killed and injured on our roads and far too much victim blaming going on. And a chronic lack of knowledge of the Highway Code among the people who actually have to take a test on it

I agree pedestrians and cyclists should wear something reflective, especially if there's no street lights. I always remember thinking drivers can see me because they have headlights, but now I'm older I realise that it's not as simple as that.

Oncoming lights can dazzle drivers so that they can't always see what's around them clearly.

Is it victim blaming if the “victim” brought it entirely upon themselves?

If you want to cross the road at night without getting hit by a car, make yourself easily visible, pick a sensible spot, make sure there are no cars approaching and then walk across.

Don’t go out dressed like a ninja and run directly across an oncoming car’s path whilst it is moving.

The new law states pedestrians have right of way, yes. But there has to be just a little bit of common sense here.

I drive along a 50mph dual carriageway every day to and from work, and depending on the traffic I will be driving at up to this speed. There aren't proper hard pavements, but people do walk along the wide verges. If one of them suddenly swerved out into the road when I was about 10m away I would almost definitely not be able to avoid hitting them. The only way I could, would be to drive at 10mph or below (in the 50mph limit roadway). Yet going by some responses on this thread, this would be MY fault for not being careful enough!

Maybe these people saying this don't ever drive themselves, because if they do I can almost guarantee they don't drive at 10mph or less at all times including motorways; in fact, you can be prosecuted for driving so slowly on a motorway that you inconvenience other road users. And you can't just slow down to 10mph every time you see a pedestrian or think there may be a pedestrian close enough to the kerb to step off before you are past them.

I always slow down now when coming up to any form of pedestrian crossing, I've seen far to many people just stepping onto the road not looking in either direction with their heads down looking at their phones, with ear pods in. In fact they often do this at lights controlled crossings (where they haven't pressed the button) or even just stepping out into moving traffic with the same lack of precaution.

Honestly? Yes.

It’s drivers who kill people on the roads. It has to be drivers who take responsibility. People are repeatedly admitting that they know they can’t see vulnerable road users and yet don’t seem to understand that means they need to drive differently to take account of that fact.

Fortunately the law doesn’t agree with you.

My friend was killed in similar circumstances a few years ago. The driver was prosecuted. The judge was clear that the driver was at fault and it was fully their responsibility.

If you lack the ability to spot pedestrians in the dark, don’t drive. This includes needing the ability (per your OP) to check to the sides before moving off or in slow moving traffic. You checked your mirrors and what was in front of you. If you had checked your blind spots you would have seen him.

Putting the onus solely on drivers puts vulnerable road users more at risk because you instill in them an expectation that they will be prioritised which is fine but you do need to make sure you can be seen rather than take for granted that you have been seen.

How do you drive to make allowances for people who are invisible in the dark? Do we all need to drive with night vision goggles?

I live on a narrow road, lined with trees and hedges, there is no pavement. I'm lit up like a Christmas tree when I walk the dog after dark. I want drivers to take care around me but I'm not stupid and I understand that even if a driver was recklessly irresponsible I would come of worse in a car vs pedestrian contact and being able to blame the driver would be no comfort at all if I was hurt.

Be safe, be seen is not a new idea.

I'm sorry but you were wrong. I often have to travel at night to areas where women where full black burkha / abayas and have yet to be so distracted I didn't see them. If you can't see someone dressed in black at night you probably need to get your eyes tested.

Yes, really. So people can see you: other pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

Straight forward common sense this time of year.

However, I am a bit of a hypocrite as my coats are respectively purple and navy! I do wear hi vis when I am running, though.

Totally unhelpful and ridiculous comment. Of course you see people. But you see them much earlier if they make themselves visible.

An eye test won't help with people not wearing hi-vis when they should be.

Oh and if you are walking a dog, please have a hi vis collar on them too!

The law doesn't agree with you either. Some years ago a 13 year old was hit by a car and wasn't wearing a cycle helmet. The insurance company cut her pay-out in half. I don't think the driver was prosecuted. There are no "rules" - every situation is different, but if people use common sense and follow the Highway Code, there will be far fewer accidents.

@Allergictoironing of course you wouldn’t be able to stop because of the stopping distance at 50mph. I think it highly unlikely you’d be prosecuted for this if you did hit someone. Now if there was a large group of walkers and you didn’t slow down in case one of them did something I’d say you were not driving to the conditions but even so I doubt you’d be in the wrong. And of course 10mph isn’t expected unless you really think they’re going to run across or one of them is on a horse etc. it’s common sense, not a single person is making that argument.

thats not the situation OP is describing though is it? It’s slow moving traffic and she should be anticipating in a built up area, that someone may do this, and the Highway Code which too many people don’t seem to know allows for this precisely because it’s pretty common.

See also turning into junctions, (traffic should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross at a junction rule 8) and zebra crossings which OP doesn’t seem to understand well either. If there’s a lot of people about and a zebra crossing you should be driving slowly enough to be able to stop and be looking out on the approach, even from the side. Rule 195. Now our runner should also be checking its safe to cross but the onus is on the driver here.

the rules have changed. And many drivers simply don’t know them but they hold a licence on the basis they agree to follow them. Whereas cyclists and pedestrians should know them but have a right to use most (not all) roads and don’t have to have a licence. It’s an important distinction.

I also run in hi vis because I don't want to collide with other pedestrians either. I want them to see me, and I also want to see them - in plenty of time and not just as I get to them because they are all in black.

Hi vis vests are really cheap, there's no reason to have one, and if you are eg just walking home from work, you can put a reflective sticker on your bag.

Also, street lighting is less bright than it was, so there is even more need to be careful - both on the part of drivers, and on the part of cyclists and pedestrians. Isn't the mantra, be safe be seen?

*All pedestrians should wear hi-vis

Really!?*

If you're going to veer in front of moving cars at night, there are worse ideas.