Colin McKenzie wrote in
:

Adrian wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

This is a classic case of the difference between what vulnerable road
users are advised to do and what dangerous road users should expect
them to do. E.g. pedestrians are advised to wear something white at
night, but drivers need to see them in time to avoid them even if
they're matt black from top to toe.

There are a lot of ways a cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist or animal
could end up on the nearside of a left-turning long vehicle. The
driver is required to ensure that no-one is there. Deciding that
no-one ought to be there is not good enough.

So no matter how stupid other road users are, it's always the vehicle
driver's fault?

Car drivers are required to conform to all sorts of rules (a combination of
the Highway Code and motoring law) and if they contravene them, they may be
prosecuted. But if a pedestrian or a cyclist offends, they are to be pitied
instead of criticised for causing the accident?

If, at night, a pedestrian wearing black crosses the road in front of a
moving vehicle, too close for the vehicle to be able to stop, or if a
cyclist strays into the path of a moving vehicle and has no lights, it's the
driver's fault for not being able to see them, rather then the pedestrian's
or cyclist's fault for doing something dangerous, irresponsible and stupid?

Yes, *everyone* on the road should drive/walk/cycle defensively, but this
should be on a "best endeavours" basis: if an accident still occurs, the
fault lies with the person who cocked up, not with the driver of the vehicle
who had priority.