-
I might be wrong, but thought the significance of that case is that pushing =/= riding.
The pedestrian crossing was where the incident took place, i.e. pedestrian pushing bike (so not a rider) had presedence over the vehicle (which struck her). Sounds like the defence argued the bike meant she wasnt a pedestrian thus the car had presedence. Had she been riding or scooting across, or not been using a marked crossing the outcome of the case may have differed, or rather the original case not decided on this point triggering the appeal.
Had this not been at a crossing there'd have still been a duty of care on the driver (and case to answer possibly), however the presence of the crossing made the driver automatically in the wrong for the collision with the pedestrian - which is why they argued it was a rider not ped, and why the judge used those specific words.
The pushing =/= riding case hasn't been tested away from a crossing afaik, would need a collision & subsequent prosecution in that circumstance to take place, not ideal really.
All that said, it doesn't actually help answer the original question I guess.
rhb-
Had this not been at a crossing there'd have still been a duty of care on the driver (and case to answer possibly), however the presence of the crossing made the driver automatically in the wrong for the collision with the pedestrian - which is why they argued it was a rider not ped, and why the judge used those specific words.
Note that Crank vs Brooks was the appeal case. In the original case the defendant (car driver) was found to have no case to answer (even though it occurred on a crossing).
I might be wrong, but thought the significance of that case is that pushing =/= riding.
Yes, but people read too much into it, specifically that pushing a bike is the same as walking without a bicycle. It's not, it (pushing a bike) was just adjudged not to have any relevance when using a pedestrian crossing by foot. It (pushing a bike) may still have relevance when pushing it across a junction.
Greenbank
No. But it was more a question about whether there was a generally accepted definition of pedestrian crossing that might apply. It seems an interesting choice of specific words by the judge if there is not.