The invisible zebra crossing!

[Lowlander]

grabot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > grabot Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > "If they have started to cross they have

> > priority,

> > > so give way"

> > >

> > > Emphasis on "if they have started to cross".

> > > Whether the road is main or smaller is

> neither

> > > here nor there.

> >

> > It was James who raised that not me. The point

> > is, even if you're hurtling towards the

> junction

> > at 60 and a pedestrian steps out, they have

> > priority. The OP is right in a sense,

> junctions

> > are invisible zebra crossings.

>

> No they do not. The pedestrian is a dangerous

> fool in that situation. The pedestrian should not

> step out unless it is safe to do so. Jumping out

> in front of cars is dangerous for all concerned

> and any attempt to perpetuate the idea that it

> automatically grants priority is vicariously

> dangerous.

They do have right of way. Whether or not they're foolish is irrelevant to that.

[JohnL]

I see the below

"watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

Maybe I'm missing something else - as this is the one I know about.

I suppose the OP is saying they are deliberately putting themselves in the road knowing this.

It's if the person waiting behind you wants you to run them over it gets annoying :)

[Jeremy]

Of course a pedestrian should never step out in front of a moving car, forcing the driver to brake. Any evangenlical anti-motorist who thinks this is reasonable behavior is an utter moron.

Obviously the driver is morally and legally obliged to take evasive action to stop the lemmings coming to harm, but that should go without saying.

The rule about pedestrians having right of way if they have started to cross is designed for junctions/turnings or other situations when the pedestrian wouldn't have realised that there is approaching traffic when they started to cross.

[Calum]

"What I am saying is that when I am 5 feet from the actual junction and a pedestrian who I know has seen me"

So they were at the junction first and started to use the road to cross before you too?

What a b*stard.

[JohnL]

just common sense needs to be used in my opinion or

maybe Green Cross Man can do some work at the junction :)

or even the modern Peckham version of Green Cross Man -

The Whistler of Peckham Rye.

[Burbage]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> just common sense needs to be used in my opinion

> or

> maybe Green Cross Man can do some work at the

> junction :)

I can't agree.

In law, as opposed to the Highway Code, oncoming traffic on the public highway means any sort of traffic (including humans, horses and handcarts) travelling towards you on the road (including both carriageway and footway). In other words, at the mouth of a junction, you should not expect an oncoming pedestrian to give way to you, as many commenters here manage to do, just because you'd find it convenient.

It's for that reason, mostly, that I don't think it's pedestrians that need re-educating. Even if they were, the Green Cross Man is not an educator. He's a propagandist, hired to give the misleading impression that it's their own fault if pedestrians get killed. It is a very powerful message, but it's also very false, and the reason we accept it is because, otherwise, we'd have to acknowledge that the motor industry, like the gun trade, wouldn't like the publicity if its customers took responsibility for their actions, and have managed to buy an alternative to the law.

[mynamehere]

Burbage you are one hundred percent correct

[davidh]

drivers do not have right of way over pedestrians. drivers must OBVIOUSLY give way to those on foot. no brainer

[Jeremy]

Well obviously if a driver sees a pedestrian on the road ahead they need to stop.. as you say, no brainer.

But it sounds like some people are actually saying that instead of the traditional "stop, look, listen", pedestrians should do none of the above and just walk out into the road, because it's OK, drivers/cyclists can always slam on the brakes. Is that really what you think?

[Burbage]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But it sounds like some people are actually saying

> that instead of the traditional "stop, look,

> listen", pedestrians should do none of the above

> and just walk out into the road, because it's OK,

> drivers/cyclists can always slam on the brakes. Is

> that really what you think?

First, the question was about whether pedestrians have right of way, which they do.

Secondly, at junctions such as the one in question no slamming of brakes should be necessary, as traffic without right-of way should be looking for oncoming traffic - including pedestrians - and be preparing to give way to it.

That being the case, pedestrians should be able to behave as if they had right of way and, like other traffic, not need to stop at every junction. They should, of course, look and listen as they approach, as should any responsible road user, but the expectation that pedestrians should always stop, and thus give way, is a trumped-up imposition aimed solely at excusing the behaviour of inconsiderate, irresponsible and frankly dangerous drivers.

[bawdy-nan]

I teach my children to assume that all drivers are idiots, that they aren't looking and that they may not even follow the rules at crossings.

Where I live many people drift across the turning into our road without looking, because they don't expect a car to be coming even if they can see me. I just assume that as the car driver I'll give way to them and slow right down. It really doesn't bother me at all. It has coloured my attitude towards driving, especially turning corners.

[richard tudor]

What do you teach your children regarding cyclists?

[Jeremy]

DEFINITELY assume cyclists are idiots ;-)

[Calum]

Burbage Wrote:

> ...the expectation that pedestrians should always

> stop, and thus give way, is a trumped-up

> imposition aimed solely at excusing the behaviour

> of inconsiderate, irresponsible and frankly

> dangerous drivers.

Nail. Head. You've hit it.

[bawdy-nan]

that cyclists are traffic and that when they are cyclists they should beware cars and be considerate to pedestrians

[worldwiser]

James - it's now been over a year since you requested a site meeting on this issue. Did it ever actually happen? And if so, what was the result?

[peckhamside]

YES, at least they did when I learnt to drive and I was just going to make this point.

However in a crowded urban environment a light controlled crossing would probably be a good idea.