Watch out for peds!

Oddballcp

It's half term holiday and the roads have almost no motor traffic on them. So now pedestrians are walking into the road without checking at all, as and when the fancy takes them. Yesterday I nearly ran one down at the bottom of Archway; I was travelling at some lick and all the lights were green when this dozy, dumpy bint steps out in front of me. I shout to her but she's in a world of her own. A bit further along a woman pushes a baby buggy, complete with baby, right into my path. And once I got into the C charging zone it was like it had been pedestrianized.
If there are pedestrians on the pavement, they will step out in front of you, have no doubt.

BentMikey

Roads are for everyone, not just motor vehicles and cyclists.

Clever Pun

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

but my oddball namesake is right, assume the worst because they will try and ruin your day

hamboman

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

but my oddball namesake is right, assume the worst because they will try and ruin your day

Peds are entitled to walk on the road, just as we are entitled to cycle on the road.

Lbaguley

Agreed, but pedestrians are also under an obligation to check that the road is clear before stepping out onto it. Cyclists, however, owe a duty to cycle in a manner and a speed which are suited to the conditions.

spen666

Lbaguley wrote:

Agreed, but pedestrians are also under an obligation to check that the road is clear before stepping out onto it. Cyclists, however, owe a duty to cycle in a manner and a speed which are suited to the conditions.

Really?

Where does that obligation come from?

I can't find it in any legislation I can recall looking at?

Is it a legal obligation? If not, then how are you/anyone to enforce it?

bryanm

spen666 wrote:

Lbaguley wrote:

Agreed, but pedestrians are also under an obligation to check that the road is clear before stepping out onto it. Cyclists, however, owe a duty to cycle in a manner and a speed which are suited to the conditions.

Really?

Where does that obligation come from?

I can't find it in any legislation I can recall looking at?

Is it a legal obligation? If not, then how are you/anyone to enforce it?

Road Traffic Act.

http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue9/issue9page21.html

Lbaguley

Highway Code - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Rule no.1 for pedestrians.

Eat My Dust

Lbaguley wrote:

Highway Code - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Rule no.1 for pedestrians.

This comes under general guidance, which doesn't really mean anything but that!

Lbaguley

Ooops :oops: the clue the would have been in the two large font words at the top, I guess...

However, there is still a duty for the ped to look before stepping into the road and not doing so would constitute negligence (at the very least contributory).

BentMikey

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

You are this: WRONG.

spen666

bryanm wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Lbaguley wrote:

Agreed, but pedestrians are also under an obligation to check that the road is clear before stepping out onto it. Cyclists, however, owe a duty to cycle in a manner and a speed which are suited to the conditions.

Really?

Where does that obligation come from?

I can't find it in any legislation I can recall looking at?

Is it a legal obligation? If not, then how are you/anyone to enforce it?

Road Traffic Act.

http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue9/issue9page21.html

Which Road traffic Act and where in said act ie please provide section/ subsection etc.

There is nothing in the RTAs that I can find that provide any such legal obligation on pedestrians

spen666

Lbaguley wrote:

Highway Code - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Rule no.1 for pedestrians.

The Highway code is not law. It is a code

secretsam

BentMikey wrote:

Roads are for everyone, not just motor vehicles and cyclists.

Fair enough, but they have an equal responsibility to use them sensibly - as do we 2-wheelers

It is nice that the roads are so empty, mind... 8)

blackpuddinonnabike

spen666 wrote:

Lbaguley wrote:

Highway Code - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Rule no.1 for pedestrians.

The Highway code is not law. It is a code

True enough, but where it says MUST it is reflecting an actual piece of legislation (or at least I was always told that...)

I believe (though again I might be wrong on this) that pedestrians have right of way at junctions. If, for example, you're turning off a main road onto a side street anyone crossing that side street on foot has right of way.

Oddballcp

Peds do have a right to walk in the road but if they're not going to be looking out for traffic then traffic must look out for them. That was the point of my first post.
Anyway, crossing the road at the bottom of Archway when the lights are green for traffic is stupid and dangerous even if it's not specifically illegal. So is pushing a baby buggy into the road without looking to see what's coming.

Drfabulous0

BentMikey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

You are this: WRONG.

No he isn't, it's fine for peds to cross the road but if you were to walk down the middle of the road you would have your collar felt for causing an obstruction and for reckless endangerment.

Ale

If a ped deliberately walks out in front of you and you hit them, they are commiting an act of violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6588059.stm

Mystery Shopper

Drfabulous0 wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

You are this: WRONG.

No he isn't, it's fine for peds to cross the road but if you were to walk down the middle of the road you would have your collar felt for causing an obstruction and for reckless endangerment.

Roads are for traffic and transport and pedestrians have both right of way and priority. Historically, vehicles are permitted to use the road on condition that they pose no threat to existing traffic, which means that cyclists have to take care and motorists have to take even more care. These days, too many people forget that.
Bent Mikey is RIGHT!

However, deliberately or negligently obstucting traffic is illegal, whether it's a pedestrian walking in the road or a car badly parked.

Mystery Shopper

Ale wrote:

If a ped deliberately walks out in front of you and you hit them, they are commiting an act of violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6588059.stm

Deliberately, yes, but stupidly?

in the wire

BentMikey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

You are this: WRONG.

I disagree

BentMikey

Mystery Shopper wrote:

Roads are for traffic and transport and pedestrians have both right of way and priority. Historically, vehicles are permitted to use the road on condition that they pose no threat to existing traffic, which means that cyclists have to take care and motorists have to take even more care. These days, too many people forget that.
Bent Mikey is RIGHT!

However, deliberately or negligently obstucting traffic is illegal, whether it's a pedestrian walking in the road or a car badly parked.

Fankoo! Although I used to disagree with peds having such priority, I now realise that this approach in the UK is actually the correct one and very enlightened.

timestar

Much as it pains me to say this, maybe it's finally time to copy the US and introduce the offence of "jaywalking" here in the UK.

Oddballcp

We already have too many laws.
How absurd would it be to prosecute pedestrians crossing the road when the real problem comes from speeding vehcles? This latest craze for reducing speed limits in cities to 20 mph is also ridiculous, when no attempt is made to comply with or enforce the current 30 mph limit.

BentMikey

timestar wrote:

Much as it pains me to say this, maybe it's finally time to copy the US and introduce the offence of "jaywalking" here in the UK.

IMO that's one of the most awful ideas I've seen posted in a long time.

DavidTQ

Oddballcp wrote:

We already have too many laws.
How absurd would it be to prosecute pedestrians crossing the road when the real problem comes from speeding vehcles? This latest craze for reducing speed limits in cities to 20 mph is also ridiculous, when no attempt is made to comply with or enforce the current 30 mph limit.

I do think there is a case to be made that some pedestrians have a suicidal negligence when crossing the road. I dont see why thoughtless dangerous actions by a group of road users should be excempt from prosecution.

watching pedestrians in town centres standing 2' into the road waiting for the traffic to stop so they can cross, instead of waiting on the pavement. Ive known people who have said "the way I see it they have a legal obligation not to hit me" and step out in front of vehciles for the sake of it.

When teaching my kids to use the roads and pedestrian crossings and you try teaching them to wait for the green man before trying to cross, and the number of people who will run out a metre in front of a moving car is crazy. Ive even seen pedestrians walk into the back of a vehicle where the car slowed down when the pedestrian didnt expect it.

if a pedestrian steps out in front of a vehicle at 20mph causing that vehicle to take avoiding action why shouldnt the pedestrian be held responsible for their thoughtless and dangerous action?

Im not saying its right or ok to bully pedestrians but I am saying they should take responsibility for their own actions.

prj45

DavidTQ wrote:

I do think there is a case to be made that some pedestrians have a suicidal negligence when crossing the road. I dont see why thoughtless dangerous actions by a group of road users should be excempt from prosecution.

Some might have, but that don't mean you should hit them.

The road is a public space, its not a train track, you should and must expect to find people in it.

I like it that way.

DavidTQ

prj45 wrote:

DavidTQ wrote:

I do think there is a case to be made that some pedestrians have a suicidal negligence when crossing the road. I dont see why thoughtless dangerous actions by a group of road users should be excempt from prosecution.

Some might have, but that don't mean you should hit them.

The road is a public space, its not a train track, you should and must expect to find people in it.

I like it that way.

The road is a public space youve conveniently ignored the part of my post where I said "Im not saying its right or ok to bully pedestrians but I am saying they should take responsibility for their own actions."

Im not saying its "OK" to hit a pedestrian, Its as not "OK" to hit a pedestrian as it is not "ok" to hit a bicycle or a car. The difference being that if whilst riding a bike you carry out a first class dangerous twonk manouvre YOU will be found responsible. Its not about whether its ok to hit a pedestrian - I never have in my life, my post is about pedestrians SHOULD have to take the same legal responsibility for their actions as any of the other perfectly acceptable road users. Why should your mode of transport free you from any legal or moral obligations to other road users and responsible road use. There is after all a section in the highway code aimed at how you handle yourself as a pedestrian on the road...

Funnily enough I walk a lot, with my 4 kids as well I teach them how to walk responsibly, but theres a lot of pedestrians who dont.

Gambatte

DavidTQ wrote:

if a pedestrian steps out in front of a vehicle at 20mph causing that vehicle to take avoiding action why shouldnt the pedestrian be held responsible for their thoughtless and dangerous action?

Its not unknown for an insurance company to pursue a pedestrian for damage

Clever Pun

hamboman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

but my oddball namesake is right, assume the worst because they will try and ruin your day

Peds are entitled to walk on the road, just as we are entitled to cycle on the road.

Obviously crossing the road is allowed I assumed a little understanding from the reader... Roads wern't build for peds to walk down and if a policeman finds one obstructing traffic they will be removed for the safety of other road users and the ped in question.

BM, as discussed it's not quite as black and white as that is it???

spen666

Drfabulous0 wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

roads aren't for peds they are for vehicles

You are this: WRONG.

No he isn't, it's fine for peds to cross the road but if you were to walk down the middle of the road you would have your collar felt for causing an obstruction and for reckless endangerment.

no you wouldn't because: -

1. Reckless endangerment is not a crime in England & Wales
2. Pedestrians would havea defence as a reasonable user of the highway. Hence why marches are not arrested for marching per se