Pedestrians

BentMikey

Are pedestrians dangerous, and should they be banned from the roads?

Belv

They are a part of the rich tapestry which makes using the roads in this country so, um, exciting?

(where are you going with this?!)

saveswalking

A mate of mine here at work told me yesterday that he got caught trying to cross the road ( this is in India) and got collared by a policeman who instructed him to report to the nearest Police station and pay an 'on the spot' fine.

Alot of pedestrians don't appear to take cyclists/cycling seriously - they only look out for the motorised vehicles. The outrage and 'irritation' expressed towards cyclists (que the RLJ red herring) is often the result of suprise for the hard of thinking.

sw

ChrisLS

...well I don't mind them...they are not in a car...I think of them as cyclists without a bike...

daniel_b

I'm assuming your thinking of the American system (And India too apparently) where you are only allowed to cross at designated crossing, and anything else is considered jaywalking?

That would be useful for a lot of people, but personally I like to look repeatedly for traffic, and take the shortest route to where I am going when on foot - i certainly don't dither when crossing the road.

So from a selfish point of view, no I don't think they should be.

From a driving/cycling point of view - yes I believe it would make the road safer.

Dan

dirk_van_gently

Daniel B

I'm assuming your thinking of the American system (And India too apparently) where you are only allowed to cross at designated crossing, and anything else is considered jaywalking?

I think you must be thinking of another country, Americans don't walk :?

EG. I was in US few years ago, hotel was about half mile from a Mall. Wife wants to go to "The Mall", I couldn't really see how to get to it, so I ask. The directions were given for a car, when I said no we want to walk, the Hotel receptionist was aghast.

Anyway to answer the original question: How can you can a basic human function?

DavidTQ

BentMikey wrote:

Are pedestrians dangerous, and should they be banned from the roads?

Absolutely not, I do however think the just need to be brought further into line with other road users. The current situation is that they pay no attention to the highway code, dont pay road tax, dont have insurance, dont have numberplates, arent registered as pedstrians, dont have to take a test cause massive damage to public property and littering.

We need to step back and take a realistic look at just how dangerous the pedestrians are over 500,000 people a year are Killed or injured by pedestrians each year. These pedestrians can be hard to trace and identify due to their lack of registration.

We need to start of by issueing all pedestrians with registration plates, to avoid confusion with other forms of tranportation(an easy mistake to make when looking for number plates) we would need a form of barcode that could be read by road side cameras. This "barcode registration plate" would be prominently displayed to the front and rear of all pedestrians.

Using a barcode over number plate system for pedestrians we could avoid many of the challenges that face vehicle registration, for example the twice annual rush problems caused by the year code changes in the automotive industry. By issueing non year based barcodes there would be no rush to procure a new pedestrian for the vanity sake of having a current year "number plate".

We could also by using barcodes avoide the pitfalls of running out of year codes and limited numbers of plates able to be issued per geographical area each year...

Registration would be the first step to bringing pedestrians within the framework of the law.

After registration we need to work out road tax bands for pedestrians. Now some might say that the act of walking is naturally environmentally friendly as it doesnt involved the burning of fossil fuels, this however is a fallacy. In fact pedestrians produce quite large amounts of CO2 for the distances covered by their mode of transport, Pedestrians in fact produce CO2 even when not walking to get to a better understanding of total life time CO2/ per mile emissions for pedestrians we would need to carry out extensive laboratory testing of various models of pedestrians in order to decide how best to tax them.

Pedestrians actually become more CO2 \ mile efficient the more miles they do, thus the lowest mileage pedestrians would likelly fall into the highest road tax bands, some particularly high mileage pedestrians may even fall into the same realms of CO2 as hybrid cars etc and hence have very much reduced raxes to pay. This allows the world to reap the benefits of higher levels of pedestrian CO2 efficiency.

At a later date it may make environmental sense to force some pedestrians to traverse longer distances on foot in order to reap the benefits of greater CO2 / mile efficiency as little as 10 miles a week on a treadmill could double the CO2 / effective mile efficiency of many pedestrians, enabling them to move into lower tax bands.

Of course inorder to more fairly tax pedestrians we need to know just how much mileage they are actually doing, it is therefore proposed that we track and record pedestrian mileage via gps and satelite, the cost of which would be offset by the new tax in come on pedestrians.

The paying of road tax by pedestrians will bring a great deal of personal satisfaction to the pedestrians as they will know they pay their fair share to make use of the road system of this country.

With these steps taken we now have a situation where pedestrians are identifiable, traceable, and contributing to the upkeep of the road system which until now they have used at the motorists expense. Please note: many motorists may also be pedestrians, this will not be an excuse for a tax break under current rules full tax is paid if two cars are owned by one person and so there will be no tax breaks for dual status as pedestrian and motorist If you enjoy two forms of transport then you pay both due taxes.

Further to bringing in thise hitherto unvailable level of pedestrian registration and tracking, we will be able to bring in a mandatory "walking test" modelled after the current driving test, this will compose as does the driving test, a theory test with hazard awareness section and a practical test on the public road. Pedestrians will be expected to show the same level of knowledge of the highway code and the soon to be introduced Pedestrianised traffic act. Pedestrians will have to demonstrate an ability to safely traverse the highways and byways of our road system before being allowed to "walk" without a qualified instructor present.

This new test will necesitate the creation of a pedestrian testing network, and the creation of a walking intructors licensing agency both of which would be self funded through the walking examination testing fees.

We would require all pedestrians to hold minimal 3rd party liability insurance cover, which would be necesary inorder to obtain a tax disk (to be displayed on forehead when walking in public) Insurance industry analysts have assured us that the insurance industry in this country is more than capable of dealing with the expected initial flood of new business.

Unlawfull pedestrianism is most likelly to be rampant during early months withoutstrict enforcement therefore we shall apply the same rules as Road vehicle taxation to unlawfull pedestrianism, any person caught walking in public without a valid pedestrian license, insurance, gps tracking device and road tax disk will be liable to have their legs impounded on the spot and destroyed by the relevant authorities. We believe this will be sufficient deterrant to quickly stamp out unlawfull pedestrianism.

Legal experts have voiced an opinion that these measures will have a immeasurable impact upon society not only encouraging efficient and carefull pedestrianism, but also lowering many other forms of crime due to the ability to track and identify any pedestrians commiting non road related crimes.

Belv

DavidTQ, you have too much free time.







(Bloody funny though!)

DavidTQ

Belv wrote:

DavidTQ, you have too much free time.







(Bloody funny though!)

Actually I think its not enough free time, given another hour or so I could grabbed some numbers to put figures on pedestrian CO2 / mile depending on weekly mileages, nabbed and twisted some more crime statistics, pulled in some population numbers to come up with some ludicrous twisted financial arguements, maybe twisted some insurance industry statistics maybe given a second hour to work on it I could have have done some more research on current government buzz words and phrases, and given the whole post a polished ring of authenticity

Shame because half an hour only adds another bad case of digital diorhea to the brim full and overflowing interweb...

patchy

BAN THIS SICK FILTH NOW.

DavidTQ

patchy wrote:

BAN THIS SICK FILTH NOW.

Now thats no way to refer to pedestrians, honestly. Those sort of attitudes have no place intodays world. We need a far more tolerant and inclusive road using community than that.

Belv

Mikey,
Please elaborate on your OP. Was it a rant triggered by the actions of one pedestrian or, as suggested above, a proposal to ban 'Jay walking'?

BentMikey

Not in the slightest, I'm very happy to share the road with pedestrians. It rose from a debate on another forum where the intolerant road users were convinced that pedestrians are a danger to fast road users.

Me, I think pedestrians are predictably unpredictable, and it's easy to avoid them by slowing down, being alert, and tolerant. I think the danger comes from us, after all we tend to be heavier and faster as cyclists, and especially so when driving.

Totalnewbie

Most of the time if a ped is dithering in the road I just slow down and smile at them to let them know I'm happy to give way to them, and they usually look momentarily surprised before smiling back/saying thanks and crossing. I lose a few seconds, so what, everybody's happy. Alternatively if they've obviously seen me and decided to wait on the kerb, I will often smile and say thanks.

Contrasted quite a lot with the courier type I saw the other day who screamed 'OI!' at a ped making her jump out of her skin, there was no need, she wasn't about to cause an accident, he had enough time to slow down/stop if he wanted to.

nwallace

Serious: Enforcement of the highway code rules for pedestrians would be a good move.
Came a cross some dog walkers once, walking with traffic on the road, 2 abreast one in ns wheeltrack one in os wheel track, Dog not on lead... The Dog however was on the ample grass verge.

They looked a bit surprised when I overtook them.

Less Serious:
I note that the RTA while having sections covering Driving, Cycling and operation of Animals (which the dog would come under) there are no set charges for Careless, Dangerous and Inconsiderate Pedestrianing.

I propose as follows:
Pedestrianing in a manner which to a police officer or other pedestrian to be in an inconsiderate manner: Fixed Penalty £60

Pedestrianing in a manner which to a police officer or other pedestrian to be careless, fine up to £200, up to 2 years in prison and 6 penalty points on your pedestrianing licence.

Pedestrianing in a manner which to a police officer or other pedestrian to be Dangerous, unlimited fine, up to 10 years in prison and upto 12 penalty points on pedestrianing licence

Causing death by any of the above compulosry prison sentance and life ban from pedestrianing, option of manslaughter/culpable homicide charges if circumstances require.

Pedestrianing while unfit through drink or drugs, unlimited fine, unconsumed alcohol to be confiscated at the pleasure of the chief constable.

Stopping on a clearway to be strictly prohibited.

Pedestrians having taken the intital pedestrian test who wish to pull trailers or push hand carts, buggies, pramulators etc etc must take an additional test, this requirement may be waived if moving the cart/trailer from a dangerous position.

During the hours of daylight, pedestrians must carry Daylight Walking lights which must be illuminated at all times while under motion on the public road. Front and rear Positioning lamps are compulsory after dark, failing to show the appropriate lights will result in an automatic 2 year ban.

All bans are transferable to Driving licences. Thus anyone banned from Pedestrianing will also be banned from Driving, Animals, Human and Motor Powered Vehicles.

To promote road safety PIFs will be commissioned to promote road safety and warn pedestrians of the risks of loosing their pedestrian licence. These include loss of job and house boundation.

Belv

OK, serious answer then...

I think pedestrians are VERY vulnerable road users and they make no effort to improve their own safety by wearing dark clothing and making sudden and unpredictable manouvres.

The biggest danger they present to me as a cyclist is that they make decisions about crossing roads based on their ears, not their eyes, so will step out without looking as they can't hear an engine. If i am unable to move out to make allowances for this possibility, i will slow down for someone that looks like they are about to change direction.

Like other road users, there are tell-tales you can pick up on to warn of potential risks - glancing around them, some one across the road they have recognised, wearing an ipod, walking near to the edge of the path, all children and animals.

Conclusion: Pedestrians are one of many the many things you must be aware of, but i don't consider them a danger.

nwallace

Belv wrote:

The biggest danger they present to me as a cyclist is that they make decisions about crossing roads based on their ears, not their eyes,

Driving a 1976 SAAB 96 with Sports exhaust have never had a problem with pedestrians not noticing me. (Most seem to be staring wondering what it is)

Driving a 1983 SAAB 99 (not a quiet car by today's standards) do occasionally get people totally failing to hear/see

So I'm not convinced its simply a case of using ears instead of eyes, particularly as modern cars are very very quiet.

I reckon it's the same thing that plauges all type of road user, failure to think about what they are doing.

The driver failing to think about what they are doing is a hazard (potential danger) to every one around them, as does the cyclist, the horse rider, the pedestrian etc who fail to do the same thing.

saveswalking

Some form of visually upseting public awareness film on the tely - Think Bike! aimed at pedestrians.

sw

BentMikey

I'm starting to worry that your previous post was not sarcasm, but serious, nwallace!!!!

I don't understand how a pedestrian brings danger, when their speed/mass is so low. They're certainly a challenge for riders/drivers to negotiate, but that's about the limit of it.

cee

The pedestrian thing is an interesting debate.

A colleague of mine arrived at work ranting and raving about the actions of a cyclist who nearly hit him as he crossed the road.

Basically, the cyclist was on a green light, in the middle lane of a 3 lane road. The left lane is for filtering left, the inside turns into a buslane, whilst the outside lane is the normal traffic lane.

So the cyclist in the middle lane, uses the extra room he has to make a fast left turn (he should have been in the left lane).

Several pedestrians were crossing the road at the left turn point (remembering that officially they were on a Red Man).

Now the highway code says that pedestrians who have already started crossing have right of way, and it is the other road users responsibility to be driving/riding in a manner and speed that allows them to give way when necessary.

Now I can see the pedestrians point of view (there was no traffic in the lane to come this way including the cyclist, so I crossed.).

I can also see the cyclists point of view (I was moving at speed through a green light. The pedestrians were on a Red Man they should not have crossed).

Legally, the cyclist was in the wrong, but there seems to be no responsibility on the pedestrian to assure their own safety.

As cyclists (BentMikey will confirm this I am sure), we do all sorts of things to ensure our safety, even when legally, we shouldn't need to:
Overtaking on the right when there is a cycle lane on the left etc
Adopting a more Primary position than absolutley necessary to ensure cars don't try the overtake etcetcetc

It would be nice if there were some parts of the Highway code that could deal with this, and I think it is especially noticable in built up area's, with signal controlled junctions and lots of pedestrians.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that I don't really have a point on the issue, just more questions.

Should a pedestrian really be crossing the road on a red man? and if they do, should they assume some of the legal responsibility for their CHOICE to cross when a signal is telling them it may not be safe to do so?

Good debate!

nwallace

BentMikey wrote:

I'm starting to worry that your previous post was not sarcasm, but serious, nwallace!!!!

I don't understand how a pedestrian brings danger, when their speed/mass is so low. They're certainly a challenge for riders/drivers to negotiate, but that's about the limit of it.

He He, no it definitely was sarcasm.

A pedestrian like any other road user acting correctly should present no hazard or danger. Their actions may result in them becoming one.
For an extreme example (well for the UK at least) one carrying an AK-47 has the potential...

BentMikey

Hehehehe!!! Yes, to be clear I was thinking in terms of a traffic sense, excluding random acts of assault.

saveswalking

.

Should a pedestrian really be crossing the road on a red man? and if they do, should they assume some of the legal responsibility for their CHOICE to cross when a signal is telling them it may not be safe to do so?

Good debate![/quote]

Apparently the red man is 'advisory' ? - for pedestrians

sw

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

Not in the slightest, I'm very happy to share the road with pedestrians. It rose from a debate on another forum where the intolerant road users were convinced that pedestrians are a danger to fast road users.

Me, I think pedestrians are predictably unpredictable, and it's easy to avoid them by slowing down, being alert, and tolerant. I think the danger comes from us, after all we tend to be heavier and faster as cyclists, and especially so when driving.

The Green Cross Code dude was onto something. The only problem was that he terrified children.

I think he turned his hands to advertising peas afterwards.

Its true that you can avoid pretty much any situation by slowing down a bit. Unfortunately, its always us doing the avoiding, so if we take precautions against everything that that, due to negligence and ignorance of others, might cause us to have an accident, we may as well walk.

cee

saveswalking wrote:

.

cee wrote:

Should a pedestrian really be crossing the road on a red man? and if they do, should they assume some of the legal responsibility for their CHOICE to cross when a signal is telling them it may not be safe to do so?

Good debate!

Apparently the red man is 'advisory' ? - for pedestrians

sw

Thats how the highway code reads to me....But my question is really, when a pedestrian ignores the advice of the sign, should they then still maintain right of way over traffic entering the junction after them? As it stands at the moment, my interpretation of the highway code says they do, but should this change. I am not saying we should just mow them down or anything (thats gonna hurt me as a cyclist too, and i wouldn't want to hurt anyone in a car either), but just make sure they are aware that they share the responsibility for their own wellbeing.

nwallace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

United Kingdom
A famous zebra crossing in Abbey Road, London
A famous[3] zebra crossing in Abbey Road, London

In the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) it is legal to cross a road anywhere except:

* On motorways, from which all pedestrians (along with slower vehicles) are banned.

The Highway Code contains additional rules for crossing a road safely,[4] but these are recommendations and not legally enforceable, although as with other advisory parts of the Highway Code compliance or otherwise can be used to establish liability in legal proceedings.[5] The term "jaywalking" is not used.

In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look, Listen and Think", before crossing a road.

In Northern Ireland jaywalking can be charged at Police discretion and usually only in the case of an accident when clearly witnessed. Otherwise, Northern Ireland is essentially the same as elsewhere in the UK.

cee

nwallace wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

United Kingdom
A famous zebra crossing in Abbey Road, London
A famous[3] zebra crossing in Abbey Road, London

In the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) it is legal to cross a road anywhere except:

* On motorways, from which all pedestrians (along with slower vehicles) are banned.

The Highway Code contains additional rules for crossing a road safely,[4] but these are recommendations and not legally enforceable, although as with other advisory parts of the Highway Code compliance or otherwise can be used to establish liability in legal proceedings.[5] The term "jaywalking" is not used.

In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look, Listen and Think", before crossing a road.

In Northern Ireland jaywalking can be charged at Police discretion and usually only in the case of an accident when clearly witnessed. Otherwise, Northern Ireland is essentially the same as elsewhere in the UK.

At first glance, that seems to clear it up. e.g. complaince can be used to establish liability, but when one of the legal obligations for other road users is yield for pedestrians, then which side of the contradiction wins?

Belv

The vehicle with four or more wheels 'wins'. Any one else gets hurt.

TheFoolio888

In my mind sone crossing the road without properly looking to insure that nothing ti coming their way or likey to come there way whilst they are crossing the road are contributing to anything which happens to them.

e.g someone crossing a one way street should still check BOTH ways. Just because a car shouldn't be coming from both directions doens't mean that it won't.

whome

Pedestrians have every right to use the road. Walking is our most basic mode of transport and the right to use it must be preserved.We don't want to become like certain parts of america where crossing the road can be an offence and where cars own the roads.

I think it is good that the law restricts traffic, but does not apply to pedestrians. That is the way it should be. We should all defer to the most vulnerable.

As cyclists we want our rights respected and for motor vehicles to take care around us. So we should respect the absolute right of pedestrians to use the road and to take care of them.

Bassjunkieuk

I have no problems with pedestrians. I think I pass more peds each day then I do traffic and I know for sure I've had far fewer accidents or near misses with them! I'd much be hit by, or even run into, a ped then a motor vehicle. Peds are in my opinion a lot easier to "read" then other vehicles so you can anticipate them a lot easier. Heck I've even had a couple of instances with bikes joining from other lanes or just dropping off the kerb into my path so they are not faultless either.

I think the important thing is to respect all other road users and treat them as you'd wish to be treated if you where in their position. I'd hate for a cyclist to cut me up on a red light if I'm crossing just as much as I'd be rather annoyed by a cyclist who turned without indicating their intentions if I was driving behind them. Being considerate to other road users won't slow you down, but it does make everyone's life just a little bit more bearable!