Why its ok to break the highway code
Comments
-
yes I am sure. A ped does not have the right to walk out iin front of moving traffic.
The highway code says :
"If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."
I'd be very suprised if that hasn't been backed up by case law
Anyway, some other interesting references here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php0 -
UpTheWall wrote:yes I am sure. A ped does not have the right to walk out iin front of moving traffic.
The highway code says :
"If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."
No "MUST NOT", you see? This is advice. It says nothing about the rights of the pedestrian or other road users.
I don't think that's relevant. If a precedent had established that a pedestrian was in the wrong by walking out onto the road the position (and wording of the highway code) would be different.I'd be very suprised if that hasn't been backed up by case lawAnyway, some other interesting references here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php
...though it says nothing about pedestrians' right to use the road...
I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road. There's room for some debate over liability if the pedestrian in question behaves irresponsibly and doesn't allow you time to give way but they have every right to be on the road (as long as they arn't causing an obstruction?) and to cross it in front of moving traffic (though they are advised to do so safely).
Cheers,
W.0 -
WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...0 -
WGWarburton wrote:UpTheWall wrote:yes I am sure. A ped does not have the right to walk out iin front of moving traffic.
The highway code says :
"If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."
No "MUST NOT", you see? This is advice. It says nothing about the rights of the pedestrian or other road users.
I don't think that's relevant. If a precedent had established that a pedestrian was in the wrong by walking out onto the road the position (and wording of the highway code) would be different.I'd be very suprised if that hasn't been backed up by case lawAnyway, some other interesting references here: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php
...though it says nothing about pedestrians' right to use the road...
I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road. There's room for some debate over liability if the pedestrian in question behaves irresponsibly and doesn't allow you time to give way but they have every right to be on the road (as long as they arn't causing an obstruction?) and to cross it in front of moving traffic (though they are advised to do so safely).
Cheers,
W.
on the other hand... you don't think case law is relevant? Blimey. Properly alternative reality...0 -
UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.0 -
W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, I'm not.
No-one is suggesting that peds have a free-for-all right to blindly step into the road without being responsible if there is an accident. But, if a ped has already started to cross the road as you approach then you should be giving way to them.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, he's right. Pedestrians have every right to be in the road, although of course that's not an exucse for just walking out into traffic.0 -
W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, I'm not.
No-one is suggesting that peds have a free-for-all right to blindly step into the road without being responsible if there is an accident. But, if a ped has already started to cross the road as you approach then you should be giving way to them.
yer what? you look at the 'logic' - if you say they don't have a right to step in front of moving traffic then that rather trumps the bizzarre idea of giving way to them once they're on the road...
not to mention that it fits in with the argument the more sensible peopel have been making in this thread, that being that if we abide by similar rules (i.e. don't walk in front of moving traffic whether car or bike) less people will get hurt.0 -
MrChuck wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, he's right. Pedestrians have every right to be in the road, although of course that's not an exucse for just walking out into traffic.
Well of course a ped has the right to be 'in the road' per se, but that doesn't mean they have a right to be dangerously walking in front of moving traffic as the boys seem to be saying above...0 -
UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, I'm not.
No-one is suggesting that peds have a free-for-all right to blindly step into the road without being responsible if there is an accident. But, if a ped has already started to cross the road as you approach then you should be giving way to them.
yer what? you look at the 'logic' - if you say they don't have a right to step in front of moving traffic then that rather trumps the bizzarre idea of giving way to them once they're on the road...
not to mention that it fits in with the argument the more sensible peopel have been making in this thread, that being that if we abide by similar rules (i.e. don't walk in front of moving traffic whether car or bike) less people will get hurt.
I think you're confusing giving priority to those already in the road and people blindly stepping into moving traffic....
What about a ped crossing at a junction you're turning into?0 -
W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, I'm not.
No-one is suggesting that peds have a free-for-all right to blindly step into the road without being responsible if there is an accident. But, if a ped has already started to cross the road as you approach then you should be giving way to them.
yer what? you look at the 'logic' - if you say they don't have a right to step in front of moving traffic then that rather trumps the bizzarre idea of giving way to them once they're on the road...
not to mention that it fits in with the argument the more sensible peopel have been making in this thread, that being that if we abide by similar rules (i.e. don't walk in front of moving traffic whether car or bike) less people will get hurt.
I think you're confusing giving priority to those already in the road and people blindly stepping into moving traffic....
What about a ped crossing at a junction you're turning into?
If I'm on my bike moving at speed about to hit a ped, then they have blindly stepped into moving traffic.
Unless you're talking about a ped sitting in the middle of the road for kicks?
Oh I give up.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:....
on the other hand... you don't think case law is relevant? Blimey. Properly alternative reality...
I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities, here. I'm not well-enough informed to do them justice, anyway... however, the Highway code and the "rights" of road users are pretty much the same across the UK (there are a few subtleties, for example the need for corroborating evidence in Scotland renders the word of a lone police officer insufficient for a conviction).
English case law (which was what I understood by your comment- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is not really relevant to the discussion as it would only apply in England & Wales, whereas I'm pretty sure the legal position of the pedestrian & cyclist would be the same in all of the UK, and is accurately (if not definitively) stated in the HC.
So, I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion..but hey, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again... just as you are on this point! :-)
Cheers,
W.0 -
WGWarburton wrote:UpTheWall wrote:....
on the other hand... you don't think case law is relevant? Blimey. Properly alternative reality...
I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities, here. I'm not well-enough informed to do them justice, anyway... however, the Highway code and the "rights" of road users are pretty much the same across the UK (there are a few subtleties, for example the need for corroborating evidence in Scotland renders the word of a lone police officer insufficient for a conviction).
English case law (which was what I understood by your comment- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is not really relevant to the discussion as it would only apply in England & Wales, whereas I'm pretty sure the legal position of the pedestrian & cyclist would be the same in all of the UK, and is accurately (if not definitively) stated in the HC.
So, I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion..but hey, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again... just as you are on this point! :-)
*sigh*
Cheers,
W.
I am in England?!
highway code is not legally enforceable unless it is backed up by case law.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:...If I'm on my bike moving at speed about to hit a ped, then they have blindly stepped into moving traffic.
Unless you're talking about a ped sitting in the middle of the road for kicks?
Oh I give up.
What we're talking about is your assertion:
That peds don't have a right to walk in front of moving traffic. They do have that right, though it may be foolish to exercise it (depends on the speed of the traffic!). Now, you clearly mean that they are misjudging your speed and endangering themselves by stepping into your path... what you don't seem to appreciate is that they do have a right to be on the road and that their misjudgement of your speed does not mean that they are breaking the law.I repeatedly have peds walking out in front of me when I'm hurtling along a road. A *road* mind you. Peds dont' have a right to walk out in front of moving traffic, whether a car or a cyclist...
I would expect that you would cross in front of a distant, slow-moving vehicle. This would not be "jaywalking" in the UK any more than a pedestrian crossing in front of you when you are cycling would be jaywalking...
In my view (note, that's an opinion) you have a responsibility as a cyclist to recognise that a certain number of pedestrians will misjudge your speed and therefore may cross in front of you inappropriately. This can be annoying, but it's just a mistake. We all make them.
Picture yourself trying to prosecute a pedestrian for crossing the road irresponsibly. I can't see how you'd win that, whereas if they were walking on a motorway hard shoulder or dodging in front of a train at a level crossing, you could expect to win given the right evidence...
Cheers,
W.0 -
FWIW....Just found this:
"One case dealt with by Thompsons' specialist personal injury lawyers involved a pedestrian with good visibility who thought he had time to cross the road and did not use a designated pedestrian crossing. A driver could see him from 200 yards away but still collided with him. The judge concluded that the driver must have been driving too fast or failing to keep a proper lookout. The driver was found to be 75% responsible for the accident."
From here0 -
It's an interesting one this. I think that pedestrians as road users fall into the same category as cyclists, horse riders etc. I understand that most roads are public rights of way and non-motorised forms of transport are able to use them by right unless specifically excluded (eg motorways). Motorised forms of transport are able to use them by license only. Although this may sound a little odd, think of country roads with no pavements: we think nothing of pedestrians walking along on the road in those circumstances - they have a perfect right to be there and a perfect right to the same consideration that we are entitled to demand from motorists.
Anyway, if a pedestrian steps out in front of you and you have no chance to avoid then a court would have to take account of that in determining who was at fault. If a pedestrian steps out in front of you and you have a reasonable chance to avoid them but hit them anyway then you're in serious trouble.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:W1 wrote:UpTheWall wrote:WGWarburton wrote:I think it's clear that cyclists must give way to pedestrians crossing the road
That's so bonkers and illogical I'm not going to bother arguing the point...
Erm, I think it's true chap. That doesn't evade their responsibility to check before crossing but peds who have started to cross do have priority.
I think you must be getting confused between a "road" and a pedestrian crossing.
.
No, I'm not.
No-one is suggesting that peds have a free-for-all right to blindly step into the road without being responsible if there is an accident. But, if a ped has already started to cross the road as you approach then you should be giving way to them.
yer what? you look at the 'logic' - if you say they don't have a right to step in front of moving traffic then that rather trumps the bizzarre idea of giving way to them once they're on the road...
not to mention that it fits in with the argument the more sensible peopel have been making in this thread, that being that if we abide by similar rules (i.e. don't walk in front of moving traffic whether car or bike) less people will get hurt.
I think you're confusing giving priority to those already in the road and people blindly stepping into moving traffic....
What about a ped crossing at a junction you're turning into?
If I'm on my bike moving at speed about to hit a ped, then they have blindly stepped into moving traffic.
Unless you're talking about a ped sitting in the middle of the road for kicks?
Oh I give up.
Come on, surely this isn't so hard to grasp? I think you're being deliberately argumentative here.If I'm on my bike moving at speed about to hit a ped, then they have blindly stepped into moving traffic.
Either that or you haven't slowed down for them when you could have done. Nobody's suggetsing peds can just wander about into the road with no regard for other road users or the consequences- physics and common courtesy should still aplply. But if you're some distance away and have plenty of time to react then they've every right to expect you to do so.0
