Jaywalking

[skyscraper101]

I love Jaywalking. I think its brilliant.

BUT if a cyclist crashes into me when I'm in the road and they had right of way and they were following the highway code - then I would wholeheartedly accept that I was at fault. No question.

 

[teuchter]

Fair enough, you did say you'd look. However the leap from there to placing the blame on the cyclist for not seeing you even though you didn't see him either is pure wank.

Anyhow you're on a windup IMO. You're insisting on other road users obeying the letter of the highway code, even going as far as to quote a passage from it you regard as being important yet state in the same quote above you'd happily ignore it yourself

If there's stationary traffic, I'm going to walk through it. Mainly because I believe in the principle that pedestrians should have priority on the road, at least in urban areas. The only reason I'm not going to always walk through moving traffic is that I'd probably get run over. In my opinion (again, in urban areas) traffic should be moving at such a speed that pedestrians can freely wander about.

I ignore the bit in the highway code about not climbing over barriers because I don't believe the barriers should be there in the first place. The fact that they are there indicates that the road has been designed with the motorist's convenience given higher priority than the pedestrian's. The bit in the highway code about not climbing over is perfectly reasonable advice, which I choose to ignore. It's not the highway code that is wrong, it is the barriers.

The way I see it, if everyone is walking, there are not going to be any serious collisions. The problems only start when certain people decide to use mechanical methods of transport in the space originally just used by pedestrians. Therefore, I reckon the onus is on them to take care not to cause the accidents. Why should the pedestrian be incovenienced just so other people can tear about in their dangerous vehicles - cars, bikes, whatever?

 

[Cobbles]

I ignore the bit in the highway code about not climbing over barriers because I don't believe the barriers should be there in the first place. The fact that they are there indicates that the road has been designed with the motorist's convenience given higher priority than the pedestrian's. The bit in the highway code about not climbing over is perfectly reasonable advice, which I choose to ignore. It's not the highway code that is wrong, it is the barriers.

The gap between buildings wide enough for horses and carts was designed so that it could be used by vehicles. That's why there's no houses on it.

Blame the nasty vile urban planners in their togas and sackcloths back in the nether regions of time - they started this desperate fad of allowing vehicles into towns.

Whatever were they thinking of?

 

[mauvais]

Everyone walking is a good idea. Teuchter, on foot, pulling a 10 tonne artic trailer is an excellent idea.

 

[teuchter]

Everyone walking is a good idea. Teuchter, on foot, pulling a 10 tonne artic trailer is an excellent idea.

Where exactly did I say everyone walking is a good idea?

 

[mauvais]

The way I see it, if everyone is walking, there are not going to be any serious collisions. The problems only start when certain people decide to use mechanical methods of transport in the space originally just used by pedestrians.

Err, there. No problems = good idea.

 

[teuchter]

Err, there. No problems = good idea.

Fail.

 

[Termite Man]

Mainly because I believe in the principle that pedestrians should have priority on the road, at least in urban areas.

I don't agree with this , I have a 5 mile journey to work , it would take ages walking it and if I use the bus then there is still traffic on the roads and the train is too expensive , so I use my bike as the most envirolmentally sound and cheapest way of me travelling to work quickly
While I'm on the road I expect other road users to act in a way that does not create the risk of accidents which could lead to the injury of me or other people and in turn I show the same respect for those people . I don't believe I am more important than any one else on the road and I don't believe anyone should see themselves as more important than me . I would be interested to know why you think pedestrians should have more rights than any other road user ?

 

[teuchter]

I don't agree with this , I have a 5 mile journey to work , it would take ages walking it and if I use the bus then there is still traffic on the roads and the train is too expensive , so I use my bike as the most envirolmentally sound and cheapest way of me travelling to work quickly
While I'm on the road I expect other road users to act in a way that does not create the risk of accidents which could lead to the injury of me or other people and in turn I show the same respect for those people . I don't believe I am more important than any one else on the road and I don't believe anyone should see themselves as more important than me . I would be interested to know why you think pedestrians should have more rights than any other road user ?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be vehicles on the road. I accept there are good reasons to allow vehicles on the roads. Obviously. I just think that the pedestrian should have priority. I don't care if this means it takes a bit longer for cars/buses/cyclists to get where they are going. It will encourage more people to walk, which will take more pressure off the roads.

Why should pedestrians have more rights? Because they are the most vulnerable. They are the ones likely to come off worst in any accident. They are the ones who have the least negative impact on the environment, global or local. They are the ones who use and support servivces near to peoples workplaces/homes rather than miles away, further reducing the amount of travelling people have to do in general.

But fundamentally, it's what everyone (well nearly everyone) starts with - two legs. Other modes of transport are a privilege, and not available to everyone. I'd rather see towns optimised for a method of transport available to everyone, than optimised for a method of transport avaliable only to those who can afford it.

Think of towns around the world and the ones that are most pleasant to be in, the ones people flock to visit. And think about how many of those are optimised for pedestrians rather than road vehicles.

 

[mauvais]

How exactly do they flock there?

Besides, what you appear to be asking for is for pedestrians to be allowed to get in the way of traffic entirely without warning, and if some accident should befall them then they should be absolved of any blame. No?

 

[cybertect]

If there's stationary traffic, I'm going to walk through it. Mainly because I believe in the principle that pedestrians should have priority on the road, at least in urban areas.

Whatever you may believe, the simple truth is that they don't in all circumstances.

- In a designated pedestrianised area, they do.

- Traffic entering from a main road must give way to pedestrians already crossing a side road.

- At zebra crossings

- At Pelican crossings when the priority is to pedestrians.

There are probably a few other examples. Otherwise, as a pedestrian on the highway, you're subject to exactly the same rules as anyone else. A pedestrian stepping off the kerb into a road observes the same protocol as a car emerging from a side road - give way to traffic from your right.

 

[cybertect]

Think of towns around the world and the ones that are most pleasant to be in, the ones people flock to visit. And think about how many of those are optimised for pedestrians rather than road vehicles.

What? Like New York [No.1 tourist destination on the planet]?

 

[teuchter]

How exactly do they flock there?

By train preferably.

Besides, what you appear to be asking for is for pedestrians to be allowed to get in the way of traffic entirely without warning, and if some accident should befall them then they should be absolved of any blame. No?

That would be the more extreme view I'm sometimes tempted to put forward to wind up car drivers a bit.

But in reality all I'm saying is that towns and cities should be designed with the interests of pedestrians in mind. Much more so than is generally the case at the moment. I have a particular dislike of those barriers around road junctions because they are a manifestation of the opposite view - that it's OK to make pedestrians walk around the houses just so cars can negotiate a junction at a higher speed.

 

[teuchter]

What? Like New York [No.1 tourist destination on the planet]?

Out of all the 250,000+ population cities in the US, New York has the highest proportion of non-car commuters. How's about that?

 

[marty21]

I do. All the time.

me too

 

[Termite Man]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be vehicles on the road. I accept there are good reasons to allow vehicles on the roads. Obviously. I just think that the pedestrian should have priority. I don't care if this means it takes a bit longer for cars/buses/cyclists to get where they are going. It will encourage more people to walk, which will take more pressure off the roads.

In that case should there be more crossings in place than than just encouraging people to walk out in the road , it will mean pedestrians have more safe places to cross and then if they are made to use these crossings it should mean they are safer because they won't be negotiating traffic .

Your arguing as if people only use 1 method of transport which is not the case as I cycle when I travel long distances ( which I want to cover quickly ) and walk shorter distances ( which means I use local shops etc. ) so I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist .

What I'd like to see is more places which are safe for pedestrians to cross roads and pedestrians using these rather than just wandering out into the road ( somethimes without looking ) and for other road users to repect these crossings ( particulalrly the cyclists that think they don't have to stop at red lights etc. )

The only accident I've had on my bike is when people were getting off a bus and walking away down the road ( towards a crossing that wouldn't affect their journey length ) and 1 woman looked to see if the road was clear and since I was the only vehicle on the road ( on my bicycle ) she crossed because she knew she had time to cross safely , I in turn slowed down so that in case she didn't cross as fast as she thought she would . However other people further behind this woman just assumed it was safe to cross and didn't look which meant I rode into them . In this case I'd say my cycling was very responsible and the actions of the person I crashed into caused the accident , from your perspective do you believe this accident was my fault or the fault of the pedestrian ?

 

[teuchter]

In that case should there be more crossings in place than than just encouraging people to walk out in the road , it will mean pedestrians have more safe places to cross and then if they are made to use these crossings it should mean they are safer because they won't be negotiating traffic .

Your arguing as if people only use 1 method of transport which is not the case as I cycle when I travel long distances ( which I want to cover quickly ) and walk shorter distances ( which means I use local shops etc. ) so I am both a pedestrian and a cyclist .

What I'd like to see is more places which are safe for pedestrians to cross roads and pedestrians using these rather than just wandering out into the road ( somethimes without looking ) and for other road users to repect these crossings ( particulalrly the cyclists that think they don't have to stop at red lights etc. )

The only accident I've had on my bike is when people were getting off a bus and walking away down the road ( towards a crossing that wouldn't affect their journey length ) and 1 woman looked to see if the road was clear and since I was the only vehicle on the road ( on my bicycle ) she crossed because she knew she had time to cross safely , I in turn slowed down so that in case she didn't cross as fast as she thought she would . However other people further behind this woman just assumed it was safe to cross and didn't look which meant I rode into them . In this case I'd say my cycling was very responsible and the actions of the person I crashed into caused the accident , from your perspective do you believe this accident was my fault or the fault of the pedestrian ?

It's hard to say because it's not clear whether they stepped from behind the bus or not. And I'd say it was both yours and the pedestrians' responsibility to keep a look out for each other.

Providing more crossings is all well and good but in principle I prefer the notion that all users should share the road space. By making pedestrians cross at certain places only you are restricting their freedom to cross streets (especially those with shops on both sides) unless the crossings are literally every 50m or something. Also it discourages drivers from looking out for people in between crossings. It's part of the same argument about the benefits of removing road signs and road markings in general, so that drivers are relying on their observation rather than blindly following instructions.

How about this scenario: I want to cross the street. I can see a car coming. The car driver can see me. The present system says that I have to wait for the car to pass before I cross the road. But can you tell me why it should be that way around? Assuming the driver can see me, has time to stop, and it is clear that I want to cross, why shouldn't he have to stop and wait for me? The way we use our streets at the moment seems to give priority to the car driver. Why should that be the case?

 

[Termite Man]

How about this scenario: I want to cross the street. I can see a car coming. The car driver can see me. The present system says that I have to wait for the car to pass before I cross the road. But can you tell me why it should be that way around? Assuming the driver can see me, has time to stop, and it is clear that I want to cross, why shouldn't he have to stop and wait for me? The way we use our streets at the moment seems to give priority to the car driver. Why should that be the case?

To be honest the way pedestrians will blindly walk out into the road at the moment will be made worse . At pedestrian crossings I have seen people just suddenly turn and walk into the road without stopping , this actually makes it hard to tell whether they intend to cross the road untill they are actually on the road which in some cases can be too little notice ( again I'm talking from a cyclists perspective ) I'm all for people being considerate to other road users and I will vary my speed to give people time to cross in front of me if the road is clear but in return I expect pedestrians not to just assume that it's ok for them to cross in front of me .
As I said in the example of my accident early , I slowed down to give one woman a chance to cross the road so I was giving the pedestrian priority but I expect the same courtesy back from other road users in some situations .
Unfortunatly the current culture of the road is that people who use different types of transport are in conflict with each other and feel they should have more rights , but I believe if this culture of conflict was replaced with mutual respect then the roads would be a lot safer for everyone !

 

[Structaural]

It's illegal in Holland. As I found out when I was nearly fined for crossing on a red man in front of 4 copppers on bikes. I got away with by being english.
'You have jaywalking laws in London too no?'.
'no'
*surprised copper*.

Bloody Calvinism init?

 

[detective-boy]

Just for the record, this is what I actually said...

And, just for the record, I think what you said is bollocks.

 

[detective-boy]

If there's stationary traffic, I'm going to walk through it. Mainly because I believe in the principle that pedestrians should have priority on the road, at least in urban areas. The only reason I'm not going to always walk through moving traffic is that I'd probably get run over. In my opinion (again, in urban areas) traffic should be moving at such a speed that pedestrians can freely wander about.

I ignore the bit in the highway code about not climbing over barriers because I don't believe the barriers should be there in the first place. The fact that they are there indicates that the road has been designed with the motorist's convenience given higher priority than the pedestrian's. The bit in the highway code about not climbing over is perfectly reasonable advice, which I choose to ignore. It's not the highway code that is wrong, it is the barriers.

The way I see it, if everyone is walking, there are not going to be any serious collisions. The problems only start when certain people decide to use mechanical methods of transport in the space originally just used by pedestrians. Therefore, I reckon the onus is on them to take care not to cause the accidents. Why should the pedestrian be incovenienced just so other people can tear about in their dangerous vehicles - cars, bikes, whatever?

Now just re-write that breathtakingly arrogant bollocks from some other selfish cunts point of view ...

Rules? Not for me old son. I'll do exactly what I want, when I want.

 

[detective-boy]

They are the ones likely to come off worst in any accident.

They are the ones most likely to have, or cause them if they copy prize cunts like you ....

All rights. No responsibilities.