Pedestrian priority at road junctions....

[GarfieldLeChat]

You're right and he was. Then wonders why he pisses car drivers off.

in which case i reiterate he will be hit eventually...

 

[teuchter]

You're right and he was. Then wonders why he pisses car drivers off.

Well if you look at it in a common sense kind of way...as a pedestrian you get used to the idea that a junction is the safest place to cross, especially if you are crossing the more minor road. This is because cars are more likely to slow down and look around at this situation- it's in their own interest. This particular junction is a bit unusual though because, when the lights are green (and bear in mind the traffic lights are designed to be seen by drivers not pedestrians approaching them side on) cars have no selfish interest in slowing down, and therefore tear through the junction at speeds which i (and i think the highway code) regard as excessive. I have come to realise this but only because i walk past there often. Very regularly i see people unfamiliar with the junction get hooted at and have to jump back onto the side because they do not realise it is this kind of junction.

 

[WouldBe]

Well if you look at it in a common sense kind of way...as a pedestrian you get used to the idea that a junction is the safest place to cross, especially if you are crossing the more minor road. This is because cars are more likely to slow down and look around at this situation- it's in their own interest.

It's also common sence that if a car is 'tearing' down a road towards a junction that you wait until you are certain it's going to slow down or has gone past before stepping into the road.

 

[rutabowa]

but you shouldn't cross at any junction without looking to see if there's traffic coming... and if you can see a car coming you shouldn't step out anywhere if yr going to force the moving car to stop (unless it's at a zebra).

("Give Way" doesn't mean "Stop")

(of course if the car's speeding that's a seperate thing too, obviously the motorist is in the wrong, whether or not someone tries to cross)

 

[teuchter]

in which case i reiterate he will be hit eventually...

I am not quite stupid enough to step in front of a car when it's too late for them to stop. I do however sometimes step out when a car is approaching from a fair distance, which requires them to slow down somewhat. If it means they miss the green light by a half second this gives me a little pleasure at the beginning of my day. It's me that gets to where i'm going slightly quicker instead of them and i'm afraid i don't feel any guilt about that. I have not endangered anyone in the process.

 

[rutabowa]

I am not quite stupid enough to step in front of a car when it's too late for them to stop. I do however sometimes step out when a car is approaching from a fair distance, which requires them to slow down somewhat. If it means they miss the green light by a half second this gives me a little pleasure at the beginning of my day. It's me that gets to where i'm going slightly quicker instead of them and i'm afraid i don't feel any guilt about that. I have not endangered anyone in the process.

ok well, it's you who's disobeying the highway code, that's your choice.

 

[teuchter]

One thing that has to be said is that stopping on a main busy road to give way to pedestrians when one is trying to turn into another street can be an extremely dangerous thing to do.

The Brixton Rd./Atlantic Rd. junction is a classic example. As are most road junctions on Piccadilly. Whenever I have had to stop on the latter to let pedestrians cross before turning onto a side street I've had very hard braking followed by very displeased drivers behind me. Anyone who has to do that regularly is guaranteed to be rammed from behind sooner or later. In such busy main roads, I am sorry to say, it makes far more sense for pedestrians to wait until it is clear to cross (though this would depend heavily on drivers using their indicators well in advance) than for vehicles having to stop on a fast moving, busy main road to let pedestrians cross.

I totally disagree. The drivers on the road shouldn't be travelling at such a speed and distance from one another that they aren't able to deal with a car in front of them slowing down and possibly stopping to make a turning into a side road (an entirely commonplace manouver). In any case no-one should be turning into a side road at such a speed that they can't stop in the distance clear in front of them (which by definition isn't very far if you are turning a sharp corner, most likely with buildings/stret furniture/people blocking your view.

To me this kind of logic demonstrates to what extent many people seem to have everything the wrong way round: pedestrians have to wait until they can see no-one likely to turn into a side road (this is impractical in any case on a busy road, where people may or may not use indicators) before crossing it, because car drivers can't be expected to drive at a safe separation and speed? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[teuchter]

ok well, it's you who's disobeying the highway code, that's your choice.

Yes, I recognise that may be the case. Although many of the drivers I see at that junction are also disobeying it by driving at a speed innapropriate for a busy built-up area.

 

[rutabowa]

Yes, I recognise that may be the case. Although many of the drivers I see at that junction are also disobeying it by driving at a speed innapropriate for a busy built-up area.

oh yeah I am sure that is right too! but if everyone in general, motorists pedestrians and cyclists, lost the "war" attitude then it would be better for everyone. i see really dumb motorists, pedestrians and cyclists everyday, but equally i see the majority of people are pretty fair and understand that accidents don't help anyone.

 

[T & P]

I totally disagree. The drivers on the road shouldn't be travelling at such a speed and distance from one another that they aren't able to deal with a car in front of them slowing down and possibly stopping to make a turning into a side road (an entirely commonplace manouver). In any case no-one should be turning into a side road at such a speed that they can't stop in the distance clear in front of them (which by definition isn't very far if you are turning a sharp corner, most likely with buildings/stret furniture/people blocking your view.

To me this kind of logic demonstrates to what extent many people seem to have everything the wrong way round: pedestrians have to wait until they can see no-one likely to turn into a side road (this is impractical in any case on a busy road, where people may or may not use indicators) before crossing it, because car drivers can't be expected to drive at a safe separation and speed? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

It doesn't on paper. But if you live in or come to London regularly, next time you are in a street of the size of Piccadilly, try to picture what would happen if a car had to stop whilst on the main road to let pedestrians cross during a busy time. In most cases it might not result in a crash, but minor pandemonium and hard braking that can extend for many metres behind the car doing the turning will occur.

Sure, drivers should be prepared for any eventuality, but on a stretch of main road when traffic is relatively flowing and there are no traffic lights, zebra crossings or any other such points in the immediate vicinity, for better or for worse drivers don't expect others to have to stop and block a lane while letting pedestrians cross.

It's just the way it is, and until attitudes change (which sadly it could be never) stopping on a busy yet flowing main road feels both unnatural and hazardous.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I am not quite stupid enough to step in front of a car when it's too late for them to stop. I do however sometimes step out when a car is approaching from a fair distance, which requires them to slow down somewhat. If it means they miss the green light by a half second this gives me a little pleasure at the beginning of my day. It's me that gets to where i'm going slightly quicker instead of them and i'm afraid i don't feel any guilt about that. I have not endangered anyone in the process.

there are far too many assumptions being made here.

you assume the driver has seen you before it's too late.

you assume their car has decent brakes.

you assume that they wouldn't want to hit you.

you assume they are not on a hands free call or in otherways distracted.

you assume they are sober.

ultimately you assume they will stop.

you're neither bullet proof nor made of granite.

your assumptions will end up with you being knocked down...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I totally disagree. The drivers on the road shouldn't be travelling at such a speed and distance from one another that they aren't able to deal with a car in front of them slowing down and possibly stopping to make a turning into a side road (an entirely commonplace manouver). In any case no-one should be turning into a side road at such a speed that they can't stop in the distance clear in front of them (which by definition isn't very far if you are turning a sharp corner, most likely with buildings/stret furniture/people blocking your view.

To me this kind of logic demonstrates to what extent many people seem to have everything the wrong way round: pedestrians have to wait until they can see no-one likely to turn into a side road (this is impractical in any case on a busy road, where people may or may not use indicators) before crossing it, because car drivers can't be expected to drive at a safe separation and speed? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

and this assumption shows you've never even driven.

really are you the only thing on the road for a driver to concentrait on?

you're pklaying with your life tbh and i hope to fuckery it's tony blair driving the car which hits you rather than anyone else they should need to be involved in your prolonged suicide game of chicken where you are actually breaking the very code you'd little to little hilter others with...

how long have you hated life neough to want to kill yourself and if you are going to do why not use a rope and a tree rather than selfishly involving others...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

oh yeah I am sure that is right too! but if everyone in general, motorists pedestrians and cyclists, lost the "war" attitude then it would be better for everyone. i see really dumb motorists, pedestrians and cyclists everyday, but equally i see the majority of people are pretty fair and understand that accidents don't help anyone.

innit i really cannot comprehend those who feel the need to put right others wrongs all the time, ffs you'll have a heart attack or end up being run over for a pointless principal...

 

[teuchter]

It doesn't on paper. But if you live in or come to London regularly, next time you are in a street of the size of Piccadilly, try to picture what would happen if a car had to stop whilst on the main road to let pedestrians cross during a busy time. In most cases it might not result in a crash, but minor pandemonium and hard braking that can extend for many metres behind the car doing the turning will occur.

I walk down Piccadilly almost every day. Crossing the various side streets is not a particularly pleasant experience as a pedestrian due to the cars flying in and out of them at unreasonable speed. Hence this thread.

If I picture what would happen if cars drove safely, and allowed pedestrians to cross the side streets like they should? The traffic would flow more slowly. The people sitting in their warm cars getting fat would get where they were going later and maybe they'd be persuaded to use public transport next time. And I would be able to walk to work without feeling like I was risking my life doing so.

It's just the way it is, and until attitudes change (which sadly it could be never) stopping on a busy yet flowing main road feels both unnatural and hazardous.

"just the way it is" isn't good enough for me. That's why I feel like challenging drivers sometimes, I think, by stepping out and forcing them to slow down. Like all bullies they only get worse if no-one stands up to them.

 

[roryer]

Unlike in the US (where they have "jaywalking" laws), there is no priority for cars or pedestrians when crossing the road. We have in essence equal priority, neither has any more or less right to be in the road and should show respect for each other. The one special case is of a car turning into a road which a pedestrian is already crossing. In this case the pedestrian has priority.

That mean's not peeping horns and shouting obsenities when forced to slow down for an old lady trying to cross the street, it means driving with care and attention at all times as a child may appear on the road in front of you chasing a ball, and in fact has just as much right to be there as the car. I personally think regardless of circumstance any motorist who causes serious injury or death to a non-motorist should spend time in jail, considering that a child might run out into the road in front of them at any time, if they hit a pedestrian then they were obviously driving too fast.

Some useful links:

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

I would like to add that I agree with many of the above posts that state the obvious, cars are big fast and heavy while people are delicate bags of goo, and in colision with heavy fast moving metal objects are therefore likely to fare the worse. Unless I have missed something, I was always led to believe that cities are for people, not cars.

Therefore people should be given absolute priority. Although car culture will dissappear with the coming energy crunch we might have some years to wait, so in the meantime we must limit the speed limit in towns to at most 20mph on major arterial roads and in residential areas all parking should be banned, and cars limited to at most walking pace, say 3mph.

 

[cybertect]

If I picture what would happen if cars drove safely, and allowed pedestrians to cross the side streets like they should?

Well, in the case of both the junctions illustrated in your OP, the drivers would be entering the wrong way up a one way street.

I have some sympathy with your view on the general point, though on the other side of the equation, pedestrians shouldn't step into a road after a car has begun entering it.

 

[T & P]

I personally think regardless of circumstance any motorist who causes serious injury or death to a non-motorist should spend time in jail, considering that a child might run out into the road in front of them at any time, if they hit a pedestrian then they were obviously driving too fast.

I however think that on certain instances, such as an adult acting like a lemming and stepping irresponsibly and unexpectedly right in front of a car (and believe me, sometimes it is impossible for a car to stop on time regardless of how carefully and slowly it's going), irrespectively of the injuries sustained by the pedestrian he should be sued for emotional distress caused to the driver.

Nobody likes being involved in an accident and causing injury (let alone death) to others, even if it was 100% the other party's fault.

Out of curiosity, do you advocate trains travelling at 3mph through all areas where pedestrians might walk onto the line? Including non-stopping trains at all stations, through level crossings, etc. At the end of the day, a poor pedestrian has no chance against a 500 ton convoy of metal, right?

 

[Radar]

so pedestrians should be allowed to just step out in to the road anywhere without looking?!

Hell, I just watched a cyclist stand in the right hand lane trying to walk his bike into a stream of traffic turning left at a junction layout identical to (1) in the OP (but with the addition of ped crossing lights. Butcher Row south onto the Highway if anyone knows it). LH lane was green to traffic for the tunnel, then the RH lane (which I was at the head of) also got the green. I'd already shouted at the guy that our lane was about to go green, but would the fucker get off the road ?? Would he shite !

Anyhow, I went round the back of him and pissed off with him blocking the whole lane behind me. I know the timing of that junction pretty well and the cyclist was trying to cross during the green phase which is about a min in total, combined with about a 4 min red phase during the evening commute (loads of time to cross without fucking anyone off)

Now that guy was an inconsiderate cunt, plain and simple. Unfortunately he has a lot of company on the roads & pavements of London

 

[xoriatis]

The picture below shows two road junctions that I walk across on my way to work most mornings. (The green dotted line indicates the point at which a pedestrian crosses the junction).

I know that the Highway Code says that motorists should give priority to pedestrians crossing the mouth of a junction, when they are turning into it. I have always assumed the same is true when turning out of a junction: apart from anything else, they should be stopped and giving priority to other cars on the main road anyway. This would seem to apply to junction like the one numbered (2) in my diagram.

However, it is frequently the case that cars will come tearing down the road leading to the junction numbered (1) with no intention of stopping for anyone. This morning one driver did this, beeping angrily at a pedestrian in front of me who was about to cross the mouth of the junction. I presume this is because there is a traffic light at the end of the road which allows them to turn either left or right, and they reckon that if the light is green they don't have to stop for anyone, pedestrian or otherwise.

Does anyone know what the rules are here? Am I right in believing that they should give way to me if I have started crossing the road and they have time to stop from the point at which I step out? Or is this junction somehow different because it is not the conventional "give way" type? There is no green/red man pedestrian crossing at that point, by the way.

You're totally in the wrong. It doesn't matter how close a pedestrian is to the end of a side road (1 metre, 5 metres, 10 metres, or a 100 metres), pedestrians do not have priority over cars/bikes/buses travelling along the road unless there is a zebra crossing or traffic light in their favour.

The rule whereby drivers must give way to pedestrians ALREADY crossing a road they are turning INTO is completely unrelated.

I had somebody of the same opinion as you kick and damage the side of my car a few months back. I let him on his way but looking back I should have called the police.

 

[gentlegreen]

You're totally in the wrong. It doesn't matter how close a pedestrian is to the end of a side road (1 metre, 5 metres, 10 metres, or a 100 metres), pedestrians do not have priority over cars/bikes/buses travelling along the road unless there is a zebra crossing or traffic light in their favour.

There is no such offence as "jay walking" in the UK, and pedestrians, horses and cyclists have a right to be on the road, whereas car drivers are licensed.
In the case of main roads, it's reasonable to take care, but I have quite often invited drivers to knock me down when it's the street where I live.

Are you from the colonies by any chance ?

 

[TopCat]

You should always give way to peds.

 

[Crispy]

I have this folk knowledge that the only place peds *don't* have (legal, not moral) priority is on a crossing where the red man is showing. Is this true?

 

[Pickman's model]

You're totally in the wrong. It doesn't matter how close a pedestrian is to the end of a side road (1 metre, 5 metres, 10 metres, or a 100 metres), pedestrians do not have priority over cars/bikes/buses travelling along the road unless there is a zebra crossing or traffic light in their favour.

The rule whereby drivers must give way to pedestrians ALREADY crossing a road they are turning INTO is completely unrelated.

I had somebody of the same opinion as you kick and damage the side of my car a few months back. I let him on his way but looking back I should have called the police.

curious first post, to bump a six year old thread

 

[gentlegreen]

Oh yes - hadn't noticed it was an old thread.
There's a Highway Code rule 170 thread on the CTC forum at the moment. :-

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84992

 

[ferrelhadley]

You should always give way to peds.

The US Postals way.

 

[The Boy]

Most tested athlete in the world, never tested positive etc.

 

[TodayIsCaturday]

I have this folk knowledge that the only place peds *don't* have (legal, not moral) priority is on a crossing where the red man is showing. Is this true?

Nope not true - obviously there is legal requirement not to deliberately run people over, but that applies on red man crossings as much it does anywhere else.

Perhaps your folk knowledge comes from the without the UK, where it's often illegal for pedestrians to cross on a red man (not the case here).