Safe Speed Forums

Hi. Could someone please clear up a debate I'm having with a colleague of mine. I'm sure I'm right, but he's adamant he's right, saying the highway code has changed since my days, which I doubt.

When I learned to drive I was told that pedestrians always have the right of way on a pavement over drivers, no matter what the circumstances are. My colleague (who is 20 years my junior) begs to differ, saying that he has right of way when he's accessing his home driveway and when he's coming into the company car park. He says that because the pavement outside our office is cut away - there are curving kerbs dividing the pavement - then that gives him right of way. He's had a couple of near misses with pedestrians and I'm kind of worried that one day he will knock someone down.

Max

I think the spirit of the law says the road user who is on any part of pavement/carriageway has a de facto right of way.
I hope your colleague understands that he will be fully liable for any injury that he could have avoided, regardless of the right of way.
His having right of way doesn't mean he can run over someone who doesn't have that right of way.

If a pedestrian is walking along a motorway carriageway (outright illegal for pedestrians, let alone not having right of way), a driver cannot drive into them because they had 'right of way'. Such a driver would face charges of assault/manslaughter/murder, etc.

The non-carriageway side of kerbstones, even dropped kerbstones, is a pavement.
I believe the carriageway side of kerbstones, is still part of the carriageway, even when leading into private property (up to the boundary of the property).

What exactly do you mean by "cut away"?
Can you show an example using Google Images or Google Maps?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Sorry, can't find any images small enough to post and don't want to identify the business on G Maps in case the bosses get a bit concerned. By "cut away" I mean that the pavement has a kerb edge that curls inwards from the road edge, then there's the entrance to the car park (about 2 metres wide), then there's another kerb edge that sweeps out from the property edge to meet the road edge again. In other words the pavement is divided by the entrance and has pavement edges each side. It's on a busy high street if that makes any difference, but if I'm understanding your terminology correctly my colleague is not correct?

It’s funny you bring this up Max because I have said more than once that I’m sure the HC I had from the early 80’s when I was going for my driving test said something like, if not exactly like, “give way to pedestrians at junctions”.

Yet you often see drivers barging off the main road down a side road and peds are literally hot-footing it across while the driver treats it like a duck shoot, as though they have right of way. I'm gunna have to find that copy of the HC..

and

Add/Edit: This isn't far off what I'm thinking of

“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”

I assume the same would be true of an entrance etc.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Pshaw!! Don't they teach the Highway Code anymore?

H.C. 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
> watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
> watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

I agree with Big T that the entrance to a private drive or a car park falls into the same category as "a road into which you are turning" so the same prioriries apply. It is also worth pointing out to your colleague that having priority over pedestrians is not a licence to knock them down if they fail to heed his precedence.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No! You ain't havin' that without a challenge.

The spirit of what law? The one you have made up.

By using "road user" do you mean the pedestrian or car driver in this scenario? Your opener is a little ambiguous. Do you mean the car driver on the pavement or the pedestrian? Using "His having right of way" indicated you may mean the car driver.



I think you need to show where you got that "Spirit" from.

Highway Code

Rule 8 - For Pedestrians
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).

Rule 170 - For drivers
Take extra care at junctions. You should
watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way



Can't see any spirit giving drivers the right of way over pedestrians in those rules or have I assumed the wrong "road user".

I think what he means is that in practice pedestrians do not walk out into the path of turning vehicles and expect them to stop for them. The HC deliberately avoids using the term "right of way" and, as has often been said before, it's scant consolation that you had right of way if you're lying in a hospital bed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Like you provably do with the operation of the LTI? Please! At least I don't tell porkies regarding LTI operation in court! Yeah, I got your number - there's no challenge there

Is it time for you to disappear again, speed camera man?


There is no ambiguity. You are trying to apply specifics where none was required.

My 'his' was in relation to the OP's colleague: "he's".

Also, the comment you referred to was general one. I think it obvious that at the time I didn't know who had right of way in the OP's scenario as I needed clarification of what that scenario actually was. Please keep up!

I think you will find, if you give it some thought, that there is no conflict between the "spirit" I described, and the 'letter' subsequently given.


Like I said: "specifics where none was required".

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Please don't dwell upon my response to greenshed, Max. That user is a notorious forum lurker who is directly affiliated with, and benefits from, speed camera enforcement - and he has a habit of trying it on!


Anyway, I didn't mean that you post images of your company. Posting an example of the road layout would be sufficient to clarify your question.

This type of crossover point is still a pavement.
Is this is the type you mean at the entrance to his "home driveway"?

I believe the type below is part of the carriageway (the double yellows are a bit of a give-away):


Is this is the type you mean at the entrance to your "company car park"?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yep, that's pretty much like the entrance to the company car park. I believe his home driveway requires driving over a footpath that has a dropped kerb, as in your link. Am I understanding you correctly in that case that in the instance of the company car park pedestrians should stop and yield to car traffic? And what about, for instance, on my road where there is a block of flats that has two entrances; one with a dropped kerb and another like our company car park entrance?

I hope that Steve will forgive me for pre-empting his reply. Where there is a dropped kerb on a pavement it remains a pavement. This is one of the few occasions where a motor vehicle is allowed to drive on a pavement. But the priority remains with the pedestrian.

At your company car park entrance, or any other side road, I like to think that there is virtual zebra crossing. The pedestrian has priority after he has started to cross but mustn't step into the path of a car and expect it to stop instantly. Equally the motorist must anticipate that the pedestrian might do just that.

For good road safety all road users - from drivers of 40 ton trucks to pedestrians - need to understand the problems of other road users and exercise normal courtesy in their behaviour towards others. If your friend doesn't understand that he shoudn't be driving.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Also worthy to mention cars approaching and turning into these junctions should indicate their intentions for the benefit of pedestrians (as well as any other road users).
Frequently (especially out running) i'll approach a side road take a good look over my shoulder and ahead at approaching traffic (and down the side road of course) and have to make a call whether to keep going & cross or not. If you're in a car & the timing is such that our paths could cross i need you to be indicating in order to make that decision. (and yes ok i do take other cues e.g. from speed, road position, where the driver is looking & eye contact).

There's a relatively small roundabout near me on the way into a B&Q i run across frequently and often have to 2nd guess cars coming around it still indicating right but pulling off left and wondering why i've run in front of them or turning directly left without indicating... etc etc

A colleague, not friend I agree with your interpretation and always drive (and walk) that way myself. I've printed out the relevant sections of this thread and left them on his desk; with a bit of luck he might think a bit more in future!

Yes, that's another minefield. It's bad enough while driving when other drivers don't bother indicating (far too frequently it seems these days - even seen police cars not bothering to do so) but as a pedestrian it's very noticeable too.

Oh dear, has Greenshed been claiming to be a speed camera man again! The laughable thing is, he isn't very good at his real job, so I am not surprised that he demonstrates such incompetence in his made up speed camera role!

Anyway, back to topic, I was always taught that one should give priority to pedestrians regardless of where they happened to be. Also, words ring home from my advanced driving instructor: "you gain nothing by being DEAD right!"

Quite right Odin. It should really just come down to common courtesy, like everything else on the road. As a responsible good driver, you should see on the approach to the turn that a pedestrian is going to cross over when you are at that point. But what you see all the time is they don’t look ahead and slow down but instead carry on expecting the pedestrian to just get out of the way.

When I am driving in this situation I slow down so that when I get to that point they are safely across. It also helps because I am not going to have to stop at the junction, to let the pedestrian cross, with the back of the car sticking out on the main road thereby forcing drivers behind me to stop or slow down.

Most drivers I come across are pig-ignorant when it comes to this style of driving and good manners.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

TBH I couldn't care less who has "right of way" if any right of way even exists. In these situations, duty of care kicks in, at least it should. Deliberately putting anyone at risk purely for the reason that you feel you have any "right of way" is completely unacceptable.

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

Not at all, and you did a good job of it


I think you got the essence of our thoughts Max. I would be most interested to see what your colleagues says about the thread snippets you gave him.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I got a luke warm response, but I suspect it's a bit of defensive bravado because someone saw him coming into the car park this morning and his approach was much more measured, so hopefully a result.

I was talking about this matter to a friend over the weekend and he sent me a pic of another situation where the kerb edges sweep in across the pavement but there is also a kerb edge at the road junction (attached pic). I've seen these elsewhere too (both in entrances to places like supermarkets and also at junctions to smaller residential roads) and wondered do these mean anything special? With all these variations it's no surprise people (drivers and pedestrians alike) are confused.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed above. It really comes down to commonsense and courtesy on the part of both pedestrians and drivers. Pedestrians should look to see if there is any danger around them and drivers should be aware of pedestrians approaching these types of entrances.

The issue of "priority" and "right of way" is the wrong angle to approach this from.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.