Safe Speed Forums

and give them as little room as possible ?

How were you able to ascertain their position in the social hierarchy? Or do you consider all non motorists to be your inferior?


Green traffic light only gives you priority over other vehicles not over animals and pedestrians.

_________________
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

Is that correct? I thought only pedestrian crossings can give pedestrians priority?
Of course, no one has right of way if that 'way' has already been (or can expected to be) taken; no-one should pull off (or continue) when something is in their path (vehicle, animal, pedestrian or otherwise) but doesn't green principally give right of way (especially when the other phases are on red)?

Clarifying this: does green not mean 'right of way and can proceed only if safe to do so' ?

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

It means "go if clear" or "proceed with caution" IIRC.

Highway code says: "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing"

The law says:

Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with paragraph (1) [i.e. green light] shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other road users and subject to any direction given by a constable in uniform or a traffic warden or to any other applicable prohibition or restriction

I'd say expecting peds to get out of your way is NOT "with due regard to the safety of other road users".

It should be noted that a red man displayed to pedestrians means:

The red signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which, in the interests of safety, pedestrians should not use the crossing and the green signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which pedestrians may use the crossing.

I.e. it is not illegal for a pedestrain to use the crossing whilst the red man is showing.

None of that contradicts any of what I said, yet it dodged my underlying point:
who has 'right of way' (factoring safety caveats) when their phase is green?

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

Look at it this way. There is no legal obligation for pedestrians or animals ( a distinction which adam may not make ) to obey traffic signals. There is a distinct legal obligation for motorists to avoid hitting pedestrians at all times. Which gives pedestrians a de facto priority. A priority, hasten to say, which they would be unwise to assert too diligently.

_________________
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

You are not going to teach them a lesson, you may as well make their idiocy as safe as you can.

That's a good point, but it still doesn't sit right with me. Let's try a different tac.
Pedestrians aren't allowed on motorways at all; however, there is still 'a distinct legal obligation for motorists to avoid hitting pedestrians at all times.' thus again yielding the same de facto priority - but who has 'right of way'?

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

I always allow cyclists/pedestrians to proceed in their chosen direction, I never "give way" to them as that may be taken to be "directing" their actions and may render me liable (in certain circumstances).
Irrespective of whether their movements will take them into certain danger, that is their right.
I think all cyclists should have to have compulsory training, and have to wear protective headgear, and have to have compulsory insurance: And the cycle to be registered (the last bit to help in the fight against crime (cycle theft)) (and the fight against terrorism)

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

For a meaningful discussion to continue we need to define exactly what is meant by the term "right of way" when applied to a vehicle/pedestrian interaction. I take it to mean that if two parties are vying for the same resource, a piece of road, then the party who does not have legal "right of way" must concede the use of that resource to the other.

_________________
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

You’ve defined is purely within legal compliance, this ultimately fails because pedestrians don’t have a legal responsibility to walk safely.
Do pedestrians have “legal right of way”? Where does it say ‘drivers must give way to pedestrians’?
Pedestrians have no more “legal right of way" than other road users who somehow find themselves in a road space, drivers have an obligation (legal or not) to avoid all road users, not just pedestrians.

Lets look at the flip side: imagine a world where pedestrians always had ‘right of way’. A person would just look like they want to walk into any road and expect that all traffic must always stop for them, even if no danger is posed. What a mess that would be!
In this world, it is generally accepted that pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic before they should start to cross, in this case they aren’t giving way to passing traffic; any driver who is kind enough to stop is giving way to the pedestrian. The priority is clear. At crossings, the pedestrian can claim priority and cause a gap in the traffic.

In terms of what happens at traffic lights: whoever has the red is the one who has to concede that road space (unless they're already on it). Granted pedestrians don't have a legal obligation to abide by it, but that doesn't mean they have right of way.

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

As said, I have cycled along that route many times. It's plenty wide enough to overtake any other cyclists, and a bell would sort out any dog walkers, which are only a problem if they are stretched across the whole path.

And you are taking me out of context. If they have no option but to cycle on the road, so be it. But when there is a perfectly good, wide cycle track right alongside...

And no, it's not just *me*. That's the crap defence of every annoying cyclist -annoying doesn't mean all of them mind - (sorry to be blunt, but I have heard this many many times) uses.

If it was just me, no problem. But when it routinely holds up 10+ cars, that's different.

Personally I don't see why 1 person should choose to make lots of people go slower when they could ride about 10ft away and *maybe* have to ride a tiny bit slower.

Perhaps that's just flawed logic

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Are we talking traffic lights with a pedestrian phase - an incorporated pelican - or plain traffic lights? In the first instance there should be no doubt about priorities. In the second it is much less clear. Presumably the pedestrian has priority over vehicles held by a red in the road which she is crossing. But should traffic which is entering that road by a right or left turn from the green lit road give way to her (as of right rather than under the obligation to prevent accidents)

_________________
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

Adam was talking about the former; you needn’t have questioned him when he said “...ignored my green and their red light”


I had mentioned this but you left it out of your quote: “In this world, it is generally accepted that pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic before they should start to cross, in this case they aren’t giving way to passing traffic; any driver who is kind enough to stop is giving way to the pedestrian.” Unless you disagree with this, I would have to say this situation is clear cut too.

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

Yes but his reference to their red light could have been to the red light which they could see on the pole rather than the red man.



The problem that makes it less clear cut is the pedestrians inability to see round corners. It has happened to me (and I am, despite appearances, a careful pedestrian) on occasions that I have stepped into what appears to be a clear road only to be endangered by a car turning into the road from my right. That situation would appear to be my right of way but the driver's equally inability to see round the corner makes it a dangerous one. Of course COASTing drivers would anticipate my presence

_________________
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

you mean you look like a non careful pedestrian ?
what does a reckless pedestrian look like ?

Perhaps you should have clarified that before posting your negative remark to him?
Perhaps Adam.L can clarify it now?
Either way it doesn't matter. If the pedestrian has good visibility lines the situation is still generally accepted to be clear cut.


Bad visibility lines can indeed pose additional risk to pedestrians, in which case the pedestrian should have enough sense to simply not cross there, so instead crossing further up the road away from the corner (like wat we should have been teached); where this isn't practically possible a dedicated crossing should be installed.

I still fail to see how you can claim it is your (as a pedestrian) right of way assuming you aren't already in the road (and not at a crossing). Any road user already in a road has that right of way, motor-user or not (thus dispelling the idea that the pedestrian automatically has a de facto right of way).

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

Trouble is , that by moving away from the junction you are moving to a place where the traffic is moving rather than stationary. I agree that crossings should be installed but we need something rather cleverer than the present generation of PELICAN crossings.



I am coming to the view that the concept of "right of way" can't be applied to road users who are not subject to regulation -on Axe Edge does a sheep have right of way over a kangaroo? But my real complaint was the arrogant 'As a car owning farmer I have a superior right to use the road' attitude in Adam's 3 denizens of the lower social orders ignored my green and their red light and stepped out into the traffic in front of me

In real life it can be impossible to cross the road without forcing a motorist to slow down by stepping into the road.

_________________
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

Yaaay, we agree on something
If you can see the traffic is stationary then what is the problem? If you can’t then why cross there?


I don’t think regulation is relevant here. Priority was/should be encouraged via education; I don’t want regulation to be forcibly applied to pedestrians. I believe what we have/had is the most sensible compromise – those already on the road (not causing obstruction) have priority unless directed otherwise.

Who has right of way on unmanaged train tracks, unregulated pedestrians or trains?


Sorry but no! You inferred the social order was a result of car ownership when no such implication was given; you made a bad assumption.
I read that statement as referring to people with scant regard for safety or consideration – ‘chavs’ if you will. That comment could have so easily have been applied to chavs behind the wheel.
Please do clarify that with Adam.


Then it has to be said that such an area is an inappropriate place to cross. I once tried to cross a busy commuter DC to get to a garage (car breakdown, not my fault). That wasn’t fun at all. I certainly didn’t expect to have right of way or be given it (that would cause untold risk on that road). It was a toss up between waiting for an appropriate gap or walking down the road to an underpass (or up the road to an overpass). Hoping for the best, I ended up waiting a long time; I have only myself to blame for that.


The ‘roo can jump over the sheep

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

http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=8cf4bf6f-2f58-4811-9308-942ea09e2c56&version=-1

Now where did I read that the majority of pedestrians killed on roads after 2100z were drunk ?

And why do the gov not publish the stats that apportion blame for each accident ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing