Safe Speed Forums

I don't believe that was a strawman (it certainly wasn't intended as one). What I asked is a logical follow on from your description, within which I was merely demonstrating reductio ad absurdum of the claim it was based upon.
What is it then if it is as you say an "extension of the driveway" especially if the driveway is a private one? Is it an extension or not, or was it just 'bad phrasing'?

Are you saying pedestrians are actually walking on and off pavements when walking along such a residential road? (this is a direct equivalence of what you have claimed - it cannot be a strawman)
Where are the markings showing the end of the pavement?
Do pedestrians have to stop look and listen everytime they happen across such a passage?
If such a passage was part of the carriageway, where are the marking denoting the junction?

The dropped kerb is what gives drivers the legal right to use that part of the pavement when accessing a driveway.
Such a passage would not be a pavement if there was a kerb separating it from the 'pavement', or if there was no kerb from the carriageway.

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

Personally, when in a vehicle, I would give way to any pedestrians on the pavement (or dropped kerb) if I were turning into a driveway by means of a dropped kerb and would be very suprised that if a motorist were to hit a pedestrian on the "dropped kerb", who did not give way to the motorist that the motorist would be classed as the innocent party and the pedestrian as the careless party.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

It is an extension of the driveway in the same way that the water supply pipe to my property is an extension of the pipe under my drive. Both change ownership at the boundry of the property.


Yes.


There is no requirement for such markings


Only if they value their life


They are implicit at the dropped kerb.

_________________
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

Indeed. As the dropped kerb is a road junction the second bullet point of Highway Code section 170 is apposite.

As for angels on the head of a pin I think that the answer is 203 Seraphim or 247 Cherubim

_________________
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

Crossing points and 'shared spaces' doesn't really apply to water flow - unless you believe incoming clean water is mixed with outgoing sewage?
The passage in question is a means for connection to a driveway; it is not an extension of a driveway.
Using your logic, I could just as easily say the crossing point is an extension of the pavement - which is far more sensible given the response below...


So to sum up your response: people are actually walking on-and off tiny pavements when walking along a residential (let's call it a) 'path', even though there are no markings at all showing so, and that they should stop and look everytime they reach these areas which are not marked 'if they value their lives'?

Are you serious? That's absolutely doolally!!!

I've looked through the Rules for Pedestrians in the HC. It says a lot but nothing quite like what you describe. I mean, if it's so critical that they should look out 'if they value their life" then it really should be in there - huh? There are even tactile surfaces at crossings to warn the blind of the change of right of way, so should we also have them on all these supposedly tiny pavements?



Honestly Dave, do you think your response is at all reasonable? Is the system much simpler and easier for everyone to understand and follow - and safer - if it regarded as what it actually is: a shared space on a pavement?

edit:
forgot to say: thank you for giving direct answers to the questions.

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

Stopping is probably too much; but looking and listening before you pass an opening from which a motor car might emerge seems to me to be a very sensible precaution. You frequently bewail the fact that pedestrians aren't sufficiently careful of themselves re traffic. Now you are calling me stupid for suggesting that they look out for cars on driveways.

_________________
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

What, look out at each place even if they aren't marked up

Of course pedestrians should be wary, but looking left and right each and every time???
Yes, stopping is too much, but it is not too much when crossing a road; so there must be a difference between the two - they're not really crossing a carriageway are they!
It is not reasonable to expect pedestrians to have the same level of awareness at all unmarked driveways as when crossing roads - perhaps this why it is best to regard these passages as pavements?
Can I assume you are against parents letting their children run off ahead along a 'pavement'? Well you wouldn't be for allowing offspring to run off into a carriageway would you.

I edited my prior post with the following:
I've looked through the Rules for Pedestrians in the HC. It says a lot but nothing quite like what you describe. I mean, if it's so critical that they should look out 'if they value their life" then it really should be in there - huh? There are even tactile surfaces at crossings to warn the blind of the change of right of way, so should we also have them on all these supposedly tiny pavements?

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

It would be interesting see see figures of pedestrians injured on the part of the highway that crosses pavements (the bit that joins the main carriageway to the private property).

I bet it's quite high.

I regulary see people swing into their drive at quite a speed (considering it's a manouvre that should be done at about 5mph or less), especially when turning right across busy traffic.

Of course, normally the speeds are very low (especially when the car is coming out ontot he main carriagway), so it's not going to be thousands injured, but I bet it's hundreds a year, with at least one or two killed.

There's a junction I pass on my way home, a narrow lane for a left turn onto a bridge and a straight ahead which is often busy (blocking the left turn only lane a bit); the kerb is very low.

Pretty much everybody turning left drives up the pavement (which is also quite narrow) with two wheels on it so they can turn left sooner rather than wait for the straight ahead queue to move.

And I bet many of those are incidental to an accident on a random part of the pavement.
So what is your answer to the question you quoted?

Here's another: what is the kerb for?
Do you disagree with the common statement: 'The kerb separates the pavement from the road'

Ask anyone standing on such an area if they're on the pavement or a carriageway, what do you think they'll say?

Also again, there are plenty of other dropped kerbs which don't connect driveways: plain and tactile; aren't these still pavements?




So a vehicle can drive over the pavement once the modifications are in place - yes?
The English is quite clear here. If it had said 'We do not allow you to drive over a pavement; you can only use a crossover which has been authorised and put in' then I wouldn't have argued, but it actually allows one to "drive over a pavement" (once the clause is satisfied).

Face it guys: everyone knows it as a pavement; everyone treats it as a pavement; it is referred to a pavement; therfore, it is a pavement!

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

They're not vehicle crossovers though.



They are specically not pavements, if they were it would be illegal to drive on them.

The point being: a dropped kerb a carriageway make doesn't!


You have already pointed out several times that it is illegal to drive along them - it is perfectly legal to drive over them to get to a connecting entrance/exit once the necessary authorisation/modifications are given/made. This is clearly shown within my earlier post - which you decided to avoid addressing or even quote.

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

Glancing into a driveway before you cross it doesn't exactly require great skill, effort or intellect


I wouldn't routinely stop when crossing a minor road which interrupts the pavement on which I am walking. A preliminary glance to assess the situation: stop if there is traffic: carry on if not. Exactly the same for driveways


That is a fair assumption. In situations where there is a possibility of traffic movement children are safer with their parents. Running along the pavement they are likely to run into the road. Not to mention being a nuisance to other 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

Of course looking into a driveway is really easy; glancing into all of them along the route, as well as the other way (cars go in as well as out) requires quite a lot of effort and discipline - not quite the same is it! Do you manage that? Do you believe others can consistently manage that even though there is no requirement to have them highlighted/marked in any way?

Where is this mentioned within the pedestrian section of the Highway Code?


Do you routinely carry on for all of them (driveways) just like everyone else? Do you see joggers (or pavement cyclists) slowing down at entrances - or even looking?

Should we have tactile surfaces for the blind at these points, especially where entrances are infrequent?


That's a nice save, can't really argue with that
By your logic "Running along the pavement " (when within a residential area) implies they are actually running into the road, repeatedly - that makes sense ....

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

As a pedestrian I try to be alert to what is going around me and to be aware of potential dangers. It isn't hard ,but I will concede that many pedestrians don't bother to look out for their own safety - something that you and others often complain about.



Section 4 of the Highway Code mandates the care oof children on the pavement.

_________________
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

Yes, we do – when they step out into the road; before you say it, not the road as you define it.
Do you think it isn’t hard to look both ways when happening across each and every dropped kerb, even though they are (practically) never marked up?


Please do let us know how you get on with that.
Face it, it isn’t in there after so many years, doesn’t that tell you something of where we are right now?


To clarify: I was asking for your opinion. So what about them?


Returning to the main point:


So a vehicle can drive over the pavement once the modifications are in place - yes?
The English is quite clear here. If it had said 'We do not allow you to drive over a pavement; you can only use a crossover which has been authorised and put in' then I wouldn't have argued, but it actually allows one to "drive over a pavement" (once the clause is satisfied).

I’ve since dug up plenty more examples, some very clear, all from gov.uk sites. Can we kerb this and put it to bed, or are you going to continue with your illogical, unreasonable, unaccepted, and outright unproven, definition of a pavement?

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

I am happy to put it to bed but not to accept the adjective stack that you use to describe my assertion. As far as I am concerned it is a distinction without a difference. You are equally dead if you are run over by a car driving over the pavement or if you are run over by a car on the extension to the driveway.

I shall be on holiday and incommunicado until Thursday so do not preen yourself on beating me into submission with the force of your rhetoric

_________________
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

I very much doubt anyone would get killed unless they were doing about 40+ into their driveway, lol. When I park on the driveway I always check that the pavement is clear before committing to it.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

As you are if you run into the road into the path of a car and run over, or in the garden and run over by a car crashing through the fence, or sitting at home and run over by a truck crashing through the wall ... so what?

There's no such extension (driveway) that you keep referring to (not in law, not in logic); that section is a 'vehicular crossing' - how many times? Even weepej understands that!


That may be the case for you, but others in this thread have picked up the difference, specifically liability (something you obviously can't accept because it's all a carriageway to you).

But it's more than that isn't it...

This isn't about the difference or the distinction; it's about consistency, specifically the significance of the lack of consistency coupled with the correlation of those who exhibit that inconsistency. Many regulars will know exactly what's going on here.



Nah, the pure and simple logic (supported by the lack of any real rebuttal) was evidently more than adequate

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