Letterbox driver

[BentMikey]

that's all very well but if your action caused an accident who do you think would be blamed ?B) roads are for vehicles not pedestrians

Either you're using sarcasm here, or that's a serious, but pig ignorant statement. They are public highways, for everyone to use including pedestrians.

That's fair enough Mikey, but you know the A21, you travel on it everyday & know how busy it is. Would you have done the same thing with one of your kids? I like to think not.

An adult, fair enough, but not dragging kids with them.

I guess it depends on which part of the A21. Closer to catford, or closer to lewisham? Besides which, there are loads of pedestrian islands all along the road. The planners clearly expect pedestrians to cross this road, it's in a busy shopping area with loads of foot traffic.

 

[ianrauk]

I guess it depends on which part of the A21. Closer to catford, or closer to lewisham? Besides which, there are loads of pedestrian islands all along the road. The planners clearly expect pedestrians to cross this road, it's in a busy shopping area with loads of foot traffic.

Closer to lewisham, not that it matters Mike.. you just don't drag a little kid across a busy 4 lane highway.

 

[BentMikey]

Well, I don't agree with you. If the crossing is where I think it is, on the approach to the roundabout, then it's only two lanes at a time with a big island, so very doable, and the southbound side is effectively only a single lane anyway as the other lane is always full of parked up buses.

 

[ianrauk]

fair enough, I don't agree with you either. it was way too busy for her to cross, it was an idiotic thing to do. She put herself and her child at risk. Simple as that

 

[ianrauk]

Sorry not that close to Lewisham, was before the first railway bridge

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

If you're going to teach your children any semblence of road sense then surely you walk to the crossing... no matter how painful/far it is.

I appreciate that the roads are for all... but why take a child into pointless danger when they're relying on you to be the responsible one?

We *always* wait for the Green Man at the crossing regardless of traffic/lack of traffic - make it second nature and you can rest a bit easier when they're out on their own.

 

[PBancroft]

What if, for example, it was a lady with MS, or anything else that makes walking difficult/tiring/painful? I think it's entirely fair that people do cross where there isn't a crossing, they are public highways after all, and what makes drivers' journeys more important than theirs?

I accept this is a bit of social balance, but for me personally I'm always happy to slow or stop to aid a pedestrian crossing a road, whether I'm in the car or on the bike.

I think most people (not just on this board, but most people in general) will do what you suggest, and slow down or stop. It's human nature, and it is only the exception that everyone notices and complains about.

However regarding the former comment, there is still the right of way, and when crossing a road pedestrians should still have the responsibility to cross safely, just as we cyclists have our responsibilities, and drivers have theirs... as much as I hate to put anyone into groups.

Roads are a public highway. You are quite right. However, on a similar level, I have the right and ability to walk down the local High Street and call random passersby cnuts should I so choose.

Doesn't mean its a good idea.

 

[BentMikey]

I repeat, what makes a driver's journey more important than the pedestrian's? The answer, surely, is that might is right, nothing else. The driver doesn't have right of way (wrong phrase), he doesn't even have priority.

 

[hackbike 666]

Funny you say that but tonight BM I was a ped trying to cross the road.Wanted to cross the road and two cars just totally ignored me,didn't let me cross and went on their merry way.

The power of the tin box.

Anyway I know you are right.

 

[Arch]

What if, for example, it was a lady with MS, or anything else that makes walking difficult/tiring/painful? I think it's entirely fair that people do cross where there isn't a crossing, they are public highways after all, and what makes drivers' journeys more important than theirs?

That's a pretty weak excuse in Sh4rkeybloke's example. There is a crossing one way, and a lollipop man the other. If the mother really found walking that hard, she should stand at the gate, and watch the child walk down the road to one or other, and cross safely. Or at the very least, teach the child to assess the risk of traffic itself if it must cross there. Simply shoving it out when she thinks it's ok is doing it no favours for later life.

 

[peanut]

Either you're using sarcasm here, or that's a serious, but pig ignorant statement. They are public highways, for everyone to use including pedestrians.

the only pig ignorant statement here would appear to be yours.

A busy highway is for cars not pedestrians. It is dangerous and irresponsible to cross the road with children 50 yards from a purpose built pedestrian crossing with trained traffic officer.

The fact that you condone such stupidity speaks volumes about your common sense

 

[Nortones2]

The only highways specifically for motor vehicles are motorways. Many roads are without footways, but walking on them is not forbidden. Neither are crossings so ubiquitous that there is always a specific controlled crossing place within reach. In our small town, there is precisely 1 zebra crossing. Not that this excuses idiocy, such as the parent in question, but cars do not have a "right" over and above other users. Except where other users are prohibited.

 

[hackbike 666]

That is the law isn't it?I have asked many people about this and have also been told the error of my ways on here.

 

[BentMikey]

The only highways specifically for motor vehicles are motorways. Many roads are without footways, but walking on them is not forbidden. Neither are crossings so ubiquitous that there is always a specific controlled crossing place within reach. In our small town, there is precisely 1 zebra crossing. Not that this excuses idiocy, such as the parent in question, but cars do not have a "right" over and above other users. Except where other users are prohibited.

Thanks, well said.

Peanut, you really have no clue. It's the A21, not a busy highway in the sense of a motorway, and it runs right through several extended shopping areas. It's entirely appropriate for pedestrians to cross it. I'm talking in general terms for all pedestrians, btw.

The fact that you don't want pedestrians on a road they are entitled to be on speaks volumes about your level of tolerance and views on how roads are only for cars.

 

[col]

Thanks, well said.

Peanut, you really have no clue. It's the A21, not a busy highway in the sense of a motorway, and it runs right through several extended shopping areas. It's entirely appropriate for pedestrians to cross it. I'm talking in general terms for all pedestrians, btw.

The fact that you don't want pedestrians on a road they are entitled to be on speaks volumes about your level of tolerance and views on how roads are only for cars.

I thought even mixed cycling and ped paths were bad enough? can you imagine car,cycles and ped roads?