Right of Way?

[The Jogger]

On the road between Buck Palace and Westminster, the one that runs along the park, there are raised bits of road. like wide flat ramps with look left or look right on the footpath. My question is who has the right of way, road users or pedestrians? They certainly aren't zebra or Pelican crossings and I had somebody walk out on front of me this evening. I then received a lot of verbal abuse.

 

[Hip Priest]

There is.

It just doesn't mean what the OP thinks it means. The answer is, both the ped and cyclist have right of way, but only one of you will have priority. It's difficult to say who has priority without seeing the bumps in question. However, one should always be wary of peds stepping out.

 

[The Jogger]

[QUOTE 2630001, member: 30090"]No such thing.[/quote]

You obviously have never cycled along that road.

 

[The Jogger]

 

[Hip Priest]

I don't know who has priority. I can why it has caused confusion.

 

[Risex4]

I assume you mean the speed tables down Birdcage?

As they are not light controlled with ambers or traffic lights and there are no road markings (ala zebra, pelican or toucan crossings) there is no implied requirement to stop to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross as there is in the case of the aforementioned crossing types.

However, on the flip side, they are signed as a raised pedestrian crossing, and are intended to make the crossing of pedestrians more predictable and controlled for other road users. Given that pedestrians always take priority when on the road, fault for clipping someone at one of these locations I would assume would always fall on side of the cyclist or road user under the pretence of "due care and attention" - they are raised and signed areas where traffic should expect pedestrian cross traffic. That is, unless, you had numerous witnesses who could say that the pedestrian themselves simply walked out in front of you without themselves checking that it was safe to cross making the (hypothetical) collision unavoidable on the part of the road user.

Thats my understanding at least.

 

[Beebo]

User30090 means no such thing as right of way, i doubt he is denying the existence of the raised area.

 

[The Jogger]

It's a bit confusing more so for the pedestrian, someone walked straight out on front of me this evening on my commute home, I was traveling at a fair pace but had my hands over the levers just in case, luckily.

 

[The Jogger]

[QUOTE 2630188, member: 30090"]Cycled along it early Sat morning[/quote]

It's ok Beebo explained thanks.

 

[Risex4]

Both pedestrians and cyclists have right of way on Birdcage Walk (as that bit of road is called). Neither has priority over the other. That said, Risex is correct in that for pedestrians it would appear that they have priority - although he is wrong in stating that pedestrians automatically have priority. They don't and the courts have upheld that they don't.

Sorry, lazy use of the the Queen's English in suggesting that it was a legal absolute that pedestrians "always" had priority - although interesting note about the courts. What I meant was that in an urban environment with a fair volume of pedestrian traffic, especially where there are nominated (if not technically "official") pedestrian crossing points, that culpability in the event of the collision would on balance rest more with the driver/cyclist on the assumption that when in charge of a moving vehicle, it is your responsibility to maintain safe control of it at all times which includes attention to hazards. Unless it could be reasonably verified through some means that the driver/cyclist was indeed in safe control of their vehicle and it was the pedestrians negligence which caused the collision?

Not saying that that is correct, but that is the assumption I have always taken out on the road with me.

 

[Hip Priest]

Hip Priest is correct.

A stopped clock...etc

 

[gaz]

[QUOTE 2630267, member: 30090"]I don't think I'm wrong though.[/quote]
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, but what we know for sure that just ain't so."

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I've never had a problem on Birdcage Walk but that bit between Buck and Trafalgar Square - is it called the Mall? - is a gently anarchic pedestrian slalom. You'd lose points and incur a time penalty for hitting one.

 

[gaz]

Birdcage walk is a strange one. Some people treat them like zebra crossings and some don't. I generally go with the floor, if people are stopping then I'll obviously stop but if pedestrians seem to be behaving then I'll keep on going.

 

[Poacher]

What I meant was that in an urban environment with a fair volume of pedestrian traffic, especially where there are nominated (if not technically "official") pedestrian crossing points, that culpability in the event of the collision would on balance rest more with the driver/cyclist on the assumption that when in charge of a moving vehicle, it is your responsibility to maintain safe control of it at all times which includes attention to hazards. Unless it could be reasonably verified through some means that the driver/cyclist was indeed in safe control of their vehicle and it was the pedestrians negligence which caused the collision?

But......but.....that sounds a bit like Presumed Liability, and we know from the howls of outrage whenever that's suggested with regard to cyclists, that it could never ever be countenanced in the UK!