RLJ'ing Pedestrians

[ComedyPilot]

Just been into Beverley and at the same junction 2 sets of people jumped the lights and wandered over the road on red. I waited for green, and walked over safely and past them.

"Didn't get far doing that did you?" was met by blank expressions all round.

The roads don't need to be any safer. They are if everyone follows the rules. It's only when impatient (slow) tossers chose to flout the rules that incidents occur.

Why can they get mown down in front of me?

Because when the local rag asks for witnesses for a story I'd give them both barrels.

God it's hot out there too!!

 

[Arch]

Just been into Beverley and at the same junction 2 sets of people jumped the lights and wandered over the road on red. I waited for green, and walked over safely and past them.

"Didn't get far doing that did you?" was met by blank expressions all round.

The roads don't need to be any safer. They are if everyone follows the rules. It's only when impatient (slow) tossers chose to flout the rules that incidents occur.

Why can they get mown down in front of me?

Because when the local rag asks for witnesses for a story I'd give them both barrels.

God it's hot out there too!!

It's a technicality, but...

There is no legal requirement for pedestrians to wait for the green man. It's sensible, and often vital, but not a rule.

If they walk out in front of traffic without looking, and get run down, then they are responsible, of course...

 

[theclaud]

It's a technicality, but...

There is no legal requirement for pedestrians to wait for the green man. It's sensible, and often vital, but not a rule.

If they walk out in front of traffic without looking, and get run down, then they are responsible, of course...

I don't think it is a technicality. I think it's crucial. Pedestrians shouldn't have to give way to cars - if they can't cross whenever they want, it means the traffic is going too fast.

 

[skwerl]

I don't think it is a technicality. I think it's crucial. Pedestrians shouldn't have to give way to cars - if they can't cross whenever they want, it means the traffic is going too fast.

how do you figure that? are you saying that cars shouldn't be allowed to do 50 on an urban dual carriageway? ie we shouldn't need crossings there because the traffic should be doing 10 MPH and nicely spaced out for peds to cross as and when they desire?

 

[theclaud]

how do you figure that? are you saying that cars shouldn't be allowed to do 50 on an urban dual carriageway? ie we shouldn't need crossings there because the traffic should be doing 10 MPH and nicely spaced out for peds to cross as and when they desire?

Pretty much.

 

[Arch]

I don't necessarily agree to that extent - it would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. However, I do think pedestrian crossings should be set to change more quickly - instantly indeed, rather than make pedestrians wait. And at junctions, I'd like to see a pedestrian phase at each change if required (IE, if the button was pressed), rather than waiting for a whole cycle to go through.

 

[theclaud]

I don't necessarily agree to that extent - it would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. However, I do think pedestrian crossings should be set to change more quickly - instantly indeed, rather than make pedestrians wait. And at junctions, I'd like to see a pedestrian phase at each change if required (IE, if the button was pressed), rather than waiting for a whole cycle to go through.

Why must you always be so damn reasonable?!

Your measures are all good, but I think we can afford to be more ambitious. Automatic assumption of responsibility for a vehicle involved in a collision with a pedestrian? 20mph default urban speed limit? Why on earth skwerl thinks cars need to be whizzing round towns and cities at 50, I've no idea...

 

[Arch]

Why must you always be so damn reasonable?!

Your measures are all good, but I think we can afford to be more ambitious. Automatic assumption of responsibility for a vehicle involved in a collision with a pedestrian? 20mph default urban speed limit? Why on earth skwerl thinks cars need to be whizzing round towns and cities at 50, I've no idea...

Sorry, it's a failing of mine...

I'm sort of for the automatic assumption of responsibility, but then I think of the dickheads I see in/on all forms of transport, including shoes....

Would be fine with the 20 mph limit though - I never reach that on my bike!

 

[theclaud]

Would be fine with the 20 mph limit though - I never reach that on my bike!

Naturally it would only apply to motor vehicles .

 

[ComedyPilot]

Why must you always be so damn reasonable?!

Your measures are all good, but I think we can afford to be more ambitious. Automatic assumption of responsibility for a vehicle involved in a collision with a pedestrian? 20mph default urban speed limit? Why on earth skwerl thinks cars need to be whizzing round towns and cities at 50, I've no idea...

Given the plebs I saw today waltzing across on red without a hint of forethought, I don't see why a motorist or any moving vehicle should be assumed to be responsible for a collision if the ped was RLJ'ing.

Yes, the driver of the vehicle has a responsibility to other road users, but common sense should prevail that if an adult ped flouts established safety guidelines for crossing the road, then they only have themselves to blame if they get mown down.

It's high time people took responsibility for their actions - and crossing the road is a big one.

 

[Arch]

Naturally it would only apply to motor vehicles .

No, hang on, I don't hold with that. If there is enough danger of interaction for cars to be limited to 20, then bikes should too. You may be less likely to be killed by a bike, but it'll still bloody hurt at that speed, and bikes aren't able to stop as quickly under control as cars. I think 20 is quite enough for any road user in a busy urban environment (even assuming I could get up it!). There are bits of York where 8-10mph is risky, thanks to the volume of pedestrian traffic.

 

[theclaud]

Given the plebs I saw today waltzing across on red without a hint of forethought, I don't see why a motorist or any moving vehicle should be assumed to be responsible for a collision if the ped was RLJ'ing.

Because there's no such thing as RLJing if you're a pedestrian - you can cross wherever you like. And because people moving a tonne of metal around at high speed have a responsibility to make sure they don't hit people with it. Why on earth should everyone get out of the way?

 

[theclaud]

No, hang on, I don't hold with that. If there is enough danger of interaction for cars to be limited to 20, then bikes should too. You may be less likely to be killed by a bike, but it'll still bloody hurt at that speed, and bikes aren't able to stop as quickly under control as cars. I think 20 is quite enough for any road user in a busy urban environment (even assuming I could get up it!). There are bits of York where 8-10mph is risky, thanks to the volume of pedestrian traffic.

Well, I'd go with automatic responsibility for cyclists involved in collisions with pedestrians, but a bicycle is considerably less dangerous than a car at the same speed. How about 30 for bikes and 20 for cars?

 

[ComedyPilot]

Dead of night, deserted roads, no-one else around, I would safely cross on red. During the day, busy junction lots of traffic, I wait for green. The people I saw walked in front of cars just to get to the other side a few seconds early. Are you saying if they came into conflict with a car in that scenario it's the car's fault?

 

[Dan B]

D The people I saw walked in front of cars just to get to the other side a few seconds early. Are you saying if they came into conflict with a car in that scenario it's the car's fault?

I think there's too little information in your post to say either way, but if they are leaping out in front of cars and causing the drivers to take avoiding action then that's (potentially) a problem irrespective of whether the little green man was lit up or not.

I say "potentially" because it could just as easily be the drivers' fault for expecting not to have to give way. You wouldn't expect to do 30mph and achieve a clear path by use of your "bow wave" in a car park, nor (imo) should you on some urban streets. Why, fundamentally, should the pedestrians' "few seconds" be any less important than the drivers'?