Settle a Highway Code related domestic dispute.

[Alun]

I would have thought twice about letting them cross if there were 2 lanes in each direction, stopping in those circumstances may encourage them to cross in front of you, only to be mown down by another driver who hadn't seen them, with you having a grandstand view.

 

[Sara_H]

I would have thought twice about letting them cross if there were 2 lanes in each direction, stopping in those circumstances may encourage them to cross in front of you, only to be mown down by another driver who hadn't seen them, with you having a grandstand view.

No, only one lane left to cross.

 

[Sara_H]

[QUOTE 2845885, member: 30090"]You should have carried on - jay walking is illegal in this country.[/quote]
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/02/jaywalking-and-motor-age.html

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

On a wider, almost philosophical, approach, road use is a matter of road sharing. It's a social activity. If we could move more into thinking about these kinds of situations as social - it always is - rather than as ''right of way'' questions, I'm not sure the OP's question would have arisen. Not that, in so far as I understand it, ''right of way'' is a legal concept, except perhaps in the negative ''no right of way'' for banned people/vehicles. Priority is. It's pretty much self evident to me that the most vulnerable road user should have priority.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

On a wider, almost philosophical, approach, road use is a matter of road sharing. It's a social activity. If we could move more into thinking about these kinds of situations as social - it always is - rather than as ''right of way'' questions, I'm not sure the OP's question would have arisen. Not that, in so far as I understand it, ''right of way'' is a legal concept, except perhaps in the negative ''no right of way'' for banned people/vehicles. Priority is. It's pretty much self evident to me that the most vulnerable road user should have priority.

That's not what was asked tho

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Nope, they do not have right of way.

Now, that is not to say I would not stop if I saw someone "stranded" and allow them to pass, but it would be as a courtesy not because they had right of way. The two are not the same thing. I am very courteous as a driver and a cyclist, but also aware of what the rules of the road state and how things can go badly wrong when people don't have a clue.

I think you are confusing right of way with priority. With the exception of "Special Roads" (Motorways and certain A roads) pedestrians do have a right to walk on the carriageway - which is the strict usage of the term "right of way". There is nothing in the Highway Code to say motorists have priority over pedestrians and I suggest referring to rules 147 and 204 to 210 for further advice.

 

[Alun]

That's not what was asked tho

Maybe not, but the philosophical approach is frequently adopted in the evening at this time of year when finishing off the Christmas sherry.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Amazing that a courtesy of helping someone cross the road can cause such angst?

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Amazing that a courtesy of helping someone cross the road can cause such angst?

I was thinking that too.

 

[Cuchilo]

On a wider, almost philosophical, approach, road use is a matter of road sharing. It's a social activity. If we could move more into thinking about these kinds of situations as social - it always is - rather than as ''right of way'' questions, I'm not sure the OP's question would have arisen. Not that, in so far as I understand it, ''right of way'' is a legal concept, except perhaps in the negative ''no right of way'' for banned people/vehicles. Priority is. It's pretty much self evident to me that the most vulnerable road user should have priority.

That's my take on things . The highway code is a code that's been updated to modern times but what does the law say ?
The highway is a public space with public right of way . So a pedestrian has right of way on that highway . Just because other means of getting along that highway have been provided that doesn't mean a pedestrian doesn't have the right and the right of way to walk down or across the road . Pretty daft of them to do so unless of course they are drunk and then its perfectly normal with a traffic cone on your head .

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

That's not what was asked tho

Indeed, but I opened my post with:

On a wider, almost philosophical, approach...

...to signal that I was not quite off topic, more ''over topic.'' It didn't work, evidently.

 

[Svendo]

I think it is an overstatement to say the highway code states you should let the pedestrians finish crossing (Rule 170 covers vehicles turning into side roads) but it definitely doesn't say you should ignore them and leave them stranded. It does say you should be considerate of all other road users and take care of vulnerable road users, also always give way when to do so would prevent an accident.
It also says to avoid hard braking when not necessary but also that you shouldn't be so close to the vehicle in front as to not be able to stop should they do an emergency stop.
So on balance I'd say that provided you slowed and stopped safely then on balance you win. Also Mrs Svendo thinks the world is a better place when more people (safely) let other people out, across, in etc. and I'm contractually obliged to agree. (although an implication is filtering traffic must take extra care.)

 

[Alun]

I think you are confusing right of way with priority. With the exception of "Special Roads" (Motorways and certain A roads) pedestrians do have a right to walk on the carriageway - which is the strict usage of the term "right of way". There is nothing in the Highway Code to say motorists have priority over pedestrians and I suggest referring to rules 147 and 204 to 210 for further advice.

Indeed, and HC rules 1 to 17 are worth reading as well!

 

[Alun]

I think it is an overstatement to say the highway code states you should let the pedestrians finish crossing (Rule 170 covers vehicles turning into side roads) but it definitely doesn't say you should ignore them and leave them stranded. It does say you should be considerate of all other road users and take care of vulnerable road users, also always give way when to do so would prevent an accident.
It also says to avoid hard braking when not necessary but also that you shouldn't be so close to the vehicle in front as to not be able to stop should they do an emergency stop.
So on balance I'd say that provided you slowed and stopped safely then on balance you win. Also Mrs Svendo thinks the world is a better place when more people (safely) let other people out, across, in etc. and I'm contractually obliged to agree. (although an implication is filtering traffic must take extra care.)

The highway code doesn't say many things, it's what it does say that you should observe.
The concern that people have is that vehicles behind maybe too close, rather than those in front and that an accident may result from your harsh or unexpected braking.

 

[Sara_H]

I was thinking that too.

Me too!