Settle a Highway Code related domestic dispute.

[Linford]

The highway code also says that you should drive at a speed which you can stop within the distance you see to be safe. The right thing to do would for the people to not attempt to cross until they see it clear to do so. If you feel that you are putting them in danger, then you need to stop, and that is the right thing to do, but the right of way only for pedestrians crossing applies to side turnings where they are already crossing. Many road users including pedestrans do not appear to know this...but that is understandable as many have never read the highway code.

 

[Poacher]

No. No matter how many people on here tell you that it's the "right" thing to do, pedestrians do not have right of way.

Marmion, you are completely, totally and absolutely wrong.
Get yourself a copy of "Rights of Way: A Guide to Law and Practice" by Riddal and Trevelyan, and ask a responsible adult to read and explain it to you.
Don't fecking well show your face here again until you've done so.

 

[Linford]

Marmion, you are completely, totally and absolutely wrong.
Get yourself a copy of "Rights of Way: A Guide to Law and Practice" by Riddal and Trevelyan, and ask a responsible adult to read and explain it to you.
Don't fecking well show your face here again until you've done so.

Any chance you can quote from the relevant passage with a link ?

 

[buggi]

yea of course you should stop!! If you got rear ended that's the driver behind's fault! He shouldn't be up your ass. Where in the highway code does it say f*ck the pedestrian that's already crossing?

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

[QUOTE 2846052, member: 45"]"Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident. "

Sara did the right thing.[/quote]

What incident was avoided, the "incident of a family standing in the middle of the road like a load of pillocks"?

I've already stated I may have done the same, but not because I thought the HC said I should.

But then again, you'll have managed to convince Sara H that she is "right" and when she next carries out some manoeuvre/act that she wants to frame as "right" she'll come running back here to get a pat on the back and some comfort. And ignore any dissenting voices, who will be open to the collective onslaught.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

[QUOTE 2846289, member: 45"]She reduced the risk to the pedestrians by allowing them to get to safety.

I thought that would have been obvious.[/quote]

On a "busy road in both directions" in a 30mph zone, where the traffic routinely travels at 40mph?
I'd have said she'd increased the risk both to the pedestrians and other road users.

 

[theclaud]

What incident was avoided, the "incident of a family standing in the middle of the road like a load of pillocks"?

I've already stated I may have done the same, but not because I thought the HC said I should.

But then again, you'll have managed to convince Sara H that she is "right" and when she next carries out some manoeuvre/act that she wants to frame as "right" she'll come running back here to get a pat on the back and some comfort. And ignore any dissenting voices, who will be open to the collective onslaught.

It comes to something when there's perceived to be a need a need for "dissenting voices" about whether to allow a family to finish crossing the road or not. In the next instalment, a refreshing new perspective on defrauding old people of their life savings?

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

It comes to something when there's perceived to be a need a need for "dissenting voices" about whether to allow a family to finish crossing the road or not. In the next instalment, a refreshing new perspective on defrauding old people of their life savings?

The OP asked a question, quite specifically framed, and with some detail as to the circumstances and surroundings. I provided my view, which I stand by - that this turns out to be a voice of dissent within a clamour of "there, there, you're a nice person" responses is quite worrying - to try and detract from that by attempting to belittle my view by making a huge leap towards something unrelated is bizarre. But I take it you have jumped into the mix and tried to sidetrack onto "defrauding old people" as you thought others were floundering. Attack the poster, try to belittle. I'll take that was a win.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

[QUOTE 2846312, member: 45"]I'm confused now - you're arguing against what Sara did while at the same time stating that you would do the same.

To state the obvious....

The pedestrians were "stranded" in the middle of the road, and at risk from traffic passing at 30mph in front and behind. There were children present.

By slowing to allow them to cross Sara blocked the risk from traffic behind, and removed the risk to the pedestrians from traffic travelling in the opposite direction. She allowed the pedestrians to get on to the pavement and away from all of the traffic.

I'd be interested to hear your proposal as to the safer way of the pedestrians getting out of the road....[/quote]

No I said I MAY have done the same, not would have. I'd have assessed the situation; the OP seems to have carried out her actions as she thought she was "right" rather than based on the hazards presented - if there was traffic in both directions travelling, possibly at 40mph, then I am not sure I would have done as it seems potentially more safe for them to remain "stranded" than to wave them into on-coming traffic over which she has no control.

We are presuming there were children present, which potentially makes it even worse depending on their age and their ability to have awareness of what is happening around them.

 

[theclaud]

The OP asked a question, quite specifically framed, and with some detail as to the circumstances and surroundings. I provided my view, which I stand by - that this turns out to be a voice of dissent within a clamour of "there, there, you're a nice person" responses is quite worrying - to try and detract from that by attempting to belittle my view by making a huge leap towards something unrelated is bizarre. But I take it you have jumped into the mix and tried to sidetrack onto "defrauding old people" as you thought others were floundering. Attack the poster, try to belittle. I'll take that was a win.

Invoking the Highway Code is just an appeal to authority. The pity is that it is necessary at all.

 

[swansonj]

It seems to me the only mistake Sara_H has made is to cast her original question in the very narrow terms of whether the Highway Code specifically and explicitly gives priority to pedestrians who have started to cross the road other than at junctions, because that is the only respect in which she has arguably been wrong. In every other respect (whether the Highway Code implicitly rather than explicitly does that through the provisions on general respect for vulnerable road users; whether it is good driving, not to mention common, decent humanity, to do so; and how to come over as a nice person rather than a bit of an arse on Internet forums) she has been clearly in the right.

 

[BrianEvesham]

@Sara_H you did the right thing.

 

[DiddlyDodds]

I didn't say that. You were wrong, just accept it.

Hopefully Sara H will let her hubby and sons see this thread so they'll know at least one cyclist knows what he is on about!

Wait , i have it here somewhere ,no ,, yes ,, no , ...,I have searched everywhere but sadly we are all out of medals.

 

[Aperitif]

Calm down everyone, please?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2846282, member: 45"]I'm afraid you're coming from the wrong perspective again. Walking is free. Apart from the obvious like walking on motorways, people are not bound by laws and can walk. The HC and its associated laws were created to bring some control to these big machines that people suddenly decided that they needed. Drivers should expect to see people walking. And if that means that they're walking in the space that they want to move through then they have to give way. If a driver can't accept that then they shouldn't be on the road.

The majority of the problems we have on the roads would disappear overnight if people chose not to have such a stinking, insecure attitude that tells them that they own a particular part of our earth.

As to the bold, again it's a repeat of the old "someone else's fault" stupidity. Maybe they were in the wrong place, but they're there now and they're in front of you, so deal with it. As an adult.[/quote]
Who said i was specifically discussing car drivers. It could have been pedestrians crossing a busy cycle path, or traffic lighted junction where the pedestrians have right of way but are being menaced by rljing vehicles ?
You are pointing your finger at a specific group but in reality, it could be any faster moving vehicle in given space.