Settle a Highway Code related domestic dispute.

[asterix]

Yesterday I was driving along with OH in passenger seat. Tis a 30mph road (but traffic tends to move at about 40mph tbh).
It was very busy traffic in both directions. Up ahead I spotted a family of pedestrians who had crossed halfway and were stranded in the middle of the road, so I stopped to let them cross.
OH was very cross and said I'd put us at risk of a rear ending. I was very sure of my facts and told him that pedestrians who'd already started crossing had priority. OH claimed this was nonsense.
Stepson, who is 17 and has recently bought a moped assured me that he has a copy of the highway code that he's considering reading, and could confirm that I was nothing but a very stupid woman, and his father (who he usually never agrees with on anything) was indeed correct.
14 year old step son who had never even heard of the highway code, confirmed that his dad and brother were both right and I was indeed very stupid and wrong.
Quite a family argument broke out, which ended with me shouting quite loudly that I'm a modern, independant woman and how dare they all question my superior knowledge etc. I have this evening looked up the highway code to show them all how very wrong they are and found this:

170
Take extra care at junctions. You should

• watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

Pedestrians have priority at junctions. But it says nothing about pedestrians stranded in the middle road.

Am I completely wrong?

So that settles it. You were quite right.

 

[theclaud]

We already agree that all types of vehicles can and do cause issues to pedestrians crossing the road...we must also agree that little old ladies may not be as nimble on their feet as a forty something cyclist who rides 100 miles per week.

Less of the something, Linfy! The woman crossing in your video was pretty nippy. But yes, I agree.

 

[Cush]

How many posts is this for a simple commonsense and courtesy question? 6 pages of mainly waffle when the answer is simple. YOU DO WHAT IS RIGHT AT THE TIME, whether you area pedestrian, cyclist or motorist.

 

[Bollo]

Hehe - is this a Commuting thread that took a wrong turn?

My 1.3 pence. A couple of years ago, while crossing the road with young Bollettta, a young rake came around a blind bend on three wheels and nearly dispatched us both. I took issue with the scallywag and he told me that.........(wait for it, it's a doozie.........)

"Roads are for cars, not people"

Savour that wisdom people, take it in. Live your lives by it.

For closure, I called him a lady's tuppence.

Calm down everyone, please?

So that's how Zipp wheels are made.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2846461, member: 45"]Sorry but you're not making sense. You've linked to a video clip with no conflict. The pedestrian wasn't a physical problem. Your new "perspectives" tack is in fact "attitude". Which is exactly what I'm saying. Sort your attitude out and the road is a lot safer, more accommodating and friendly.[/quote]

Think yourself lucky you don't have to use these cycle lanes Paul....you'd get so angry with the attitudes of people here !

 

[stephec]

This is far more entertaining than any argument you'll ever see in the Rovers Return.

 

[roadrash]

This is far more entertaining than any argument you'll ever see in the Rovers Return.

Thats because the rovers return is on the other side of the road and no fecker can get across !!!!!!!

 

[snorri]

"Roads are for cars, not people".

An attitude I've discovered that is not unknown among roads engineers, sadly.

 

[bof]

Think yourself lucky you don't have to use these cycle lanes Paul....you'd get so angry with the attitudes of people here !

The moral on the video is "pedestrians keep off bike lanes". ffs! I trust the poster won't complain the next time some motorist yells at him to say roads are for cars, but I wouldn't bet on it! A twat on a bike is still a twat.

This may have been a bike lane but it was full of peds. The moral is keep at a speed appropriate to the conditions, which is around 4-5mph max past a family with kids on a bike path.

 

[snorri]

Think yourself lucky you don't have to use these cycle lanes Paul....you'd get so angry with the attitudes of people here !

Totally irrelevant to the thread topic.

 

[Linford]

Totally irrelevant to the thread topic.

It is relevant in respect to peoples perceived entitlement. I say the problem is with 'all' faster moving vehicles...some say it is only with cars.
You have already set out your stall on the compulsion thread in regards to powered motor vehicles...you just see this as inconsistent to your world view, and are now trying to suppress it.

 

[asterix]

An attitude I've discovered that is not unknown among roads engineers, sadly.

Yes, Los Angeles here we come! If Linford has his wicked way..

In a Car-Culture Clash, It’s the Los Angeles Police Linford vs. Pedestrians

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/u...sh-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

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

I am a little surprised that the above was used by @theclaud to snub PK99's reference to 7D of the Code, given it was the OP who not only made a crystal clear request for clarification of the Highway Code in the original post, she also mistook (by general consent I think) and referred para 107 from the Code to justify her view at the time, when although stranded the pedestrians were stationary and had not started crossing her side of the road.

What I don't understand, is why can't everybody agree that: a) the OP's understanding of the HC at the time was wrong, and b) her action if it caused no risk to any other road user was courteous and admirable?

Or am I wrong in my understanding of either the Code or what is decent?

 

[Linford]

Yes, Los Angeles here we come! If Linford has his wicked way..

In a Car-Culture Clash, It’s the Los Angeles Police Linford vs. Pedestrians

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/u...sh-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html

It isn't the polices job to make the laws, only to enforce them...when in Rome and all that stuff Asterix

 

[Silver Fox]

Whilst Sara's display of motoring courtesy is commendable without having witnessed this incident I couldn't say for definite that her actions were correct in the circumstances.

Slowing down as opposed to stopping in busy traffic may have been preferable depending on the speed and proximity of other vehicles, thinking time, braking distance, road surface conditions etc. I'm also curious as to why her OH should react in such a prescriptive manner, maybe he was aware of a potential danger that isn't being disclosed in the OP's account or that she wasn't aware of at the time.

As I said, I can't fault Sara's courtesy but in the absence of all accounts from those involved I couldn't call this one way or the other.