whats the law on people walking in middle of road?

[John the Monkey]

But I'm guessing that according to most of you here that both of them were within their rights to pose a hazard to everyone around them.

You understand that most of us live under a different legal system to you, though? There is no such thing as jaywalking here - the offence simply does not exist.

Our Highway Code places a duty on *drivers* to take care around vulnerable road users (a category that includes pedestrians) with the specific stipulation that drivers should be prepared to give way to them if they are crossing a road the driver is turning into, and that they must not be "hurried" across the road by revving engines, &c.

I doubt many would have much sympathy for the extreme cases you present above, but surely part of being a skilful rider, driver &c is dealing with extraordinary circumstances safely?

(Edit - most of the duties placed on drivers in this respect apply to cyclists too here, btw)

 

[John the Monkey]

...It's the ones who are moving as "slow as molasses going uphill in January" just "because" they can that and no one had better say anything to them are the ones that I have or would have a problem with.

...and listening to iPods, and texting, and stepping out without looking I'm no saint, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't annoying - but it's easily dealt with compared to the guy at the wheel of a chavved up Corsa who's too busy pretending he's a stuntman to think about overtaking distances

When I'm riding through the park(s) that I ride through most days it seems like I am the only one who is looking out for pedestrians of all ages and dogs. And am slowing down for them. Everyone else is blasting through the park(s) as if they're running their own personal Tour.

As it should be - I'm not sure why people choose to blast along under those circumstances - no one's coming out unscathed if they hit someone there.

 

[Jezston]

How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?"

Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.

It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9-HlPmYYec
- apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.

Just recently and about a month or so before I saw two men who are damned lucky they weren't hit by anyone.

The first one about a month or so before opted to lie down in the middle of the path in one of the parks I ride through to do is stretching exercises. Even though there was plenty of open grassy areas and beach area for him to do so.

The most recent one happened after the sun had set. A man (I'm pretty sure it was a man) in dark clothing laid down across the path through the last park I ride through and had all of his fishing gear around him. He was dressed in dark clothing and was very difficult to see even with the lights I have on my bike.

But I'm guessing that according to most of you here that both of them were within their rights to pose a hazard to everyone around them.

I'm not sure what these two incidents have to do with the concept of 'jaywalking' - they were on paths?

 

[Jezston]

I had something very similar driving to work the other week, cyclist pedalling stupidly slowly, I had to move out of my lane to avoid them, I considered hooting my hooter and shouting "can't you cycle quicker", but we all know the type of abuse we get from cyclists so didn't bother.

[tap] [tap] ... hmm, my sarcasm meter seems to be dead. Can anyone else give me a reading?

 

[benb]

How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?" Over here we're taught to cross at the corner on the green, not in between. Given the potential for the collateral damage that can be done by a motorist trying to avoid a jaywalking pedestrian I think that it makes a lot of sense.

Just recently and about a month or so before I saw two men who are damned lucky they weren't hit by anyone.

The first one about a month or so before opted to lie down in the middle of the path in one of the parks I ride through to do is stretching exercises. Even though there was plenty of open grassy areas and beach area for him to do so.

The most recent one happened after the sun had set. A man (I'm pretty sure it was a man) in dark clothing laid down across the path through the last park I ride through and had all of his fishing gear around him. He was dressed in dark clothing and was very difficult to see even with the lights I have on my bike.

But I'm guessing that according to most of you here that both of them were within their rights to pose a hazard to everyone around them.

Still banging that tired old drum, are you?

In the UK pedestrians can generally cross wherever they like, and that's a good thing.

Obviously wandering into fast moving traffic is ill advised, but I see no need to force them to cross only at designated places. The concept of jaywalking is an abomination.

 

[snailracer]

How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?"…

In the UK, we consider it abhorrent because it restricts freedom of movement over public land to those who have the inclination and means to buy and drive a car. Not every road has a footway alongside it, a situation which is even more prevalent in the US.

I understand that they could be injured or infirm…

Yes. And there is no sure way for a motorist to know if a “jaywalker” was walking slowly for valid reasons or not. Some people who appear to be healthy, aren’t, and we don't make infirm people wear a badge so motorists can distinguish them. UK law errs on the side of caution by not automatically criminalising walkers on the road with jaywalking laws.

 

[BentMikey]

The concept of jaywalking is abhorrent, and also very primitive. It's bad for society, sadly.

 

[BenM]

The concept of jaywalking is abhorrent, and also very primitive. It's bad for society, sadly.

Care to elucidate a bit?

I see several people claiming the concept of jaywalking is abhorrent - as abhorrent as say drink driving? It must have made sense to someone in the first place so that the law was enacted (Other countries of course, not necessarily the UK)

How is it primitive? surely it is no more primitive than saying 'you must drive at or below the speed limit' or 'you must have a white light on the front of your bike'

Is it bad for society? I mean if fewer people get KSI because they are restricted to crossing at specific points, that is a good thing isn't it?

B.

p.s. The above is a little tongue in cheek, however petrol heads, in other places, use similar arguments to those I have put forwards. I was wondering what your take was on suitable answers would be...

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

It's quite fashionable among kids going to Swinton Comprehensive to cross the road by stepping out in front of vehicles, forcing emergency stops. Adds to their street cred with their mates and impresses the girls.
If a group does it, some will hang back and walk slower just to show they're even more rebellious than their friends.

Once watched a man in his 30's step out on the main road at Stairfoot, and walk across to the tune of screeching tyres and hooters. He then continued through the Tesco's petrol station forecourt with the same result, then across the car park entrance road, then the car park. Whatever the reaction as everyone swerved around him, he just carried on looking forward.
How he survived amazes me to this day.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.

It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z9-HlPmYYec - apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.



I'm not sure what these two incidents have to do with the concept of 'jaywalking' - they were on paths?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

You understand that most of us live under a different legal system to you, though? There is no such thing as jaywalking here - the offence simply does not exist.

Our Highway Code places a duty on *drivers* to take care around vulnerable road users (a category that includes pedestrians) with the specific stipulation that drivers should be prepared to give way to them if they are crossing a road the driver is turning into, and that they must not be "hurried" across the road by revving engines, &c.

I doubt many would have much sympathy for the extreme cases you present above, but surely part of being a skilful rider, driver &c is dealing with extraordinary circumstances safely?

(Edit - most of the duties placed on drivers in this respect apply to cyclists too here, btw)

True, but if I'm not mistaken a large part of the legal system that I live under comes from your legal system. Although I'll admit that at times it sure doesn't seem like that.

As does ours if I'm not mistaken. With the difference that pedestrians (blind, etc. being at the top of the list) followed by bicycles have the right of way, not priority. But they still have a responsibility to behave in a safe manner. Meaning that on a busy street that a pedestrian cannot just decide to start across wherever they feel like. But, if they do and it's illegal for them to have done so under the doctrine of last clear chance if the motorist or cyclist has a clear chance to avoid colliding with the person committing the illegal act they'll be the one's charged with a crime.

Sadly, if I've read what some others here have posted, they'd say that it was their "right" to lay down on the path and block it, as they're not bringing the "risk." How is laying down blocking a path not "bringing the risk?" And I agree with you, based on a conversation I had with a friend. When I told a friend about the last man that I saw laying across the path totally blocking it, preventing anyone from using the path to get around him. He said I should have hit him. If I had I'd have ended up in the water and didn't want that.

I agree, I was able just barely to see the second guy in the dark with his dark clothes and veered left down an offshoot of the path. Totally missing him, but sadly there are too many (not just here, but I gather over there) who do not ride with lights who would not have seen him and hit him.

The first guy is more of a mystery to me as he had removed his shirt to lay down on a rough path to stretch. When as I said there was plenty of soft grass for him to have laid in to stretch.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Private roads can be treated as a public road for UK Law, unless the access is physically blocked, eg by a gate. If you can simply drive into a public road, then all the legislation applies.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

...and listening to iPods, and texting, and stepping out without looking I'm no saint, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't annoying - but it's easily dealt with compared to the guy at the wheel of a chavved up Corsa who's too busy pretending he's a stuntman to think about overtaking distances

I've learned that it's a waste of time and breath on trying to warn them as they're usually plugged into their iPod, iPhone, etc. and wouldn't hear it anyway. I've had to deal with more than a few of those while riding on my bike.

As it should be - I'm not sure why people choose to blast along under those circumstances - no one's coming out unscathed if they hit someone there.

There are times when I'm going through the parks that I have to unclip my left foot and use it as either a counter-balance, or use the toes on my left foot to push myself along. I'd like to know that as well. Sadly, most of them are also the same people who blast through red lights and stop signs without breaking stride expecting everyone else on the road to be on the look out for them. Of course it is safe to presume that when they finally collide with a pedestrian or a dog that they'll blame the other person and claim that they weren't doing anything wrong. The same when they get hit blasting through a red light or stop sign.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.

Given the collateral damage that a jaywalker can do, i.e. a motorist who has to swerve to avoid a jaywalk can end up hitting another car, could end up hitting a cyclist, or can set off a chain reaction where pedestrians who are walking down the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road can end up getting hit. Laws against jaywalking do not necessarily "perpetuate" the idea that the roads are for cars and cars alone. Everyone who uses the roads have an obligation to do so as safely as possible. And if one is attempting to cross a road with 45MPH (or faster) traffic in the middle of the block is posing a risk to everyone else who is trying to use the road safely. As the last time I checked cars do not stop on a dime no matter how much the driver may brag that their car does. But even with the laws against jaywalking, if the driver has the last clear chance to safely avoid the crash they are obligated to do so.

It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z9-HlPmYYec - apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.

My connection is too slow right now, I'll have to watch the video later.

I'm not sure what these two incidents have to do with the concept of 'jaywalking' - they were on paths?

It has to do with the topic because there are those here who feel that pedestrians NEVER bring any "risk" and have the "right" to do whatever the hell they want. Clearly these two men were bringing the risk as they were preventing ANYONE from being able to travel on the path(s) that they were on. And any sane, reasonable person seeing them just laying on the path would see that they are in fact bringing the risk.

Likewise if one were to walk down (not across) the middle of a busy road during rush hour they would also be bringing the risk and endangering everyone else on the road. But again there are those here who would feel that it's the pedestrians "right" to walk down the middle of the road and that they weren't bringing any risk to anyone.

 

[bonj]

Likewise if one were to walk down (not across) the middle of a busy road during rush hour they would also be bringing the risk and endangering everyone else on the road. But again there are those here who would feel that it's the pedestrians "right" to walk down the middle of the road and that they weren't bringing any risk to anyone.

Try asking what would become of a pedestrian who walks straight down the middle of the A1. Go on, it's funny.