whats the law on people walking in middle of road?

[the_mikey]

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.

Most people in the uk tend to either walk in the road, or just cross it. If someone is progressing across the road, then let them continue! Make the world a better place, slow down or stop and enjoy the break.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Well, they do, within reason. It's up to other road users to make allowances for this. (This is not just my opinion, incidentally; it's enshrined within the UK highway code.)

That's part of the problem, what is "within reason?" On this side of "the pond" if a person attempts to cross a multi-lane, high-speed road when it is unsafe to do so. That is not "within reason." They are being negligent, and are the ones who caused the crash.

It's why your example of the car ploughing into a bus queue after swerving to avoid a pedestrian isn't really valid: anyone driving a car through a busy area shouldn't be driving at such a speed that this happens if someone steps into the road without seeing them.

Sadly, this happens on a fairly regular basis. Often enough, that most news outlets don't even cover it anymore. Last year there was just this type of crash in front of the apartment complex that I live in. Thankfully there wasn't anyone sitting in it. But a car (I forget why it went off of the road now) ended up in the bus stop shelter. Damaging not only one of the two benches, but also flattening the garbage can. If there had been anyone sitting in the shelter they'd have at the very least been injured, if not killed.

Or indeed falls into the road having tripped, or wobbles into the road on their bike, or any one of a hundred ways a person can end up in the road without, as you put it, "act[ing] as an arse".

Agreed, there are hundreds, if not thousands of reasons for how and why a person ends up in the road. And not all of them are their fault. But that doesn't mean that a person shouldn't use at least ordinary care when attempting to cross the road. And sadly, it's seems that there are those here who do feel as if pedestrians don't even need to use ordinary care when they attempt to cross the road.

According to some of them, a pedestrian can pretty much do whatever the hell that they want, whenever the hell they want and wherever the hell they want, and that it's up to everyone one else to be on the look out for them. That is what I have a problem with. Everyone who is operating on or near the road regardless of their mode of transportation needs to at the very least use ordinary care. If they do not they are at least partially to blame for whatever happens to them.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Most people in the UK tend to either walk in the road, or just cross it. If someone is progressing across the road, then let them continue! Make the world a better place, slow down or stop and enjoy the break.

Sadly, over here that wouldn't happen. As "everyone" is in a bloody hurry to get nowhere fast. And as fast as they can. So much so that I've had drivers who were traveling in the opposite direction to the one that I was traveling in yell at me to get off of the road and on the sidewalk. Also over here it seems like most people have forgotten that it's best to leave home or work early enough so that if they encounter an unexpected delay that they can still get to their destination on time. As an example at the end of the week I have a doctors appointment out at the VA. It's about an hour (for me) bike ride from my apartment to the VA. I leave home early enough so that if I have a flat, or break a chain I can still get there on time. If it's an appointment with my primary care provider I leave early enough so that I not only can still get there on time if I encounter a problem, but also early enough so that I can sit down and allow my vitals to return to normal.

I've even had motorists tell me that I need to be in the bike lane, even on roads that don't have a bike lane.

Over this past weekend, when I was on my ride I had a gal who as she was passing me say, "You need to be in the bike lane, sir." When I tried to explain to her that it wasn't safe, because of the fact that there were cars parked in the on street parking. And if any one of them were to open their door without warning it would easily take up at least half of the bike lane if not more. So as any smart/safe cyclist I do NOT ride in bike lanes that are in the door zone when there are cars parked next to them.

Sadly, though not all drivers apparently are aware of the dangers of a cyclist riding in the door zone.

 

[snorri]

The Amsterdam cyclists take every thing in their stride .... tolerance of others.

Vernon, how often have you strolled down the middle of a central Amsterdam cycle path hands in pockets viewing the passing scene?

 

[snailracer]

How does it restrict the freedom of movement? It simply requires pedestrians to use due care when crossing a road...

This whole thread is about walking along a road, not across it. It would be remarkable if a jurisdiction with Jaywalking laws allowed you to walk along a road at all.

...Canes, walkers, wheelchairs are generally good indicators. As are pronounced limps. The jaywalking laws don't automatically "criminalize" walkers, they "criminalize" walkers who put other road users at risk.

Again, 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.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

This whole thread is about walking along a road, not across it. It would be remarkable if a jurisdiction with Jaywalking laws allowed you to walk along a road at all.

Actually a lot of people do walk along the road both with and without sidewalks/pavements. The only "restriction" is that they have to cross at the corner. Does everyone do so? No, which is one of the reasons people get hit, or cause a chain reaction of events that leads to someone else getting injured or killed because of their actions.

Also over here people are required/encouraged to walk against traffic so as to be more viable. Again using ordinary care for their and everyone else's safety. And actually the topic of the thread is "Whats the law on people walking in the MIDDLE of road?" NOT along the road. Which would suggest (at least to me an admitted outsider) that there are those who feel that someone walking down the middle of a road is doing something wrong.

Again, 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.

True, but again sadly that wouldn't stop a lot of people from honking at them and/or getting very impatient thinking that they're being somehow "delayed" in getting where they want/need to go. Which again falls back on what I said about people having gotten out of the habit of leaving early enough to get where they're going so that if they do encounter the unexpected it won't delay them in them in getting there.

And again, neither does the US, it does however "criminalize" people who don't use at the very least ordinary care in going about their business. Particularly people who attempt to unsafely cross the street where "high speed" traffic is present. Doesn't it make sense that on a road with "high speed" traffic for the "state" to effect some sort of control so that people do not just walk out into traffic causing a multiple car pile up, that can cost several people their lives?

How is doing that "restricting" a persons freedom of movement? The "state" isn't saying that a person can't cross a particular road, it's just saying that if you're going to cross this road given the amount of traffic on it AND the speed of said traffic that you are safer if you cross here, vs. where you think that it's "convenient." I'm sorry, but to me that doesn't seem to either be restrictive, nor denying anyone their freedom of movement.

One thing that I really don't understand is how anyone can feel comfortable living someplace where they know just about everything they do is on camera 24/7 and is monitored by the police 24/7. THAT IS restrictive and unacceptable to most if not all Americans. And yes, there are areas with security cameras, but they are NOT on "every" lamp post or corner. And a fair portion of the time they are not even being monitored. Unless a crime happens within the field of view. Usually those "tapes" are erased and reused without anyone even looking at them.

People over here get upset when a new city decides that it wants to put something as "innocuous" as red light cameras in place to control those who run red lights. You'll get cries of "it's just a way for the city to make money," or some such BS. But simply requiring people who wish to cross a high volume, high speed, multi-laned roadway to do so where there is a walk light isn't restrictive. It's done for the public safety, much the same way that you all have CCTV just about (if not) everywhere.

 

[mcr]

As I would, if I hit a dog, cat, or anyone while on my bike. It would be the dog or cat's owner for not having better control over their pet. Not the pet's fault.

Now this is priceless (my emphasis)! In this household, as I would imagine is the case in most others, it's the cats who are in control of their owners.

 

[Arch]

Sadly, this happens on a fairly regular basis. Often enough, that most news outlets don't even cover it anymore. Last year there was just this type of crash in front of the apartment complex that I live in. Thankfully there wasn't anyone sitting in it. But a car (I forget why it went off of the road now) ended up in the bus stop shelter. Damaging not only one of the two benches, but also flattening the garbage can. If there had been anyone sitting in the shelter they'd have at the very least been injured, if not killed.

So you don't know why the car came off the road, but you assume it was to avoid a pedestrian? Couldn't just have been a lousy driver/mechanical fault?

I don't think I've ever been aware of a situation local to me in which a car swerved to avoid a pedestrian and hit a bus shelter - and our local press has been known to report a tea-towel on fire (honest!). Many drivers seem quite able to hit bus shelters unaided in fact.

Actually a lot of people do walk along the road both with and without sidewalks/pavements. The only "restriction" is that they have to cross at the corner.

Hang on, you're supposed to cross only at a corner? Corners are the most dangerous places to cross. Back in the days when we had the Green Cross Code over here, you were supposed to move away from a corner if you could. At a corner, you have to look in more directions than on a straight bit.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

So you don't know why the car came off the road, but you assume it was to avoid a pedestrian? Couldn't just have been a lousy driver/mechanical fault?

I was inside at the time and didn't see the crash, but I did hear the crash. Yes, it could have been a lousy driver or mechanical fault, or it could have been the driver attempting to swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian, as it does happen at least on this side of the pond.

I don't think I've ever been aware of a situation local to me in which a car swerved to avoid a pedestrian and hit a bus shelter - and our local press has been known to report a tea-towel on fire (honest!). Many drivers seem quite able to hit bus shelters unaided in fact.

Sadly, it does happen over here. Most be a slow day if they're reporting on a tea-towel that's on fire. Sadly, that is very true.

Hang on, you're supposed to cross only at a corner? Corners are the most dangerous places to cross. Back in the days when we had the Green Cross Code over here, you were supposed to move away from a corner if you could. At a corner, you have to look in more directions than on a straight bit.

Yes, because that is where the crosswalks are installed. Motorists are looking for pedestrians to be in the crosswalk or crossing at the corners if there is no crosswalk as unless signed otherwise every corner is assumed to have an implied crosswalk. Plus at corners (unless they are running their red light) there is only traffic coming from one direction.

Also over some of our busier roads there are pedestrian bridges to allow pedestrians (and I guess cyclists) to cross the road without worrying about the traffic under them.

 

[vernon]

Vernon, how often have you strolled down the middle of a central Amsterdam cycle path hands in pockets viewing the passing scene?

A couple of times this summer after a visit to a coffee shop.....

 

[Arch]

Yes, because that is where the crosswalks are installed. Motorists are looking for pedestrians to be in the crosswalk or crossing at the corners if there is no crosswalk as unless signed otherwise every corner is assumed to have an implied crosswalk. Plus at corners (unless they are running their red light) there is only traffic coming from one direction.

Do you have corners without lights though? We have lots - and in that case a car could be coming from the side road, while simultaneously, one is coming from behind the pedestrian wanting to turn left (what would be right for you) and another is coming from the other direction wanting to turn right (left). Crossing at a corner like that, a pedestrian needs to look three ways. Crossing well away from corners, only requires looking two ways.

Of course, our cities tend to be a bit more higgledy piggledy than yours, which tend to be all blocks and straight lines, due to us having had a Medieval period.

But whatever, I prefer the more vulnerable road users to have priority. In parts of Europe, they go even better, and drivers give way to cyclists coming up the inside, before they turn across a cycle lane. Bliss!

 

[snorri]

A couple of times this summer after a visit to a coffee shop.....

That clarifies the situation, you wouldn't have heard the bells and shouts then.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Do you have corners without lights though? We have lots - and in that case a car could be coming from the side road, while simultaneously, one is coming from behind the pedestrian wanting to turn left (what would be right for you) and another is coming from the other direction wanting to turn right (left). Crossing at a corner like that, a pedestrian needs to look three ways. Crossing well away from corners, only requires looking two ways.

Of course, our cities tend to be a bit more higgledy piggledy than yours, which tend to be all blocks and straight lines, due to us having had a Medieval period.

But whatever, I prefer the more vulnerable road users to have priority. In parts of Europe, they go even better, and drivers give way to cyclists coming up the inside, before they turn across a cycle lane. Bliss!

Yes, but most of those either have yield signs or stop signs. Some intersections have either 3 or 4-way stop signs. And as I said before unless otherwise signed, there are implied crosswalks at those intersections. They can usually see any traffic that is approaching the intersection.

So what are you saying that there is something wrong with the way most American cities are laid out, i.e. all in blocks and straight lines? Where one can usually see what is coming with little to any distractions? Thus actually making it safer to cross at the corner?

Here pedestrians and cyclists have the right of way, NOT priority. One of the problems I have with giving pedestrians/vulnerable road users priority, is that as it has been said/suggested that even on a path that is dedicated to say cycling that if a pedestrian wanders onto it, they have "priority." Don't you think that there is something wrong with that?

I mean is it wrong to think that on a path that is designed and dedicated to bicycles that, hmm, bicycles should take priority? Not pedestrians or other vulnerable road users.

 

[vernon]

That clarifies the situation, you wouldn't have heard the bells and shouts then.

I heard them and thought that they were being friendly

 

[Crankarm]

Get an airhorn .