whats the law on people walking in middle of road?

[BentMikey]

Wouldn't that make us as bad as the few nasty motorists who give cyclists close passes to scare them out of the road?

 

[John the Monkey]

....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.

Here's how it works in practice.

1) I'm riding along, and see someone up ahead.

2) I keep an eye on that person as well as the path in front of me. Depending on the distance, I may reduce speed/move out/cover the brakes - I might also give a "ting" on the bell (Crane Bell "Suzu").

3) If the person does move into the bike path, I can move out/slow down/ring the bell.

4) It's *vanishingly* rare that there's much of a problem beyond reducing speed in such circumstances.

5) It's rare to the point of "never" that someone "comes out of nowhere".

If you're using a bike path, or a shared path, this is just one of those things - if one is able to anticipate, read the path ahead, and observe properly, unexpected problems don't arise. TBH, if pedestrians were banned from "our" paths, people would just moan about slower cyclists, I reckon.

 

[twobiker]

Whilst driving westbound on the A38 I came across 3 people walking alongside the central crash barrier at the section on Haldon Hill/ Telegraph Hill split, at 4am, phoned the Police who went out to find out what was going on.

 

[jonny jeez]

just wondering what the law is for when people just walk in the middle of a busy road.

Had a near miss when some guys/idiots were walking very very slowly across the middle of a busy road then as they saw me continued to walk stupidly slow so that i had to avoid them and move out of cycle lane into main left lane, apon shouting "cant you walk quicker" i get a load of abuse...

i understand people walking across road but at least walk fast enough so that it isnt taking the piss, unless the law allows you to walk this slowly and cause near misses?

When you drive your car, do you also sound your horn at cyclists who arent riding fast enough and cause you to slow down?

Like Mikey says, chill out, pedestrians have priority over you, its your job to look out for them... and avoid them

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Here's how it works in practice.

1) I'm riding along, and see someone up ahead.

2) I keep an eye on that person as well as the path in front of me. Depending on the distance, I may reduce speed/move out/cover the brakes - I might also give a "ting" on the bell (Crane Bell "Suzu").

3) If the person does move into the bike path, I can move out/slow down/ring the bell.

4) It's *vanishingly* rare that there's much of a problem beyond reducing speed in such circumstances.

5) It's rare to the point of "never" that someone "comes out of nowhere".

If you're using a bike path, or a shared path, this is just one of those things - if one is able to anticipate, read the path ahead, and observe properly, unexpected problems don't arise. TBH, if pedestrians were banned from "our" paths, people would just moan about slower cyclists, I reckon.

I agree with all of that, except that as I've said that if a person "wanders" onto a path (and as I've said a path designed and dedicated to bicycles not a multi/shared use path) that bikes should have priority on it.

It'd be like saying that if a pedestrian wanders onto a racetrack that they have priority. Does that make sense to you?

I agree that one should use care when operating around pedestrians. But at the same time shouldn't pedestrians be required to also use care? And shouldn't that care include not walking on a path designed and dedicated to bicycles?

As I've said pedestrians have the right of way, but they do not take priority.

Saying that pedestrians always take priority absolves them of having to use at the very least ordinary care. That'd be like saying that if a pedestrian "wanders" onto the Interstate a road system that is designed and dedicated to moving automobiles at an even higher rate of speed then what is found within city limits. That they should have priority.

I presume, that you know that according to the laws of physics, that cars do not (despite the claims of their owners/drivers) stop on a dime. And that if someone steps out in front of a car that is moving at 70+MPH that the driver isn't going to have time to react, and they are likely to end up as a stain on the road. Likewise even though we generally travel at speeds much slower then the average car is able to average.

If we are going are going fast enough, likewise we are not going to be able to stop on a dime. And if a pedestrian suddenly appears on a dedicated bike path without warning they are likely to get hurt. And in such a case why should the cyclist be held responsible?

I'll admit that I don't know what the speed limit is, if any on your shared use paths. But here on the one that I ride that I ride on at least once a month, it has a posted speed of 20MPH. It is nice and wide and has one that is more then half the width that is dedicated to bicycles, and the other narrower side is dedicated to pedestrians.

There are signs posted every so often informing people who are using the trail of this. And cyclists are required to stay on their side of the trail as pedestrians are required to stay on their side. Do pedestrians stay on their side of the trail? Sadly, no. Do cyclists always stay on their side? Again, sadly no. But for the most part it does seem as the majority of users try to do their best to stay on their side the trail.

Despite how some of you here might feel, no one's freedom of movement is restricted. It's setup the way that it is so that everyone can safely use and enjoy the path. The path is also closed from sunset-to-sunrise. Again, not everyone stays off of the trail when it's closed. Just recently we had two cyclists who were attacked while riding on the trail. One attack occurred just before the trail "closed" and the second occurred around the time when it is suppose to be "closed." Both attacks should never have happened, because as a friend of mine from another LBS that I visit on a monthly basis when I'm out at the VA. We should be able to safely use the trail anytime of the day or the night. Either a co-worker or a friend of his had been stopped while riding on the trail when it's suppose to be "closed." And as he said you'd think that the police would welcome having someone who is riding the trail with lights on his bike who can spot people who are misbehaving and report them.

 

[Arch]

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?

Well, putting aside the fact that they are in America, which is a drawback to start with.... A country that seems to have struggled with the idea of proper carrier bags. But anyway...

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.

Over here the term is priority, not right of way, and it's afforded to the weakest not the strongest. That's just the way it is, you'd have to deal with it if you came here, just as I'd have to deal with your jaywalking laws if I went there.

To give anyone 'right of way' implies an absolute right. In situations where it's one driver against another (pulling out of a side road at a give way line for example), the the term right of way would imply that one driver should carry on regardless of safety, whereas although the driver on the main road should expect to carry on, they must take action if necessary to avoid an accident. It's no good afterwards saying "But I had the Right of Way!" if you've failed to take possible action to avoid a crash.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

A racetrack is not a public space, so your example is irrelevant.

Yes, and no, here in St. Pete every year there is a Formula One car race that takes place on the city streets. They are of course closed off with fences and what not, but as I am sure I don't need to tell you, people have been known to circumvent fences to get where they want. Also I am sure that I don't need to tell you that there are plenty of other cities around the world where city streets are temporarily closed off to accommodate various races. Such as if I am not mistaken, the Tour de France.

How many paths are dedicated to cycles? Very few here in the UK - most are shared use... and that's one of the problems with 'facilities'. Bikes don't belong on paths, which are there for pedestrians - they belong on the road, with the rest of the traffic.

Over there I don't know. Over here There are plenty of bike lanes, which by their name would suggest that that they are dedicated to use by bicycles. I agree with you that they don't belong on sidewalks, but at least over here there are plenty of parks that have paths that are dedicated to bicycles, or horses, or ATV (all terrain vehicles) or for hiking. There are also plenty of shared use paths/trails. Our Rail-to-Trails is a prime example of multi/shared use paths. The city of St. Petersburg has just expanded a sidewalk that runs along one of the roads that I ride on, on a daily basis making it a multi/shared use path. I do not ride it as I generally travel too fast for others who would be using it.

You may have said that - but it doesn't mean you're right. In UK law, pedestrians do have priority (with the exceptions of a small number of specific roads)

Uh, actually over here it does. As I've said the only road where pedestrians and cyclists are banned is the interstate system. As it should be, as the speed of the traffic on the interstate makes it too dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Motorcycles under a set breaking power are also banned from the interstate system, again for their safety.

And as I've said, I totally agree that motorists, and cyclists should use care when operating around pedestrians. But shouldn't pedestrians also have to exercise ordinary care when walking along roads where cars or bicycles are operating? I am sorry, but I also have a problem with the idea that pedestrians "never" bring any risk.

Wouldn't you agree that the two men who laid down not only on, but totally blocking the path for everyone else who wanted to use the path were the ones bringing the risk? Also if a pedestrian is a "zombie" i.e. someone who is listening to their iPod at such a volume that they can't hear anything else around them, or are too distracted by their cell phone, aren't they bringing risk to those around them?

Where do roller-skaters/bladers, and skateboarders belong? What about joggers, where do they belong? Given that they're both classes of pedestrian aren't they bringing risk to those who are walking along the path? What about the person who is walking their dog? Even though they're "pedestrians" aren't they bringing risk to others?

What about someone in an electric wheelchair/scooter? They're (at least over here) classed as a pedestrian, aren't they because they're traveling faster then someone walking, aren't they bringing risk to others on the path?

Despite what some here have said, EVERYONE brings a certain degree of risk to everyone else in every action that they engage in. It can be as obvious as when one is driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle. Or it could be the unpredictable actions of a pedestrian.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Well, putting aside the fact that they are in America, which is a drawback to start with.... A country that seems to have struggled with the idea of proper carrier bags. But anyway...

If by carrier bags, you are referring to reusable canvas (or some other material) shopping bags, yes, sadly they have been slow to catch on. And a lot of stores if a person were to bring in their own bags they'd be watched as a potential shoplifter. But there are stores that are (again slowly) adapting to the idea of customers not only buying ans using while in them, but bringing in their own reusable shopping bags. I have several myself and use them when I go grocery shopping.

Over here the term is priority, not right of way, and it's afforded to the weakest not the strongest. That's just the way it is, you'd have to deal with it if you came here, just as I'd have to deal with your jaywalking laws if I went there.

Understood, and at least in theory that is how it should work, but I think we can agree that in reality it doesn't always work out that way. Agreed, and as I've said before, when I am riding through my local parks it seems as if I am the only one who is slowing down for people who are walking, jogging and roller-skating/blading through them. As I've said most seem to be running their own personal Tour.

It is good to see you accepting the differences. As best case scenario if someone were to just step into a road here they would get honked and cussed at, best worst case scenario they'd be hit and injured, worst case scenario they'd be hit and killed, and worst worst case scenario they'd be hit and left in a permanent coma or persistent vegetative.

To give anyone 'right of way' implies an absolute right. In situations where it's one driver against another (pulling out of a side road at a give way line for example), the the term right of way would imply that one driver should carry on regardless of safety, whereas although the driver on the main road should expect to carry on, they must take action if necessary to avoid an accident. It's no good afterwards saying "But I had the Right of Way!" if you've failed to take possible action to avoid a crash.

Actually, that is how it works over here, i.e. as in your example, the driver who is traveling on a primary road has the right of way over someone who is pulling out of a driveway or side street. But that doesn't totally absolve them of wrong doing, if they have the opportunity to avoid said crash. As I've said we have a something called the doctrine of last clear chance. Meaning in a nutshell that if I am traveling down say a multielaned road and someone "suddenly" appears in my path and I/we are in the right (leftmost for you I guess) lane and the leftmost (rightmost for you I guess) lane is clear then I am obligated to move into that empty lane.

We have a saying over here, that goes something along the lines of, you can be "right or you can be dead right." Meaning that even if you have the right-of-way it is worthless if you get killed trying to enforce it.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Also if you all think that the US is "backwards" in it's attitudes towards pedestrians. When I was stationed in S. Korea I was told that if I was walking down the sidewalk/pavement and got hit by a S. Korean national that *I* could end up being sued for the damages to their car.

 

[Keith Oates]

One day I was driving a car to work when in Korea and a schoolboy ran onto the road in front of me, fortunately I stopped without hitting him and he went on his way. When I arrived in the office I mentioned this to one of the Korean staff and I said that he was lucky that I didn't hit him to which he replied "no, you were lucky"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[summerdays]

Nobody seems to have mention shared space areas where the design is meant to place pedestrians in the middle of the road . Or the stupid new link road that South Gloucestershire Council put in to the large shopping centre that has a path at either end for pedestrians and cyclists but not in the central section of the road - forcing them to walk along the road of a two lane dual carriageway.

As a cyclist it is normally fairly easy to move around a pedestrian in the road unless they have run out into the road or appeared from behind a car.

 

[roadrunner20]

just want to clarify a few things,

i know there isnt any law in the UK for just crossing the road, but im pretty certain that if you just walk out into the road when cars are moving YOU WILL get arrested if a policeman sees you.

I say this as i have recently seen two men get arrested last week when they both stupidly i may add, decided to cross in front of a bus and a very busy road while a policeman was talking to someone on the other side of the road.

so with this in mind i cannot believe anyone would cross a road with cars coming towards them and pretend they have "right of way"...given you should cross at pedestrian crossings.

point is, crossing a busy road with on-coming traffic is stupid and if you going to get hit by a car so be it, its useally your own fault, green cross code if there for a reson, ignore it as your own peril i say.

 

[benb]

just want to clarify a few things,

i know there isnt any law in the UK for just crossing the road, but im pretty certain that if you just walk out into the road when cars are moving YOU WILL get arrested if a policeman sees you.

I say this as i have recently seen two men get arrested last week when they both stupidly i may add, decided to cross in front of a bus and a very busy road while a policeman was talking to someone on the other side of the road.

so with this in mind i cannot believe anyone would cross a road with cars coming towards them and pretend they have "right of way"...given you should cross at pedestrian crossings.

point is, crossing a busy road with on-coming traffic is stupid and if you going to get hit by a car so be it, its useally your own fault, green cross code if there for a reson, ignore it as your own peril i say.

The bolded section is wrong. Pedestrians can cross where they want. I agree that you shouldn't wander out into traffic when it's not safe to do so, but there's no requirement, and nor should there be, to only cross at designated crossings.

People seem to be confused between "right of way" and "priority".
Pedestrians have right of way anywhere; that is, they are allowed to cross, there is no restriction on where a pedestrian can cross. (at least on the majority of normal roads)

It doesn't mean they can or should just wander into the road though.

 

[roadrunner20]

heres a good example early on in this video of what i mean, had a woman with her 2 children do the exact same thing to myself, lucky for them i was paying attention and wasnt bombing that fast and stopped.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonofthewindsInc

but i agree they have right of way anywhere but i dont believe they have priority to cross the road when ever they like and where ever, green cross code is there for reson and end of the day if you dont follow it, you are putting your life in your own hands, so i think people need to relise this.

rather than asume they have a "god given" right to do as they please without consequences. this i feel is the main issue, dont think you can cry foul when hit by a car after walking blind between two cars, without trying to sound harsh

 

[Mad at urage]

heres a good example early on in this video of what i mean, had a woman with her 2 children do the exact same thing to myself, lucky for them i was paying attention and wasnt bombing that fast and stopped.

http://www.youtube.c...onofthewindsInc

but i agree they have right of way anywhere but i dont believe they have priority to cross the road when ever they like and where ever, green cross code is there for reson and end of the day if you dont follow it, you are putting your life in your own hands, so i think people need to relise this.

rather than asume they have a "god given" right to do as they please without consequences. this i feel is the main issue, dont think you can cry foul when hit by a car after walking blind between two cars, without trying to sound harsh

Eh? In the whole clip there was only one stop-line ("hold line" ) issue and two cyclists RLJing. The rest were either perfectly legal or no evidence of an offence.
"Jack in the box pedestrian" in fact stepped to where he could see, stopped and gave way to the cyclist (in the door zone). At worst 6 and 50% ... really the cyclist should have been riding further out (doors are not the only reason to ride out of the door zone, visibility of what's happening between vehicles is another).
#5 of course could have ended up there due to a "Jack in the box pedestrian" walking in front of the car when the car had a green light .
#6 "Pedestrian J walking" - nope, that was a pedestrian perfectly legally and predictably stepping around a crowd on the pavement. Again, had the cyclist not been riding in the gutter, she'd have been nowhere hear him.
#7"Pedestrians Jumping Red Lights" not an infringement, simply people walking across the road and leaving sufficient space for the cyclist to pass between them. Obviously not intimidated by the nice bicycle, which is A Good Thing.
#8 "Car Hold Line Trespass" car was stationary on give way lines (OK maybe the bumper was a couple of inches over, but not in any way obstructing the cyclist).
#9 "Car and Bus infringe bicycle hold box and cyclist RLJ" - yes the cyclist RLJs, but the car and bus arrived before the filming cyclist and could have already been in the "hold box" when the lights turned red. Not an infringement of anything.
#10 Pedestrian is not preventing traffic from passing and has a perfect right to stand there. If he had been blocking the road, it would have been another matter, but this cyclist needs to get over himself.
#11 Nasty squash, brought about by the cyclist's p:ss poor road position (still riding in the gutter).
#12 By the time the car is that far out, indicating is redundant, therefore not required.
#13 - Same as #9, no infringement.

Traffic droid (if that was him) clearly knows little to nothing about UK traffic regulations!