Seems that most of the occasions someone says "I couldn't help it, he came out of nowhere", it can be translated fairly accurately as "he came off the pavement": there is some myopic breed of driver/cyclist who apparently believes there should be no need to look at the pavements from time to time while driving/riding and that it is acceptable to focus exclusively on the carriageway. Wake up and pay attention!
whats the law on people walking in middle of road?
- Thread starter roadrunner20
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That is just rubbish. There is no offence in the UK related to walking on a road except in two cases where either the road in question is a Motorway or it is some other road where pedestrians are specifically prohibited by order.
I doubt very much that they were "arrested". Given strong words of advice perhaps, along the lines of "don't be so stupid in future".
Pedestrians always have priority - "right of way" refers to access rather than who gets to go first. It is your duty as a user of a vehicle to avoid ALL hazards including errant pedestrians, unlit skips (though that is a different matter in law) and creatures that belong to another.
You do know what the Highway code says about the word "should" don't you?
Indeed and I don't think anyone would argue that point.
There may be mitigation, but in a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian it is definitely the vehicle's fault.
B.
roadrunner20
New Member
they did get arrested as i didnt believe it myself so i not that stupid
from the looks of it and speaking to somone who saw it a lot better than i did, they were two guys who decided to run across the middle of a busy road /A10 and were charged with causing danger to members of the public by their actions (whatever the offical charge is called ) as they caused a bus to swerve to avoid them and nearly cause a accident by moving into the other lane.
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
they did get arrested as i didnt believe it myself so i not that stupid
from the looks of it and speaking to somone who saw it a lot better than i did, they were two guys who decided to run across the middle of a busy road /A10 and were charged with causing danger to members of the public by their actions (whatever the offical charge is called ) as they caused a bus to swerve to avoid them and nearly cause a accident by moving into the other lane.
I know that there are those here who will disagree with this, but I'm glad to hear it. Even if pedestrians have priority they should still be required to exercise at least ordinary care. And if they don't they should be subject to either being issued a ticket or arrest.
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
So speaks the voice of the 'Land of the Free'...
Maybe I'm just some dense, ignorant American, but how is requiring pedestrians to use ordinary care infringing on their freedoms in anyway?
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
[QUOTE 1552358"]
It's doesn't. Whilst I don't agree with Jay walking (peds should be allowed to cross where they like imo), I do see the reasons why.
And people have a bit of common sense, just because walking in the road is not against the law does not mean that it is a wee bit stupid. Peds should still exercise a bit of care.
[/quote]
Neither do Jay walking laws, if you stop and think about. Given that sadly there are too many people who for whatever reason can't seem to exercise at the very least ordinary care. How is requiring them to cross at a particular spot infringing on their freedom of movement? If one is walking along a multi-laned road with a speed limit of 40+MPH do you as a driver really want them just walking out into the road whenever and wherever they feel like it?
This is true, but sadly laws are passed because of those who cannot exercise ordinary care. I know that it isn't fair, but often that is the way it is.
It's doesn't. Whilst I don't agree with Jay walking (peds should be allowed to cross where they like imo), I do see the reasons why.
And people have a bit of common sense, just because walking in the road is not against the law does not mean that it is a wee bit stupid. Peds should still exercise a bit of care.
[/quote]
Neither do Jay walking laws, if you stop and think about. Given that sadly there are too many people who for whatever reason can't seem to exercise at the very least ordinary care. How is requiring them to cross at a particular spot infringing on their freedom of movement? If one is walking along a multi-laned road with a speed limit of 40+MPH do you as a driver really want them just walking out into the road whenever and wherever they feel like it?
This is true, but sadly laws are passed because of those who cannot exercise ordinary care. I know that it isn't fair, but often that is the way it is.
Well we seem to manage OK in the UK without such a ridiculous law, and people mostly don't wander dangerously into traffic.
Jaywalking laws have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with making life as easy as possible for motorised traffic.
Is this a trick question?
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
No, it isn't. How is it "infringing on their freedom of movement" to tell pedestrians that for their safety they need to cross at Point A instead of Point B or wherever they feel like? As I've said if one is traveling down a road at 45+MPH do you really want pedestrians crossing the road anywhere without notice, or exercising ordinary care?
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
No, benb has it exactly right. Jaywalking laws are not about safety - they are just like pedestrian railings. Their only purpose is to make it easier for drivers to drive faster and with less care.
mcr
Veteran
- Location
- North Bucks
You seem to have this idea that all pedestrians - a subgroup of which nearly all of us are members at some point in the day - go around with a death wish. What we in the mother country are saying is that we have the right to cross any road (other than a motorway and other limited exceptions) where we like when it is safe to do so. Except with cases of drunken youths etc I'm not sure where you get your idea of feral pedestrians leaping out into roads without looking regardless of the traffic as being the norm. Over here we all had the green cross code or similar drummed into us as kids. But the point is that we have the liberty to make that decision - it hasn't been taken away from us by a nannying law.
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
I'm sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you here. As I've said one of the two roads that the apartment complex I live in has at least two lanes of travel in each direction, and a posted speed of 45MPH (although I am sure that most motorists are actually doing 50 - 55MPH on it. If it weren't for the Jaywalking laws (which sadly go largely unenforced in most places) pedestrians would feel free to cross wherever they wanted regardless of whether it was safe for them to do so. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen too many people come out of a crash with a 2ton machine that's traveling at 50+MPH in very great shape.
Given the number of pedestrians who go around oblivious to the world around them because of iPhones, iPods, talking or texting on their cell phones, it sure does seem that way.
As an example few years ago I was riding my bike down the road when a gal who had just gotten off of the bus had already had her cell phone glued to her ear and was so engrossed in the conversation that she had just started that she steps out into the road without looking. Fortunately for her I was paying attention and was able to swerve around her. Had I been riding a motorcycle, a scooter, or driving a car I would have hit her as I wouldn't have had the time to react.
Also correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't not only your green cross code and your "zebra crossings" suggest that it isn't always safe for pedestrians to just cross wherever they want, whenever they want? And that there are times and places where it is safer to cross?
That isn't the case. Just because pedestrians are not restricted as to where they can cross doesn't mean they often wander dangerously into traffic. Obviously a few do, but they probably would whether there was a Jaywalking law or not.
And the green cross code is a set of rules to cross safely, not specifically at designated crossings. Yes, we have pedestrian crossings, but they are there to force traffic to stop, not to force pedestrians to only cross there, and should be unnecessary in a civilized country.
Pedestrians can and should be allowed to cross where they want, but no-one is suggesting that they should be free to wander into traffic when it's not safe.
Digital_Cowboy
New Member
- Location
- Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fl, USA
Agreed, which is why as we know we have some of the laws that we have. Because sadly there are those who for whatever reason seem not to be able to use common sense/ordinary care. Thus putting everyone at risk by their reckless actions.
Understandable, but it still points to the fact that there are times and places where it is and isn't safe to cross a street. How many motorists stop at those crossing and patiently wait for pedestrians to cross? Sadly I've seen way too many motorists get impatient and honk at pedestrians who are legally in the crosswalk. One could also say that in a civilized country that The State doesn't erect CCTV cameras on "every" street light and/or corner to make sure it's citizens don't misbehave, nor do they fear their citizens owning firearms. I think that most Americans would be against having CCTV cameras mounted on "every" street light and/or street corner, with the police or some other government agency monitoring those cameras. Likewise most American's would not be willing to surrender their privately purchased and owned firearms.
Actually, if you'll recall there does appear to be some here who actually do feel that way. They feel that pedestrians should be able to do just that. And while I agree in theory that pedestrians should be free to cross the road anywhere they want. The sad truth is that there are roads that are just too dangerous for pedestrians to be allowed to cross wherever they feel like crossing. Also as I have asked before on a road or bike path such as the one in the attachment where it is clearly marked bicycles only, why should pedestrians "take priority?" If it is a path or sidewalk/pavement designed for pedestrians, then yes they should have priority, but if they've found themselves on a road or bike trail that has been designed for either high speed motor vehicle traffic or bicycle traffic why should those for whom it was designed have to worry about what some pedestrian might do? Or have to watch for them?
I mean if the road/trail/path is designed and designated for cars and/or bicycles then they should have priority not pedestrians. Which is also why I don't like the idea of having high speed roads within a city. The max speed within city limits should be 35MPH, and roads shouldn't have multiple lanes. At the most there should be a total of three lanes making up the roads within city limits. One lane for each direction of travel, and a "universal" turning lane in the center of the road. The high speed roads should be reserved for connecting cities to each other. I mean do we really need to have "highway's" that only purpose is to connect one side of town with the other? Or to get to the mall or "large" box store? City planners need to take a page from "yesteryear" and encourage the so called "mom and pop" stores to move back into residential areas, and back to "main street." As sadly the "autocentric" culture is not just a problem for the USA, but for probably just about every other country in the world. As I'm pretty sure that I mentioned before, where I live when I contacted the city's traffic engineering office about getting the traffic lights that are within about a 1/2 mile of each other timed so that people attempting to cross the road can do so safely. I was told that in order to do that, would create an "intolerable" delay for the motorists driving on the road. It's pretty sad when the convenience of one group is put ahead of the safety of others. As correct me if I'm mistake, but shouldn't overall safety come before convenience?
Attachments
Similar threads
