whats the law on people walking in middle of road?

[superbadger]

Death Race 2011......... And don't forget to shout 'out the way dopey!'

 

[Arch]

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.

Yes, it's funny isn't it, I thought America was supposed to be the land of the free and all that...

Give me a few random pedestrians any day, I'm generally smart enough to avoid them.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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.

How does it restrict the freedom of movement? It simply requires pedestrians to use due care when crossing a road. I live between two roads one with a 45MPH speed limit (sadly I think that most drivers are going 50+MPH) and one with a 35MPH speed limit (and again probably most are going 40+MPH). The road with the 45MPH speed limit is the more heavily traveled road, if a person stepped off of the sidewalk into the road to cross it (it is also two to three lanes for each direction of travel) there is no safe way for a motorist to stop before hitting the pedestrian or causing collateral damage.

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.

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.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

How, please explain. Ask the people who have been sitting innocently at a bus stop only to have a car come crashing into them because it had to swerve to avoid a jaywalker if they think that it's "abhorrent" or "primitive?" Given that that car that swerves to miss a jaywalker can injure or kill the people who are sitting in/at the bus stop and are if I am not mistaken part of society, I'm sure that they'd say that the law against jaywalking is/was good for society.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

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

I would hope that most would put the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the fool(s) walking down the middle of the road. But that doesn't change the fact that there are those here who would feel that it was the pedestrians "right" to do so and that the motorists were duty bound to do everything to avoid them.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

I would hope that most would put the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the fool(s) walking down the middle of the road. But that doesn't change the fact that there are those here who would feel that it was the pedestrians "right" to do so and that the motorists were duty bound to do everything to avoid them.

No, it is not a "right" to block the flow of traffic without good reason

But do you disgaree that as a human being, that you are indeed "duty bound" to do everything possible to avoid harming or killing another fellow human? Whatever reason they may have, be it pig-headedness or a learning difficulty?

I lost a bit of sleep when I maimed a dog on my bike...not my fault at ALL, it was night, the dog was off a lead and out of control and appeared in front of my wheels, sending me flying and the dog into a fitting heap in the road. Yet I still felt partly responsible and although I know it was beyond reasonable avoidance, I certainly don't think "serves it/the owners right" for it "getting in the way"

 

[Hip Priest]

Just be patient and let them cross. It's as simple as that really. Happens all the time on my commute.

 

[growingvegetables]

My abiding memory of visits to Providence, Rhode Island. Not a city designed for pedestrians. There weren't many ..... in fact, the only pedestrians I saw were us loony Brits.

But a city full of drivers dead aware of pedestrians. You'd just look over your shoulder; the thought would flit through your brain "is this where I need to cross? Or further along?" ----------- aye, but that synaptic flicker was enough to bring four lanes of traffic to an immediate halt to let you cross!

Damned annoying when you weren't that sure of where you were going, but felt obliged to cross to respect such courtesy!

 

[benb]

How, please explain. Ask the people who have been sitting innocently at a bus stop only to have a car come crashing into them because it had to swerve to avoid a jaywalker if they think that it's "abhorrent" or "primitive?" Given that that car that swerves to miss a jaywalker can injure or kill the people who are sitting in/at the bus stop and are if I am not mistaken part of society, I'm sure that they'd say that the law against jaywalking is/was good for society.

It's a measure of how creaky and empty your argument is if you have to resort to such ridiculous hyperbole to argue your point.

No-one is suggesting that people should just wander into traffic without a second thought, but pedestrians shouldn't be corralled into crossing only at designated places - they can cross wherever they want to.

 

[snorri]

It gives me a feeling that all is still well with the world when I see an elderly person approach the kerb, raise his or her walking stick and march defiantly across the road, with no visible indication of looking either way, as the motor traffic comes to a halt to let them safely across.
One thing that can spoil my warm glow is when some ****** cyclist comes racing through regardless.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

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?"

To be scrupulously accurate, no one but you has mentioned people lying down on a path and blocking it. No one else has even attempted to defend such behaviour and I doubt that anyone will. You're constructing quite an elaborate straw man here and I'd hate you to waste any more effort on it.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

No, it is not a "right" to block the flow of traffic without good reason

I agree, but sadly there are those here who seem to think that pedestrians do have a "right" to block the flow of traffic for whatever reason.

But do you disgaree that as a human being, that you are indeed "duty bound" to do everything possible to avoid harming or killing another fellow human? Whatever reason they may have, be it pig-headedness or a learning difficulty?

I lost a bit of sleep when I maimed a dog on my bike...not my fault at ALL, it was night, the dog was off a lead and out of control and appeared in front of my wheels, sending me flying and the dog into a fitting heap in the road. Yet I still felt partly responsible and although I know it was beyond reasonable avoidance, I certainly don't think "serves it/the owners right" for it "getting in the way"

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.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

To be scrupulously accurate, no one but you has mentioned people lying down on a path and blocking it. No one else has even attempted to defend such behaviour and I doubt that anyone will. You're constructing quite an elaborate straw man here and I'd hate you to waste any more effort on it.

Actually there is a thread (that has been locked) where some users did pretty much say just that. That pedestrians have some right to act as an arse on the path.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Actually there is a thread (that has been locked) where some users did pretty much say just that. That pedestrians have some right to act as an arse on the path.

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.) 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. 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".

 

[vernon]

The original poster should try cycling in Amsterdam and mix it with pedestrians, trams and fellow cyclists. I don't think that he'd complain about wandering pedestrians again. The Amsterdam cyclists take every thing in their stride by using observation, anticipation and tolerance of others.