|
|
Post by ronnie on Oct 19, 2018 16:21:16 GMT
So essentially d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don’t. Don’t stop, cyclist gets run over, driver’s fault, evil buses theme plays on and on. Driver manages to stop, buses behind crash into it, again the driver’s fault... This is ridiculous. If a driver is too close to a vehicle in front and rear ends it then it's their fault, end of.
You are talking about something that didn't actually happen and a completely imaginary scenario.
I probably mis-read your initial statement - should be the driver behind high is responsible in case of a rear-ending for not leaving sufficient space. Which makes sense Although this was about to happen - was a fairly hefty braking manoeuvre by the bus driver to avoid hitting the cyclist who was at full speed |
|
|
|
Post by northken on Oct 19, 2018 18:14:56 GMT
Seems you are in the worryingly large majority that had no idea. Direct quote from highway code. www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html#195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossingHere's the legal wording:
The highway code is rather out of date now and really needs to be updated. It doesn't even feature Parallel crossings (looks like a Zebra but road users have to give way to cyclists crossing in the suppplementary portion marked out with elephant's footprints) which have been around for the last 2 years, nor the new Zebra crossings bereft of belisha beacons and zig zags markings which can now be introduced across cycle tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 19, 2018 21:56:03 GMT
Seems you are in the worryingly large majority that had no idea. Direct quote from highway code. www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html#195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossingHere's the legal wording:
The highway code is rather out of date now and really needs to be updated. It doesn't even feature Parallel crossings (looks like a Zebra but road users have to give way to cyclists crossing in the suppplementary portion marked out with elephant's footprints) which have been around for the last 2 years, nor the new Zebra crossings bereft of belisha beacons and zig zags markings which can now be introduced across cycle tracks.
There's the highway code, the law behind it, and very importantly the way that law is interpreted in the justice system. I think you will find that
You do NOT have to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross BUT you must be ready to slow down or stop if they do cross (as above). (As an aside, having said that the opinion is that it is right thing to do to stop at crossing for the pedestrian.) What this means :-
If there's a pedestrian near a crossing you need to be prepared to stop, so if the pedestrian decides to cross you can stop in good time. If the pedestrian steps onto the crossing before you enter the crossing then you must stop - implication you must have slowed down sufficiently to be able to stop.
Say a pedestrian runs out of a shop onto the crossing then it could be different as you couldn't possibly know they would do that, but distance, speed, environment etc will all contribute as well.
Finally once a pedestrian steps onto the crossing they are deemed to be crossing. So literally if someone puts their toe onto the crossing and waits, then from the road users viewpoint, the pedestrian is crossing and you must stop.
if you ever want to see lots of playing chicken and mouse at a zebra crossing and road users not knowing whether to stop, visit the most famous zebra crossing in the world at Abbey Road studios.
|
|
|
|
Post by northken on Oct 20, 2018 12:04:38 GMT
Here's the legal wording:
The highway code is rather out of date now and really needs to be updated. It doesn't even feature Parallel crossings (looks like a Zebra but road users have to give way to cyclists crossing in the suppplementary portion marked out with elephant's footprints) which have been around for the last 2 years, nor the new Zebra crossings bereft of belisha beacons and zig zags markings which can now be introduced across cycle tracks.
There's the highway code, the law behind it, and very importantly the way that law is interpreted in the justice system. I think you will find that
You do NOT have to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross BUT you must be ready to slow down or stop if they do cross (as above). (As an aside, having said that the opinion is that it is right thing to do to stop at crossing for the pedestrian.) What this means :-
If there's a pedestrian near a crossing you need to be prepared to stop, so if the pedestrian decides to cross you can stop in good time. If the pedestrian steps onto the crossing before you enter the crossing then you must stop - implication you must have slowed down sufficiently to be able to stop.
Say a pedestrian runs out of a shop onto the crossing then it could be different as you couldn't possibly know they would do that, but distance, speed, environment etc will all contribute as well.
Finally once a pedestrian steps onto the crossing they are deemed to be crossing. So literally if someone puts their toe onto the crossing and waits, then from the road users viewpoint, the pedestrian is crossing and you must stop.
if you ever want to see lots of playing chicken and mouse at a zebra crossing and road users not knowing whether to stop, visit the most famous zebra crossing in the world at Abbey Road studios.
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 20, 2018 15:14:13 GMT
There's the highway code, the law behind it, and very importantly the way that law is interpreted in the justice system. I think you will find that
You do NOT have to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross BUT you must be ready to slow down or stop if they do cross (as above). (As an aside, having said that the opinion is that it is right thing to do to stop at crossing for the pedestrian.) What this means :-
If there's a pedestrian near a crossing you need to be prepared to stop, so if the pedestrian decides to cross you can stop in good time. If the pedestrian steps onto the crossing before you enter the crossing then you must stop - implication you must have slowed down sufficiently to be able to stop.
Say a pedestrian runs out of a shop onto the crossing then it could be different as you couldn't possibly know they would do that, but distance, speed, environment etc will all contribute as well.
Finally once a pedestrian steps onto the crossing they are deemed to be crossing. So literally if someone puts their toe onto the crossing and waits, then from the road users viewpoint, the pedestrian is crossing and you must stop.
if you ever want to see lots of playing chicken and mouse at a zebra crossing and road users not knowing whether to stop, visit the most famous zebra crossing in the world at Abbey Road studios.
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 20, 2018 16:33:32 GMT
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. The only conceivable way you would do so is if no person is anywhere near the crossing otherwise your taking a stupid risk. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 20, 2018 22:56:56 GMT
There's the highway code, the law behind it, and very importantly the way that law is interpreted in the justice system. I think you will find that
You do NOT have to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross BUT you must be ready to slow down or stop if they do cross (as above). (As an aside, having said that the opinion is that it is right thing to do to stop at crossing for the pedestrian.) What this means :-
If there's a pedestrian near a crossing you need to be prepared to stop, so if the pedestrian decides to cross you can stop in good time. If the pedestrian steps onto the crossing before you enter the crossing then you must stop - implication you must have slowed down sufficiently to be able to stop.
Say a pedestrian runs out of a shop onto the crossing then it could be different as you couldn't possibly know they would do that, but distance, speed, environment etc will all contribute as well.
Finally once a pedestrian steps onto the crossing they are deemed to be crossing. So literally if someone puts their toe onto the crossing and waits, then from the road users viewpoint, the pedestrian is crossing and you must stop.
if you ever want to see lots of playing chicken and mouse at a zebra crossing and road users not knowing whether to stop, visit the most famous zebra crossing in the world at Abbey Road studios.
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. Agreed, but if you at precedent with actual cases I think you will find who enters the crossing first, along with other factors such as speed. Also I believe courts tend not to have much time for 'I couldn't have stopped in time', it's as if the road user now has to prove this to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 20, 2018 23:00:25 GMT
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. Of course you can go through a pedestrian crossing at the speed limit. If however you failed to slow down and stop, instead having an accident with a pedestrian you are likely to find yourself in court, probably for driving without due care, you just won't get the speeding charge as well! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 20, 2018 23:04:55 GMT
Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. Of course you can go through a pedestrian crossing at the speed limit. If however you failed to slow down and stop, instead having an accident with a pedestrian you are likely to find yourself in court, probably for driving without due care, you just won't get the speeding charge as well! It would depend on the circumstances, if the pedestrian has been negligent then it's down to them. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 20, 2018 23:28:25 GMT
Of course you can go through a pedestrian crossing at the speed limit. If however you failed to slow down and stop, instead having an accident with a pedestrian you are likely to find yourself in court, probably for driving without due care, you just won't get the speeding charge as well! It would depend on the circumstances, if the pedestrian has been negligent then it's down to them. Sure, if it is clear the pedestrian is negligent, but if not..... |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 21, 2018 22:59:37 GMT
Yes, on the whole I agree. I think the "oooh, the pedestrian ran out so I couldn't have possibly stopped in time" argument is abused though. If you shoot through a zebra crossing at 30mph when there's even a the slightest reasonable chance that someone could step onto the crossing then you're at fault. If you can give way to vehicles doing 40mph on a dual carriageway then you can "accord precedence" to a human doing 6mph. Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. I still do a fair amount of driving and come across few pedestrian crossings these days, and those I do encounter tend to be on 20 mph roads, but it can be disconcerting when you drive in an area where pedestrian crossings are still prevalent, particularly on main roads where the speed limit is still 30 mph, or even 40 mph! I particularly dislike driving south of Croydon down to the M23/25 at night and all those pedestrian crossings in the South Croydon garage area (or were when I last did it a year or so back). If you're doing 30 you'll have someone up your backside trying to get past, not all the belisha beacons are always working and I dread someone just stepping out without looking and dressed in dark clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 22, 2018 8:05:42 GMT
Of course a driver isn't at fault for going through a pedestrian crossing at 30mph assuming it's within the speed limit for that section of road. I still do a fair amount of driving and come across few pedestrian crossings these days, and those I do encounter tend to be on 20 mph roads, but it can be disconcerting when you drive in an area where pedestrian crossings are still prevalent, particularly on main roads where the speed limit is still 30 mph, or even 40 mph! I particularly dislike driving south of Croydon down to the M23/25 at night and all those pedestrian crossings in the South Croydon garage area (or were when I last did it a year or so back). If you're doing 30 you'll have someone up your backside trying to get past, not all the belisha beacons are always working and I dread someone just stepping out without looking and dressed in dark clothing. I know the road you refer to very well and I can understand your point but the only alternative would be to replace the pedestrian crossings with traffic lights. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Oct 22, 2018 8:55:31 GMT
Correct me if i am wrong please. An annoying thing for me is pelican crossings when the light starts to flash orange for drivers and flashing green for pedestrians it means to give way to anyone currently crossing the road but so many pedestrians walk up to it and just step out.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 22, 2018 9:25:25 GMT
Correct me if i am wrong please. An annoying thing for me is pelican crossings when the light starts to flash orange for drivers and flashing green for pedestrians it means to give way to anyone currently crossing the road but so many pedestrians walk up to it and just step out. You're not wrong, even more annoying when they just dawdle across when they shouldn't have started crossing in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 22, 2018 12:27:45 GMT
Correct me if i am wrong please. An annoying thing for me is pelican crossings when the light starts to flash orange for drivers and flashing green for pedestrians it means to give way to anyone currently crossing the road but so many pedestrians walk up to it and just step out. But you can also flip that by saying it's also annoying when cars & bicycles don't stop at the red lights as well and some don't bother waiting for the flashing amber either so it works both ways |
|
