[bornslippy]

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581

 I know this may be a bit of an echo chamber (and I also haven’t really been following the trial) but 

He did agree, however, that “pedestrians have the right of way, even if they are wrong”

I may be missing something but I don’t think pedestrians actually have “right of way” (as in priority to cause traffic to stop for them) except in the obvious specific scenarios (side roads, zebra crossings etc) nor the equally obvious don’t run down an idiot already in the middle of the road.

What did I miss?

Topic

[Mungecrundle]

“It was my right of way” may
“It was my right of way” may be something you can include on an insurance claim, but it is not a phrase I ever want to use if I have to meet the relatives of someone I killed whilst exercising it.

[Bill Tucker]

It might be useful to read

It might be useful to read what the Highway Code actually says.

To quote from rule 7.

 If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.

You do not have the right to step into the road and expect traffic to stop. If you have broken the rule it is probably reasonable to expect vehicles to avoid you if they can.

To digress slightly

If anyone cares to check Statutory Instrument 1983/1176 section 9(1) b you will see it is perfectly legal to ride a fixed wheel bike without a front brake. Unfortunately this only applies to the 3 billion plus temporary visitors covered by Article 26 of the International Convention on Road Traffic signed at Geneva on 19th September 1949(a) as amended(b). Does this mean pedestrians can be hit legally by a visiting French or Dutch rider but not by an Englishman? 

It is also possible under section 9(2) of this Statutory Instrument to ride a recumbent tricycle with braking to the front wheel only which would require a considerably longer distance to stop than braking by a fixed wheel alone. As all the weight is over the back wheels the front brake locks and skips off the road surface. 

 

 

[Flying Scot]

They may have rights of way,

They may have rights of way, but also responsibility to ensure the way is clear before crossing into it surely.

 

 

[ChrisB200SX]

People still confusing right

People still confusing right of way with priority.

Motorised vehicles don’t have right of way. They can have priority based on the road layout and situation.

Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, etc, can have right of way. They pretty much always have priority, because roads weren’t built for cars.

As soon as you step into the road you have priority, but if you step out directly in front of a moving vehicle, good luck to you.

[hawkinspeter]

700c wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 pedestrians have right of way once they have already begun to cross a road.

..on a side road, where the driver has not yet turned in to it.

 

Don’t think you can simply step out onto any road and claim ‘right of way’

I haven’t been able to find the relevant law, so I don’t know if it only applies to side roads or not. The Highway Code (which isn’t really law) gives recommendations to pedestrians but doesn’t have any ‘MUST’ orders and even rule 170 (“watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way”) is only a recommendation.

 

[davel]

Grahamd wrote:

davel wrote:

He’s right.

Also, drivers have the right of way, even if they are wrong.

Also, cyclists never have right of way, even when they are right.

Also, collective responsibility only applies to cyclists. When a cyclist RLJs, it makes us all scum, but when a driver RLJs, it only reflects badly on that driver.

I’ll give it some more thought when I return from running down grannies in the bus queue.

Disgraceful comment, sexist and ageist; what about the grandads and children at the bus queue.

Bugger. Right, off out again…

[don simon fbpe]

700c wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 pedestrians have right of way once they have already begun to cross a road.

..on a side road, where the driver has not yet turned in to it.

 

Don’t think you can simply step out onto any road and claim ‘right of way’

Give it a try and report back…

[700c]

hawkinspeter wrote:

 pedestrians have right of way once they have already begun to cross a road.

..on a side road, where the driver has not yet turned in to it.

 

Don’t think you can simply step out onto any road and claim ‘right of way’

[hawkinspeter]

I thought that pedestrians

I thought that pedestrians have ultimate right of way everywhere, but after a quick search, can’t find anything to back that up. The closest I could find is that pedestrians have right of way once they have already begun to cross a road.

[madcarew]

My understanding of the law

My understanding of the law (both in Britain, and in NZ) is that pedestrians always have right of way. So, incidentally, do Bulls (at least, they did in NZ). 

[Grahamd]

davel wrote:

He’s right.

Also, drivers have the right of way, even if they are wrong.

Also, cyclists never have right of way, even when they are right.

Also, collective responsibility only applies to cyclists. When a cyclist RLJs, it makes us all scum, but when a driver RLJs, it only reflects badly on that driver.

I’ll give it some more thought when I return from running down grannies in the bus queue.

Disgraceful comment, sexist and ageist; what about the grandads and children at the bus queue.

[davel]

He’s right.

He’s right.

Also, drivers have the right of way, even if they are wrong.

Also, cyclists never have right of way, even when they are right.

Also, collective responsibility only applies to cyclists. When a cyclist RLJs, it makes us all scum, but when a driver RLJs, it only reflects badly on that driver.

I’ll give it some more thought when I return from running down grannies in the bus queue.

[Author]

Replies