# whats the law on people walking in middle of road?



## roadrunner20 (20 Sep 2011)

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?


----------



## CopperCyclist (20 Sep 2011)

Truth is - we'd move people out of the road who were walking in it, and if we were really forced to use legislation it'd be Obstruction of the Highway. However, we're unlikely to attend the report of a call at any speed, unless the pedestrians are in a position of extreme danger, or we get more than a few calls. If they are just dawdling down the street, but still crossing, best to just ignore them and go round - car or bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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?



Crossing a road a pedestrian to allowed to cross at whatever speed they wish. It is upto you to slow and stop if necessary. Yes it can be bloody frustrating but I guess we cyclists can be to cars as well.


----------



## dawesome (20 Sep 2011)

Pedestrians always have right of way, the bovine numpties.


----------



## superbadger (20 Sep 2011)

Fit a 'death race 2000' contraption on your wheels and take em down by the ankles!!!!!


----------



## BentMikey (20 Sep 2011)

Chill out and relax man. They don't need to be buzzed, that would make us as bad as the worst of the car drivers.


----------



## biggs682 (20 Sep 2011)

i quite often meet people walking along the gutter way on my short section of road commute , cant understand why they dont just step up on to the pavement


----------



## superbadger (20 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Chill out and relax man. They don't need to be buzzed, that would make us as bad as the worst of the car drivers.



Sorry the 'sadist' in me slipped out!!!!


----------



## 2Loose (20 Sep 2011)

I do occasionally see the knuckle dragging 'I can walk really slowly while glowering at the annoyed traffic' types in one area I pass though on my commute. If I spot them far enough in advance, best just to stop early and wait until they get onto the path before continuing. If you get close enough they'd probably spit or throw a can of Carling or something if I buzzed them.

As Bentmikey suggests, chill out - I treat them as escaped cattle and give them a little time so that you can give them a very wide berth.
(Obviously not all people who cross slowly fit into this category, so use your judgement!)


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Truth is - we'd move people out of the road who were walking in it, and if we were really forced to use legislation it'd be Obstruction of the Highway.


"willfully and without lawful authority or excuse" iirc. I'd be interested to learn of any case where this has actually gone to Court and what the outcome was cos i'd have thought that the right to pass and repass is about as fundamental a lawful authority as it gets


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Chill out and relax man. They don't need to be buzzed, that would make us as bad as the worst of the car drivers.



+1


----------



## Angoose (20 Sep 2011)

Just speed up so you go passed them and forget about the sods even quicker saving on any agro and increasing the good old fitness.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Sep 2011)

Were they "in the middle of the road" as in walking down or near to the centre, or were they "in the middle of the road" as we cyclists are when we are far enough out not to be pedal-striking the kerb


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Sep 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Were they "in the middle of the road" as in walking down or near to the centre, or were they "in the middle of the road" as we cyclists are when we are far enough out not to be pedal-striking the kerb


The OP states walking across the middle of the road (as in crossing the road). I had to re-read the OP to check.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (20 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> "willfully and without lawful authority or excuse" iirc. I'd be interested to learn of any case where this has actually gone to Court and what the outcome was cos i'd have thought that the right to pass and repass is about as fundamental a lawful authority as it gets



In my experience, not many - although my experience is mainly to do with rights of way on footpaths and bridleways and whether interfering with bloothirsty savages intent on setting their dogs an other animals was outside the "passing and repassing"

Attempts were made to press charges based on those definitions of the legal use of a right of way

Although usually that ended up with a "Section 5" arrest followed by a hasty* release - at least until the CJ & POA 1994 allowed arrest and conviction as soon as any public right of way was left

_*North Yorkshire tended to be less hasty, preferring to let us relax in their hospitality as long as possible. Unfortunately Melton Mowbray were too hasty, given that in the earl;y 90s they developed a reputation for being quite generous with their catering for vegan & vegetarian diets so we used to hope we'd be in long enough to qualify for a meal - yes, it surprised me given the association with meat pies!_


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Sep 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> In my experience, not many - although my experience is mainly to do with rights of way on footpaths and bridleways and whether interfering with bloothirsty savages intent on setting their dogs an other animals was outside the "passing and repassing"
> 
> Attempts were made to press charges based on those definitions of the legal use of a right of way
> 
> ...


May I shake your hand through Cyberspace for taking such direct action against knobs like that.


----------



## CopperCyclist (20 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> "willfully and without lawful authority or excuse" iirc. I'd be interested to learn of any case where this has actually gone to Court and what the outcome was cos i'd have thought that the right to pass and repass is about as fundamental a lawful authority as it gets



firstly, I too read the OP's post as walking directly down the centre of the road, rather than crossing it.

Secondly, I said I'd move them out of the centre of the road, and said if I had to use legislation to do it, that would be the one. I didn't say I'd take them to court for it!

And lastly, the only time I've actually seen it used (and yes, successfully) is at large disorders when groups try to stop themselves being moved by switching to 'passive resistance' and sitting down in the street - after being given a lawful order (in the circumstances of disorder) to move.


----------



## the_mikey (21 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Chill out and relax man. They don't need to be buzzed, that would make us as bad as the worst of the car drivers.



+1


----------



## John the Monkey (21 Sep 2011)

biggs682 said:


> i quite often meet people walking along the gutter way on my short section of road commute , cant understand why they dont just step up on to the pavement



Pretty common in winter, as the council is about as bothered about gritting pavements as it is about gritting bike paths (i.e., not very).


----------



## XmisterIS (21 Sep 2011)

I do recall a "fashion" amongst chavs for deliberately walking down the middle of the road, about 4 or 5 years ago, which didn't seem to last very long (thankfully!)

I remember one incident in Southampton where a group of about 5 lads were doing it, walking along in the middle of the road (deliberately, apparently), shoulders back, swaggering like chavs do, with an ever increasing queue of traffic behind them. A guy on a scooter came past and they tried to push him off, then I went past in the inside of them on my bike and they shouted a whole load of abuse at me.

They must have been as thick as pigsh*t though, because as soon as I'd found a reasonable stopping place I phoned the police and gave them descriptions of all of them, including what they were doing, plus they were walking through an area that had plenty of CCTV. I imagine that the police would prosecute under those circumstances.

Luckily though, as I said, it would seem that that particular "fashion" has gone away now.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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?



Sadly, there are those here who think that pedestrians have the "right" to be as slow or in the way as they please, and to hell with everyone else. As according to them pedestrians "never" bring any risk. It's always the other guy who brings the risk.

What I'd be interested in knowing is, does that just apply to public roads or does it apply to private roads as well?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

superbadger said:


> Fit a 'death race 2000' contraption on your wheels and take em down by the ankles!!!!!



I love that movie. In the original Roger did a lot of the driving as they didn't have permission to film on a lot of the streets that it was shot on. Plus most if not all of the cars were kits VW chassis'.


----------



## Dan B (21 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> firstly, I too read the OP's post as walking directly down the centre of the road, rather than crossing it.
> 
> Secondly, I said I'd move them out of the centre of the road, and said if I had to use legislation to do it, that would be the one. I didn't say I'd take them to court for it!
> 
> And lastly, the only time I've actually seen it used (and yes, successfully) is at large disorders when groups try to stop themselves being moved by switching to 'passive resistance' and sitting down in the street - after being given a lawful order (in the circumstances of disorder) to move.


Yes, well obviously sitting down in the middle of the street is neither passage nor repassage, so that's not really the same thing is it?


----------



## Jezston (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Sadly, there are those here who think that pedestrians have the "right" to be as slow or in the way as they please, and to hell with everyone else. As according to them pedestrians "never" bring any risk. It's always the other guy who brings the risk.
> 
> What I'd be interested in knowing is, does that just apply to public roads or does it apply to private roads as well?



That's because in the UK at least pedestrians DO have right to do what they please.

We don't have such abhorrent concepts as 'jaywalking' over here.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Sep 2011)

Can we please also note that the OP stated 


roadrunner20 said:


> 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


----------



## John the Monkey (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Sadly, there are those here who think that pedestrians have the "right" to be as slow or in the way as they please, and to hell with everyone else. As according to them pedestrians "never" bring any risk. It's always the other guy who brings the risk.



They could be infirm, injured - they might just not feel like scurrying timidly to the other side of the road. Hooning at them at top speed, or getting angry with them is, for the most part, dreadfully bad manners.

I don't mind pedestrians, mostly - despite commuting throughout freshers' weeks here, I'd be lying if I said they were the most worrying, or most dangerous road users I encounter heading into or out of Manchester centre.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Sep 2011)

biggs682 said:


> i quite often meet people walking along the gutter way on my short section of road commute , cant understand why they dont just step up on to the pavement



I walk on the road a lot in wet weather because down my street... they have this York stone paving, and loads of sycamore trees. The slime falls from the trees on to the pavement and makes them slippery when wet... so me and loads of others just use the road instead. 

I keep meaning to get onto the council about it, but knowing I'll be completely ignored I see little point.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> That's because in the UK at least pedestrians DO have right to do what they please.
> 
> We don't have such abhorrent concepts as 'jaywalking' over here.



How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?" Over here we're taught to cross at the corner on the green, not in between. Given the potential for the collateral damage that can be done by a motorist trying to avoid a jaywalking pedestrian I think that it makes a lot of sense.

Just recently and about a month or so before I saw two men who are damned lucky they weren't hit by anyone.

The first one about a month or so before opted to lie down in the middle of the path in one of the parks I ride through to do is stretching exercises. Even though there was plenty of open grassy areas and beach area for him to do so.

The most recent one happened after the sun had set. A man (I'm pretty sure it was a man) in dark clothing laid down across the path through the last park I ride through and had all of his fishing gear around him. He was dressed in dark clothing and was very difficult to see even with the lights I have on my bike.

But I'm guessing that according to most of you here that both of them were within their rights to pose a hazard to everyone around them.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> They could be infirm, injured - they might just not feel like scurrying timidly to the other side of the road. Hooning at them at top speed, or getting angry with them is, for the most part, dreadfully bad manners.
> 
> I don't mind pedestrians, mostly - despite commuting throughout freshers' weeks here, I'd be lying if I said they were the most worrying, or most dangerous road users I encounter heading into or out of Manchester centre.



I understand that they could be injured or infirm. I lived with and took care of my Paternal Grandmother the last few years of her life and we would go walking on a daily basis, weather permitting. And those I have the utmost respect for. It's the ones who are moving as "slow as molasses going uphill in January" just "because" they can that and no one had better say anything to them are the ones that I have or would have a problem with.

When I'm riding through the park(s) that I ride through most days it seems like I am the only one who is looking out for pedestrians of all ages and dogs. And am slowing down for them. Everyone else is blasting through the park(s) as if they're running their own personal Tour.

And just to clarify something that I had said in another thread that some here are unfairly judging me by. The gal who hit my handlebars, did so as we passed each other, it was *NOT* as they've assumed a head on collision. Rather her hitting my handlebars as we passed, which is something that I thought would/should have been clear, but I guess it wasn't.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I walk on the road a lot in wet weather because down my street... they have this York stone paving, and loads of sycamore trees. The slime falls from the trees on to the pavement and makes them slippery when wet... so me and loads of others just use the road instead.
> 
> I keep meaning to get onto the council about it, but knowing I'll be completely ignored I see little point.



Point out that it's a safety hazard and someone could get sued over it.


----------



## John the Monkey (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> But I'm guessing that according to most of you here that both of them were within their rights to pose a hazard to everyone around them.



You understand that most of us live under a different legal system to you, though? There is no such thing as jaywalking here - the offence simply does not exist.

Our Highway Code places a duty on *drivers* to take care around vulnerable road users (a category that includes pedestrians) with the specific stipulation that drivers should be prepared to give way to them if they are crossing a road the driver is turning into, and that they must not be "hurried" across the road by revving engines, &c. 

I doubt many would have much sympathy for the extreme cases you present above, but surely part of being a skilful rider, driver &c is dealing with extraordinary circumstances safely?

(Edit - most of the duties placed on drivers in this respect apply to cyclists too here, btw)


----------



## John the Monkey (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> ...It's the ones who are moving as "slow as molasses going uphill in January" just "because" they can that and no one had better say anything to them are the ones that I have or would have a problem with.



...and listening to iPods, and texting, and stepping out without looking  I'm no saint, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't annoying - but it's easily dealt with compared to the guy at the wheel of a chavved up Corsa who's too busy pretending he's a stuntman to think about overtaking distances 



> When I'm riding through the park(s) that I ride through most days it seems like I am the only one who is looking out for pedestrians of all ages and dogs. And am slowing down for them. Everyone else is blasting through the park(s) as if they're running their own personal Tour.



As it should be - I'm not sure why people choose to blast along under those circumstances - no one's coming out unscathed if they hit someone there.


----------



## Jezston (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?"



Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.

It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render) 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9-HlPmYYec
- apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.



> Just recently and about a month or so before I saw two men who are damned lucky they weren't hit by anyone.
> 
> The first one about a month or so before opted to lie down in the middle of the path in one of the parks I ride through to do is stretching exercises. Even though there was plenty of open grassy areas and beach area for him to do so.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what these two incidents have to do with the concept of 'jaywalking' - they were on paths?


----------



## Jezston (21 Sep 2011)

reiver said:


> I had something very similar driving to work the other week, cyclist pedalling stupidly slowly, I had to move out of my lane to avoid them, I considered hooting my hooter and shouting "can't you cycle quicker", but we all know the type of abuse we get from cyclists so didn't bother.



[tap] [tap] ... hmm, my sarcasm meter seems to be dead. Can anyone else give me a reading?


----------



## benb (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?" Over here we're taught to cross at the corner on the green, not in between. Given the potential for the collateral damage that can be done by a motorist trying to avoid a jaywalking pedestrian I think that it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Just recently and about a month or so before I saw two men who are damned lucky they weren't hit by anyone.
> 
> ...



Still banging that tired old drum, are you?

In the UK pedestrians can generally cross wherever they like, and that's a good thing.

Obviously wandering into fast moving traffic is ill advised, but I see no need to force them to cross only at designated places. The concept of jaywalking is an abomination.


----------



## snailracer (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?"…



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.




Digital_Cowboy said:


> I understand that they could be injured or infirm…



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.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Sep 2011)

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


----------



## BenM (21 Sep 2011)

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



Care to elucidate a bit?

I see several people claiming the concept of jaywalking is abhorrent - as abhorrent as say drink driving? It must have made sense to someone in the first place so that the law was enacted (Other countries of course, not necessarily the UK)

How is it primitive? surely it is no more primitive than saying 'you must drive at or below the speed limit' or 'you must have a white light on the front of your bike'

Is it bad for society? I mean if fewer people get KSI because they are restricted to crossing at specific points, that is a good thing isn't it?

B.

p.s. The above is a little tongue in cheek, however petrol heads, in other places, use similar arguments to those I have put forwards. I was wondering what your take was on suitable answers would be...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (21 Sep 2011)

It's quite fashionable among kids going to Swinton Comprehensive to cross the road by stepping out in front of vehicles, forcing emergency stops. Adds to their street cred with their mates and impresses the girls.
If a group does it, some will hang back and walk slower just to show they're even more rebellious than their friends.

Once watched a man in his 30's step out on the main road at Stairfoot, and walk across to the tune of screeching tyres and hooters. He then continued through the Tesco's petrol station forecourt with the same result, then across the car park entrance road, then the car park. Whatever the reaction as everyone swerved around him, he just carried on looking forward.
How he survived amazes me to this day.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.
> 
> It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z9-HlPmYYec - apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.
> 
> ...


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> You understand that most of us live under a different legal system to you, though? There is no such thing as jaywalking here - the offence simply does not exist.
> 
> Our Highway Code places a duty on *drivers* to take care around vulnerable road users (a category that includes pedestrians) with the specific stipulation that drivers should be prepared to give way to them if they are crossing a road the driver is turning into, and that they must not be "hurried" across the road by revving engines, &c.
> 
> ...



True, but if I'm not mistaken a large part of the legal system that I live under comes from your legal system. Although I'll admit that at times it sure doesn't seem like that.

As does ours if I'm not mistaken. With the difference that pedestrians (blind, etc. being at the top of the list) followed by bicycles have the right of way, not priority. But they still have a responsibility to behave in a safe manner. Meaning that on a busy street that a pedestrian cannot just decide to start across wherever they feel like. But, if they do and it's illegal for them to have done so under the doctrine of last clear chance if the motorist or cyclist has a clear chance to avoid colliding with the person committing the illegal act they'll be the one's charged with a crime.

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?" And I agree with you, based on a conversation I had with a friend. When I told a friend about the last man that I saw laying across the path totally blocking it, preventing anyone from using the path to get around him. He said I should have hit him. If I had I'd have ended up in the water and didn't want that.

I agree, I was able just barely to see the second guy in the dark with his dark clothes and veered left down an offshoot of the path. Totally missing him, but sadly there are too many (not just here, but I gather over there) who do not ride with lights who would not have seen him and hit him.

The first guy is more of a mystery to me as he had removed his shirt to lay down on a rough path to stretch. When as I said there was plenty of soft grass for him to have laid in to stretch.


----------



## CopperCyclist (21 Sep 2011)

Private roads can be treated as a public road for UK Law, unless the access is physically blocked, eg by a gate. If you can simply drive into a public road, then all the legislation applies.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> ...and listening to iPods, and texting, and stepping out without looking  I'm no saint, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't annoying - but it's easily dealt with compared to the guy at the wheel of a chavved up Corsa who's too busy pretending he's a stuntman to think about overtaking distances



I've learned that it's a waste of time and breath on trying to warn them as they're usually plugged into their iPod, iPhone, etc. and wouldn't hear it anyway. I've had to deal with more than a few of those while riding on my bike.



John the Monkey said:


> As it should be - I'm not sure why people choose to blast along under those circumstances - no one's coming out unscathed if they hit someone there.



There are times when I'm going through the parks that I have to unclip my left foot and use it as either a counter-balance, or use the toes on my left foot to push myself along. I'd like to know that as well. Sadly, most of them are also the same people who blast through red lights and stop signs without breaking stride expecting everyone else on the road to be on the look out for them. Of course it is safe to presume that when they finally collide with a pedestrian or a dog that they'll blame the other person and claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.  The same when they get hit blasting through a red light or stop sign.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Because it perpetuates this idea that roads are for cars and for cars alone and are not public spaces, and it makes drivers less attentive and observant. I read a lot more cases of drivers hitting cyclists from behind in the US and being let off because it seems that it's fair enough for drivers not to necessarily notice something like that in front of them.



Given the collateral damage that a jaywalker can do, i.e. a motorist who has to swerve to avoid a jaywalk can end up hitting another car, could end up hitting a cyclist, or can set off a chain reaction where pedestrians who are walking down the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road can end up getting hit. Laws against jaywalking do not necessarily "perpetuate" the idea that the roads are for cars and cars alone. Everyone who uses the roads have an obligation to do so as safely as possible. And if one is attempting to cross a road with 45MPH (or faster) traffic in the middle of the block is posing a risk to everyone else who is trying to use the road safely. As the last time I checked cars do not stop on a dime no matter how much the driver may brag that their car does. But even with the laws against jaywalking, if the driver has the last clear chance to safely avoid the crash they are obligated to do so.



Jezston said:


> It also leads to attitudes like this (sorry for the horrible video render) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Z9-HlPmYYec - apparently cyclist, despite riding the wrong way up a one way street felt he was in the right because the pedestrian wasn't using a 'crosswalk'. Ridiculous.



My connection is too slow right now, I'll have to watch the video later.



Jezston said:


> I'm not sure what these two incidents have to do with the concept of 'jaywalking' - they were on paths?



It has to do with the topic because there are those here who feel that pedestrians *NEVER* bring any "risk" and have the "right" to do whatever the hell they want. Clearly these two men were bringing the risk as they were preventing *ANYONE* from being able to travel on the path(s) that they were on. And any sane, reasonable person seeing them just laying on the path would see that they are in fact bringing the risk.

Likewise if one were to walk down (not across) the middle of a busy road during rush hour they would also be bringing the risk and endangering everyone else on the road. But again there are those here who would feel that it's the pedestrians "right" to walk down the middle of the road and that they weren't bringing any risk to anyone.


----------



## bonj (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Likewise if one were to walk down (not across) the middle of a busy road during rush hour they would also be bringing the risk and endangering everyone else on the road. But again there are those here who would feel that it's the pedestrians "right" to walk down the middle of the road and that they weren't bringing any risk to anyone.



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


----------



## superbadger (21 Sep 2011)

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


----------



## Arch (21 Sep 2011)

snailracer said:


> 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 (21 Sep 2011)

snailracer said:


> 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.



snailracer said:


> 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 (21 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> 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 (21 Sep 2011)

bonj said:


> 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 (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (21 Sep 2011)

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


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Sep 2011)

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 (21 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (22 Sep 2011)

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 (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (22 Sep 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> 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.



Sheffield_Tiger said:


> *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 (22 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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 (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (22 Sep 2011)

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.


----------



## the_mikey (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How is the concept of jaywalking "abhorrent?" Over here we're taught to cross at the corner on the green, not in between. Given the potential for the collateral damage that can be done by a motorist trying to avoid a jaywalking pedestrian I think that it makes a lot of sense.





Most people in the uk tend to either walk in the road, or just cross it. If someone is progressing across the road, then let them continue! Make the world a better place, slow down or stop and enjoy the break.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (22 Sep 2011)

Rhythm Thief said:


> 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.)



That's part of the problem, what is "within reason?" On this side of "the pond" if a person attempts to cross a multi-lane, high-speed road when it is unsafe to do so. That is not "within reason." They are being negligent, and are the ones who caused the crash.



Rhythm Thief said:


> 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.



Sadly, this happens on a fairly regular basis. Often enough, that most news outlets don't even cover it anymore. Last year there was just this type of crash in front of the apartment complex that I live in. Thankfully there wasn't anyone sitting in it. But a car (I forget why it went off of the road now) ended up in the bus stop shelter. Damaging not only one of the two benches, but also flattening the garbage can. If there had been anyone sitting in the shelter they'd have at the very least been injured, if not killed.



Rhythm Thief said:


> 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".



Agreed, there are hundreds, if not thousands of reasons for how and why a person ends up in the road. And not all of them are their fault. But that doesn't mean that a person shouldn't use at least ordinary care when attempting to cross the road. And sadly, it's seems that there are those here who do feel as if pedestrians don't even need to use ordinary care when they attempt to cross the road.

According to some of them, a pedestrian can pretty much do whatever the hell that they want, whenever the hell they want and wherever the hell they want, and that it's up to everyone one else to be on the look out for them. That is what I have a problem with. Everyone who is operating on or near the road regardless of their mode of transportation needs to at the very least use ordinary care. If they do not they are at least partially to blame for whatever happens to them.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (22 Sep 2011)

the_mikey said:


> Most people in the UK tend to either walk in the road, or just cross it. If someone is progressing across the road, then let them continue! Make the world a better place, slow down or stop and enjoy the break.



Sadly, over here that wouldn't happen. As "everyone" is in a bloody hurry to get nowhere fast. And as fast as they can. So much so that I've had drivers who were traveling in the opposite direction to the one that I was traveling in yell at me to get off of the road and on the sidewalk. Also over here it seems like most people have forgotten that it's best to leave home or work early enough so that if they encounter an unexpected delay that they can still get to their destination on time. As an example at the end of the week I have a doctors appointment out at the VA. It's about an hour (for me) bike ride from my apartment to the VA. I leave home early enough so that if I have a flat, or break a chain I can still get there on time. If it's an appointment with my primary care provider I leave early enough so that I not only can still get there on time if I encounter a problem, but also early enough so that I can sit down and allow my vitals to return to normal.

I've even had motorists tell me that I need to be in the bike lane, even on roads that don't have a bike lane.

Over this past weekend, when I was on my ride I had a gal who as she was passing me say, "You need to be in the bike lane, sir." When I tried to explain to her that it wasn't safe, because of the fact that there were cars parked in the on street parking. And if any one of them were to open their door without warning it would easily take up at least half of the bike lane if not more. So as any smart/safe cyclist I do *NOT* ride in bike lanes that are in the door zone when there are cars parked next to them.

Sadly, though not all drivers apparently are aware of the dangers of a cyclist riding in the door zone.


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2011)

vernon said:


> The Amsterdam cyclists take every thing in their stride .... tolerance of others.




Vernon, how often have you strolled down the middle of a central Amsterdam cycle path hands in pockets viewing the passing scene?


----------



## snailracer (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How does it restrict the freedom of movement? It simply requires pedestrians to use due care when crossing a road...


This whole thread is about walking _along_ a road, not across it. It would be remarkable if a jurisdiction with Jaywalking laws allowed you to walk _along_ a road at all.



Digital_Cowboy said:


> ...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.


Again, 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.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (22 Sep 2011)

snailracer said:


> This whole thread is about walking _along_ a road, not across it. It would be remarkable if a jurisdiction with Jaywalking laws allowed you to walk _along_ a road at all.



Actually a lot of people do walk along the road both with and without sidewalks/pavements. The only "restriction" is that they have to cross at the corner. Does everyone do so? No, which is one of the reasons people get hit, or cause a chain reaction of events that leads to someone else getting injured or killed because of their actions.

Also over here people are required/encouraged to walk against traffic so as to be more viable. Again using ordinary care for their and everyone else's safety. And actually the topic of the thread is "Whats the law on people walking in the *MIDDLE* of road?" *NOT* along the road. Which would suggest (at least to me an admitted outsider) that there are those who feel that someone walking down the middle of a road is doing something wrong.



snailracer said:


> Again, 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.



True, but again sadly that wouldn't stop a lot of people from honking at them and/or getting very impatient thinking that they're being somehow "delayed" in getting where they want/need to go. Which again falls back on what I said about people having gotten out of the habit of leaving early enough to get where they're going so that if they do encounter the unexpected it won't delay them in them in getting there.

And again, neither does the US, it does however "criminalize" people who don't use at the very least ordinary care in going about their business. Particularly people who attempt to unsafely cross the street where "high speed" traffic is present. Doesn't it make sense that on a road with "high speed" traffic for the "state" to effect some sort of control so that people do not just walk out into traffic causing a multiple car pile up, that can cost several people their lives?

How is doing that "restricting" a persons freedom of movement? The "state" isn't saying that a person can't cross a particular road, it's just saying that if you're going to cross this road given the amount of traffic on it *AND* the speed of said traffic that you are safer if you cross here, vs. where you think that it's "convenient." I'm sorry, but to me that doesn't seem to either be restrictive, nor denying anyone their freedom of movement.

One thing that I really don't understand is how anyone can feel comfortable living someplace where they know just about everything they do is on camera 24/7 and is monitored by the police 24/7. *THAT *_*IS*_ restrictive and unacceptable to most if not all Americans. And yes, there are areas with security cameras, but they are *NOT* on "_every_" lamp post or corner. And a fair portion of the time they are not even being monitored. Unless a crime happens within the field of view. Usually those "tapes" are erased and reused without anyone even looking at them.

People over here get upset when a new city decides that it wants to put something as "innocuous" as red light cameras in place to control those who run red lights. You'll get cries of "it's just a way for the city to make money," or some such BS. But simply requiring people who wish to cross a high volume, high speed, multi-laned roadway to do so where there is a walk light isn't restrictive. It's done for the public safety, much the same way that you all have CCTV just about (if not) everywhere.


----------



## mcr (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.



Now this is priceless (my emphasis)! In this household, as I would imagine is the case in most others, it's the cats who are in control of their owners.


----------



## Arch (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Sadly, this happens on a fairly regular basis. Often enough, that most news outlets don't even cover it anymore. Last year there was just this type of crash in front of the apartment complex that I live in. Thankfully there wasn't anyone sitting in it. But a car (I forget why it went off of the road now) ended up in the bus stop shelter. Damaging not only one of the two benches, but also flattening the garbage can. If there had been anyone sitting in the shelter they'd have at the very least been injured, if not killed.



So you don't know why the car came off the road, but you assume it was to avoid a pedestrian? Couldn't just have been a lousy driver/mechanical fault?

I don't think I've ever been aware of a situation local to me in which a car swerved to avoid a pedestrian and hit a bus shelter - and our local press has been known to report a tea-towel on fire (honest!). Many drivers seem quite able to hit bus shelters unaided in fact.



> Actually a lot of people do walk along the road both with and without sidewalks/pavements. The only "restriction" is that they have to cross at the corner.



Hang on, you're supposed to cross only at a corner? Corners are the most dangerous places to cross. Back in the days when we had the Green Cross Code over here, you were supposed to move away from a corner if you could. At a corner, you have to look in more directions than on a straight bit.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (22 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> So you don't know why the car came off the road, but you assume it was to avoid a pedestrian? Couldn't just have been a lousy driver/mechanical fault?



I was inside at the time and didn't see the crash, but I did hear the crash. Yes, it could have been a lousy driver or mechanical fault, or it could have been the driver attempting to swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian, as it does happen at least on this side of the pond.



Arch said:


> I don't think I've ever been aware of a situation local to me in which a car swerved to avoid a pedestrian and hit a bus shelter - and our local press has been known to report a tea-towel on fire (honest!). Many drivers seem quite able to hit bus shelters unaided in fact.



Sadly, it does happen over here. Most be a slow day if they're reporting on a tea-towel that's on fire. Sadly, that is very true.



Arch said:


> Hang on, you're supposed to cross only at a corner? Corners are the most dangerous places to cross. Back in the days when we had the Green Cross Code over here, you were supposed to move away from a corner if you could. At a corner, you have to look in more directions than on a straight bit.



Yes, because that is where the crosswalks are installed. Motorists are looking for pedestrians to be in the crosswalk or crossing at the corners if there is no crosswalk as unless signed otherwise every corner is assumed to have an implied crosswalk. Plus at corners (unless they are running their red light) there is only traffic coming from one direction.

Also over some of our busier roads there are pedestrian bridges to allow pedestrians (and I guess cyclists) to cross the road without worrying about the traffic under them.


----------



## vernon (22 Sep 2011)

snorri said:


> Vernon, how often have you strolled down the middle of a central Amsterdam cycle path hands in pockets viewing the passing scene?



A couple of times this summer after a visit to a coffee shop.....


----------



## Arch (22 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Yes, because that is where the crosswalks are installed. Motorists are looking for pedestrians to be in the crosswalk or crossing at the corners if there is no crosswalk as unless signed otherwise every corner is assumed to have an implied crosswalk. Plus at corners (unless they are running their red light) there is only traffic coming from one direction.



Do you have corners without lights though? We have lots - and in that case a car could be coming from the side road, while simultaneously, one is coming from behind the pedestrian wanting to turn left (what would be right for you) and another is coming from the other direction wanting to turn right (left). Crossing at a corner like that, a pedestrian needs to look three ways. Crossing well away from corners, only requires looking two ways.

Of course, our cities tend to be a bit more higgledy piggledy than yours, which tend to be all blocks and straight lines, due to us having had a Medieval period. 

But whatever, I prefer the more vulnerable road users to have priority. In parts of Europe, they go even better, and drivers give way to cyclists coming up the inside, before they turn across a cycle lane. Bliss!


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2011)

vernon said:


> A couple of times this summer after a visit to a coffee shop.....



That clarifies the situation, you wouldn't have heard the bells and shouts then.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (23 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> Do you have corners without lights though? We have lots - and in that case a car could be coming from the side road, while simultaneously, one is coming from behind the pedestrian wanting to turn left (what would be right for you) and another is coming from the other direction wanting to turn right (left). Crossing at a corner like that, a pedestrian needs to look three ways. Crossing well away from corners, only requires looking two ways.
> 
> Of course, our cities tend to be a bit more higgledy piggledy than yours, which tend to be all blocks and straight lines, due to us having had a Medieval period.
> 
> But whatever, I prefer the more vulnerable road users to have priority. In parts of Europe, they go even better, and drivers give way to cyclists coming up the inside, before they turn across a cycle lane. Bliss!



Yes, but most of those either have yield signs or stop signs. Some intersections have either 3 or 4-way stop signs. And as I said before unless otherwise signed, there are implied crosswalks at those intersections. They can usually see any traffic that is approaching the intersection.

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?

Here pedestrians and cyclists have the right of way, _*NOT*_ priority. One of the problems I have with giving pedestrians/vulnerable road users priority, is that as it has been said/suggested that even on a path that is dedicated to say cycling that if a pedestrian wanders onto it, 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.


----------



## vernon (23 Sep 2011)

snorri said:


> That clarifies the situation, you wouldn't have heard the bells and shouts then.



I heard them and thought that they were being friendly


----------



## Crankarm (23 Sep 2011)

Get an airhorn .


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

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 (23 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> ....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 (23 Sep 2011)

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 (23 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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 (24 Sep 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Here's how it works in practice.
> 
> 1) I'm riding along, and see someone up ahead.
> 
> ...



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 (24 Sep 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2011)

User said:


> 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.



User said:


> 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. 



User said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> 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.



Arch said:


> 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.



Arch said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2011)

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 (26 Sep 2011)

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 (26 Sep 2011)

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 (26 Sep 2011)

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 (26 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (26 Sep 2011)

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 (26 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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!


----------



## Dan B (26 Sep 2011)

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!


----------



## BenM (27 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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.


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.



roadrunner20 said:


> 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.


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".



roadrunner20 said:


> 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"


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. 



roadrunner20 said:


> ...given you should cross at pedestrian crossings.


You do know what the Highway code says about the word "should" don't you?



roadrunner20 said:


> point is, crossing a busy road with on-coming traffic is stupid


Indeed and I don't think anyone would argue that point.



roadrunner20 said:


> and if you going to get hit by a car so be it, its useally your own fault


There may be mitigation, but in a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian it is definitely the vehicle's fault.

B.


----------



## roadrunner20 (28 Sep 2011)

> 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".



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 (29 Sep 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> 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 (30 Sep 2011)

User said:


> 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 (30 Sep 2011)

[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.


----------



## benb (2 Oct 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> How is requiring them to cross at a particular spot infringing on their freedom of movement?



Is this a trick question?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Oct 2011)

theclaud said:


> Is this a trick question?



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 (3 Oct 2011)

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 (3 Oct 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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?



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 (3 Oct 2011)

BentMikey said:


> 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.



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.



mcr said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## benb (4 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1552365"]
Be interested to see what back up you have for this.
[/quote]

It's my opinion, that's all.


----------



## benb (4 Oct 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> 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 (5 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> 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.



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.



benb said:


> 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.



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.



benb said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## benb (5 Oct 2011)

@DC, your thoughtful post has made me think that I've horribly misunderstood you in "that" thread, where it got a bit heated.
I will just say I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that pedestrians should be allowed to blindly wander into the road; rather, cars should generally stop to let pedestrians cross without having to be forced to.

Also, in the UK at least, we don't really have paths that are designated cyclists only (apart from cycle lanes on roads, and a few mtb trails). Where we have shared use paths, just because the council has slapped a bit of paint down doesn't really stop it being a pedestrian pavement, and through parks pedestrians always have priority - we don't want to restrict pedestrian's freedom to wander about without worrying about being run down.

So I don't agree with jaywalking laws, but also think pedestrians have a responsibility to cross safely, and sometimes that will mean a dedicated crossing. Motorists ought to stop and let pedestrians cross anywhere, if it's safe to do that.

Thanks for that, and I apologise for our previous altercations.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (5 Oct 2011)

benb said:


> @DC, your thoughtful post has made me think that I've horribly misunderstood you in "that" thread, where it got a bit heated.
> I will just say I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that pedestrians should be allowed to blindly wander into the road; rather, cars should generally stop to let pedestrians cross without having to be forced to.
> 
> Also, in the UK at least, we don't really have paths that are designated cyclists only (apart from cycle lanes on roads, and a few mtb trails). Where we have shared use paths, just because the council has slapped a bit of paint down doesn't really stop it being a pedestrian pavement, and through parks pedestrians always have priority - we don't want to restrict pedestrian's freedom to wander about without worrying about being run down.
> ...



Ben,

Thank you and you are welcome. I've always thought that usually with most people there is some sort of middle ground that would allow them to if not be friends at least to be civil to each other. And to admit that the other has a valid argument. I fully agree with that, i.e. cars should stop to allow pedestrians to cross without being forced to do so, but again sadly I think that we know the truth is that many motorists don't want to be "bothered" by pedestrians or cyclists. They just want to drive as fast as possible on "their roads."

I can understand that, at times it is kind of hard to remember that we do have something of a shared history/common roots. Sadly, I have seen pedestrians start walking up that path that I included the picture to. I have also encountered pedestrians/joggers in some of the bike lanes that I use. Again, when I see them if doing so doesn't force me out into traffic or cause another cyclist who may also be traveling in my direction to collide with me I will slow down and give them space. Even though they really shouldn't be in the on road bike lane.

This past Saturday night (after I had taken that picture) I had to laugh. I was nearing the end of my bike ride as I was riding along the North Bay Trail, which is part of the City Trails multi-use recreational trail system. I encountered a couple who were out walking their dogs. The man kind of yells at me "bike don't belong on the effen sidewalk, they belong on the road." The irony is that I had slowed way down before we got close to each other, and I've lost count of the number of times that I've had some motorist yell at me to "get on the effen sidewalk."

It'd be nice if they would make up their minds where they wanted us to ride. As he's saying that and I am slowly going past them, I'm thinking to myself "I hope you remember that the next time you're out on the road and have a cyclist in front of you."

Also as I've said, when I'm riding through the parks that I ride through on my ride, of which I'd say there is at least 4 if not maybe 5 depending on how you count one. They are Coffee Pot Park at the very end of my ride, North Shore Park, Vinoy Park (these two are connected to each other), DeMen's Landing Park, and Albert Whitted Park. DeMen's has a road that runs through it as well as shared use paths. I stay on the road in that one and pick it up twice once going to the Coast Guard Unit and again on my way back home. Albert Whitted I only pick up on my way back home as well. The same with the Vinoy, North Short and Coffee Pot parks.

When I'm riding through them when I encounter people walking, particularly when they have small(sih) children and dogs I always slow down, yet sadly I see way too many cyclists who are hammering through the parks as if they're running their own personal Tour or something. Likewise sadly I see way too many cyclists who are out riding "Ninja" style. As well as those who are riding against the flow of traffic.

Usually when I do see them I'll politely let them know that they need lights as well as they need to ride with the flow of traffic. I'll also if I've seen the same people too many times doing so, I'll stop and call the non-emergency number for my local police and report them. It took my doing so a few times before one gal got the message that she needed to ride with the flow of traffic not against it.

As I know that sadly in this country that too many motorists have a negative image of cyclists And I just want to do what I can to help improve it.

In theory I agree with you that there shouldn't be jaywalking laws, but sadly given that there are those pedestrians who do attempt to cross when/where it isn't safe they can be a good thing. It would be nice if we all could live in a world where the slowest, most vulnerable road users could use the road without fear of being hit be it by a car, or a cyclist, or a skater. But sadly that isn't always the case. And I agree that motorists should stop to allow pedestrians to cross, but should do so when it is safe to do so. Which sadly means that on a road like the one that I live on at intersections with lights to control said traffic.

Also again as I said earlier in this thread the gal that had hit the handlebars on my bike had done so while we passed each other. It wasn't a head-on collision. Which I am sorry that I hadn't made clearer when I initially told you all about it. Also in regards to that incident, I don't know how it is over there, but over here if a person refuses to obey a legal order by a LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) they can be subject to arrest. So that the officer who was stationed at the street that I road down let me know by not interfering with where I was going could be interrupted as a legal order from a LEO.

Because as I had said had he told me that I couldn't go that way I would have found another route to get me where I wanted to go. That's not to say that the police over here always issue legal orders or sadly fully know the very laws that they are suppose to be enforcing. As about this time last year I had a LEO get on his PA system and order me to ride further to the right of where I was riding or to get on the sidewalk. This was on a road with a lane that is too narrow for a car and bicycle traveling in the same direction to safely pass each other.

Likewise in the state of Ohio we had a fairly famous case known as Trotwood v Selz in which a female officer stopped and ticketed a cyclist for riding his bike up a hill and "impeding" traffic while doing so. Sadly Mr. Selz lost when he initially went to court to fight the ticket, but won on appeals.

Sadly even after the LEO had had the law explained to her, she still indicated that she would stop cyclists if she saw them riding in the manner that Mr. Selz was riding in. The irony in this case is that had the officer cited Mr. Selz for failing to ride as far to the right as practicable he probably wouldn't have won on appeal. But because he was ticketed for impeding traffic he was able to win on appeal.

As it was shown and the city stipulated that he was traveling at a speed that was reasonable for a bicycle, and that bicycles are a part of traffic. And ironically (if I'm remembering things correctly) it was the judge or one "his" clerks that had found a case in Georgia in which the operator of a piece of farm equipment on the public roads was likewise found not to be impeding traffic when it was traveling as fast as it reasonably could.


----------

