Highway code question

gwen80

Iceweasel wrote: »

Do you mean that he stepped off the pavement?

Or was there not a pavement?

If he stepped off the pavement I suggest that he was in the wrong.

If there was no pavement then I would deem him to be 'road traffic' and should have been allowed to continue without interruption by you.

Thank God you didn't actually make physical contact with him or a gaggle of lawyers and solicitors would be rubbing their hands with anticipatory glee.

He stepped off the pavement in front of me. I would never have hit him, or I would have done my absolute damndest not to, but I was annoyed that as I was about to turn onto the main road, he decided to walk in front of me. Then I threw my hands up in the air, then edged forward a bit (still wasn't going to hit him) and he started having a go at me. I was pretty surprised as I thought the one who should be annoyed was me.

If I was walking towards a street I needed to cross, I was taught to always look and wait until it's clear if necessary, not to go marching across in front of vehicles.

gwen80

facade wrote: »

If you read the Highway Code, you MUST give way to pedestrians crossing the junction ONLY if you are turning INTO it FROM the main road.

facade wrote: »

You are at liberty to run them down if you are emerging FROM the junction and they try to cross in front of you.

facade wrote: »

Utterly crazy if you ask me when the pavement appears to carry on across the junction, what are pedestrians supposed to do?

How do you define a main road? I define the road I was about to turn into as a main road because it's busier and has lots of shops on it.

Don't understand that last paragraph, sorry. This guy stepped off the pavement in front of me. Maybe he'll think differently next time. I *may* have told him that 'next time, you might get knocked over, but I guess that's evolution...' eeek.

facade

gwen80 wrote: »

Don't understand that last paragraph, sorry. This guy stepped off the pavement in front of me. Maybe he'll think differently next time. I *may* have told him that 'next time, you might get knocked over, but I guess that's evolution...' eeek.

Put yourself in the pedestrian's shoes for a minute.
He is walking along the High Street, which is broken into sections by junctions. He wants to carry straight on, following the line of the pavement, and is expecting you to be slowing for the junction, so he has time to cross.
You could simply have slowed down and given him the 2 seconds to cross, instead you have an altercation that takes 10 times as long, and raises both your blood pressures, produces negative karma and leaves you thinking of the incident for hours.

Me, I'd've slowed down and forgotten all about it straight away, life's too short and stressful without making more stress.

You were in the right according to the Highway Code, but sometimes you have to give a little.

alastairq

Broken white lines cross the carriageway [often in the vicinity of junctions] have no meaning as far as 'pedestrian crossings' are concerned..these are well defined within the Highway Code.

I suspect the lines the Op refers to are simply there to 'guide' road users..especially if railings are present on the footpath edge.

Of course, a pedestrian on the carriageway does have priority over vehicles.....but the lines themselves have no significance as 'pedestrian crossings' [for example as with zebra, or pelican crossings]. There is no requirement to avoid stopping across such lines mentioned above, either...and if they are associated with cycle paths, they often contain the appropriate markings to denote the need for cyclists to give way to traffic before crossing the main carriageway.

However, as with all markings on the road that may be subject to random interpretation by other road users, treat their presence with caution, and expect others to exert a priority, regardless of whether they are entitled or not.

gwen80

facade wrote: »

Put yourself in the pedestrian's shoes for a minute.
He is walking along the High Street, which is broken into sections by junctions. He wants to carry straight on, following the line of the pavement, and is expecting you to be slowing for the junction, so he has time to cross.
You could simply have slowed down and given him the 2 seconds to cross, instead you have an altercation that takes 10 times as long, and raises both your blood pressures, produces negative karma and leaves you thinking of the incident for hours.

Me, I'd've slowed down and forgotten all about it straight away, life's too short and stressful without making more stress.

You were in the right according to the Highway Code, but sometimes you have to give a little.

I agree in principle. I let people cross, vehicles out every day, but on that particular occasion I was in a rush, about to turn onto a junction when he stops me. To be fair, my blood pressure would have returned to normal pretty quickly if he hadn't started yelling and gesturing at me as I drove past me after he'd stopped me from pulling out onto an otherwise clear road.

gwen80

alastairq wrote: »

Broken white lines cross the carriageway [often in the vicinity of junctions] have no meaning as far as 'pedestrian crossings' are concerned..these are well defined within the Highway Code.

I suspect the lines the Op refers to are simply there to 'guide' road users..especially if railings are present on the footpath edge.

Of course, a pedestrian on the carriageway does have priority over vehicles.....but the lines themselves have no significance as 'pedestrian crossings' [for example as with zebra, or pelican crossings]. There is no requirement to avoid stopping across such lines mentioned above, either...and if they are associated with cycle paths, they often contain the appropriate markings to denote the need for cyclists to give way to traffic before crossing the main carriageway.

However, as with all markings on the road that may be subject to random interpretation by other road users, treat their presence with caution, and expect others to exert a priority, regardless of whether they are entitled or not.

It was not a pedestrian crossing, I would have definitely stopped if I saw someone approaching a pedestrian crossing. The lines were the double dashed 'give way' road markings that you get at a junction of a road with a more major road.

What is interesting is that even in this thread there appears to be different interpretation of the rules of the highway code.

facade

The Highway code is quite clear, rule 170 (as quoted by Shaun) specifically talks about giving way to pedestrians who have started crossing a road that you are turning into.

The corresponding rule for pedestrians is rule 8

"At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way"

I cannot find a similar statement about giving way to pedestrians crossing anywhere else other than marked crossings, in fact pedestrians are told to allow traffic to pass before crossing (rule 7)

Obviously deliberately running pedestrians over, when you could easily have stopped/slowed down would be frowned upon, and likely there is some triviality in the Law that would leave you open to prosecution as well

Strider590

Let's boil this right the way down..........

Old man was being a fool, trying to prove he's still in control (old people do this quite a lot).

Driver on the other hand needs to realise that drivers are lower down the food chain than pedestrians (and cyclists), the only exception being on motorways.

arcon5

Quite common around here.

You're waiting to join a main road a from a side street, bonnet already intruding in the main road then as you're about to set off some idiot puts their pushchair in front of your bonnet to walk across the front of you.

Why they can't walk behind the car and stay off the main carriageway in the process is beyond me.

Let's hope these new rules about vehicle size and liability don't come in to place - you'll find you to be by default liable (unless you can prove otherwise) if a fast moving cycle enters your path as you begin your maneuver.

gwen80

facade wrote: »

The Highway code is quite clear, rule 170 (as quoted by Shaun) specifically talks about giving way to pedestrians who have started crossing a road that you are turning into.

The corresponding rule for pedestrians is rule 8

"At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way"

I cannot find a similar statement about giving way to pedestrians crossing anywhere else other than marked crossings, in fact pedestrians are told to allow traffic to pass before crossing (rule 7)

Obviously deliberately running pedestrians over, when you could easily have stopped/slowed down would be frowned upon, and likely there is some triviality in the Law that would leave you open to prosecution as well

He was crossing the road I was on, not the road I was turning in to.

As I've said, I was never going to run him over, just frustrated that he stepped out in front of me.