Is jaywalking (dangerous pedestrian crossing) ever a crime in England?

theEnd

My understanding is that it's not a criminal offence for a pedestrian to be in the road, but that doesn't mean they can't be at fault. (motorways excluded).

They could be breaking other criminal laws, but there isn't one for being in the road alone.

They'd still be at fault if they caused you damage and could be sued, but would be civil and not criminal law.

SouthLondonUser

takman wrote: »

I don't think a red man showing should mean a pedestrian has to wait till it goes green before they can cross the road. Otherwise that creates the strange situation where pedestrians are waiting to cross the road and no cars are coming.
.

What you call strange is the norm in many other countries.

Rules exist because people cannot be trusted. There are situations where crossing against a red man might be safe, but people cannot be trusted in making this assessment. It’s the same reason why a motorist is prosecuted, and rightly so, for running through a red light even if no one is in sight.
I also strongly agree with not setting a precedent for young children.

I often walk near a school, and very often see parents crossing against the red man. The problem is, that traffic light is just behind a blind bend, so cars might not be able to see those pedestrians until it’s too late.

Strider590

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Rules exist because people cannot be trusted.

Rules in general exist primarily to create a hierarchy and secondarily to facilitate the deference of blame in event of harm or injury (usually back onto the victim). Nobody cares about you, only about avoiding blame and/or legal action.

Pedestrian crossings don't exist to help pedestrians, they exist to help local councils to say "well we provided a crossing and you still got run over, therefore it is your fault".

Guest101

kmb500 wrote: »

It's stupid but not illegal. Pedestrians legally have right of way everywhere (as in, if they're standing in the road you must stop) so if you run someone over it's your fault.


A pedestrian cannot be at-fault in an accident.


You are not legally required to cross only at designated crossings. They are just there as a safe way of crossing.

That's not true. If a pedestrian steps out in front of a vehicle, it is their fault.

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What you call strange is the norm in many other countries.

Indeed. In Germany you can be fined for crossing the road on a red man. People tend to obey it there - you spot Johann Foreigner by the fact that they are crossing on a red.

SouthLondonUser

Strider590 wrote: »

Rules in general exist primarily to create a hierarchy and secondarily to facilitate the deference of blame in event of harm or injury (usually back onto the victim). Nobody cares about you, only about avoiding blame and/or legal action.

Pedestrian crossings don't exist to help pedestrians, they exist to help local councils to say "well we provided a crossing and you still got run over, therefore it is your fault".

You're right. It's all a big conspiracy. People never ever ever take stupid, suicidal decisions.

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

You're right. It's all a big conspiracy. People never ever ever take stupid, suicidal decisions.

Don't worry too much about Strider - he thinks they are all out to get him...

martinsurrey

theEnd wrote: »

They'd still be at fault if they caused you damage and could be sued, but would be civil and not criminal law.

wrong,

It can be criminal if their actions can be show such that they knew the risk of damage to property (cars) was likely but took the action anyway.

They would be prosecuted for criminal damage.

almillar

Basically in the UK pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have priority on all roads except for motorways

What is a 'horse'? I live in the city and I've never seen one...

Car_54

martinsurrey wrote: »

wrong,

It can be criminal if their actions can be show such that they knew the risk of damage to property (cars) was likely but took the action anyway.

They would be prosecuted for criminal damage.

The poster wasn't wrong - you hacve quoted selectively. He actually said "They could be breaking other criminal laws, but there isn't one for being in the road alone."

And his point about any suit for damages being in civil law is absolutely correct. Any prosecution for criminal damage (highly unlikely) would be separate from and in addition to the civil suit.