Pedestrian injured in hit and run incident(Doug Mode)
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Derek C on 25 Jun 2010 09:15 On Jun 25, 11:37 am, Matt B <matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > On 25/06/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote: > > > > > Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster > > than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code. > > It's only not sensible where people don't do it and so drivers/riders > aren't expecting it to happen there. > > There are places where it is the norm and perfectly sensible, and where > the roads are safer as a consequence. > > The way we kowtowed to vehicular traffic in the middle decades of the > 20th century and initiatives such as the green cross code have led to > the number of places where it is not sensible increasing and thus to the > roads becoming less safe. > > > Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the > > footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be. > > On the roads where there is a separate footpath, yes. And this may well > be how the whole problem started, by pedestrians giving de-facto > priority to vehicles on the roadway where there were also footways. > > Having been virtually granted it, and taught from a young age that > drivers/riders must have it, they do, of course, take it for granted. > > > Pedestrians > > have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to > > think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. > > Yes, where there is a footpath this has unfortunately been the consequence. > > > They > > have no God given or legal rights to do this, > > They have exactly the same right to use the roadway as drivers/riders do. > > > and would be considered > > legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing > > so without taking due care and attention. > > They also, as drivers/riders do, have the duty to use the roads > responsibly and with due care. That is of course if they are old enough > and capable of understanding that duty. > > Of course it isn't only pedestrians (compos mentis or otherwise) that > might unexpectedly enter the road into the path of traffic, and > drivers/riders need to be able to avoid collisions with them too. > > -- Rules for pedestrians: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108 Derek C
From: mileburner on 25 Jun 2010 09:30 Derek C wrote: > On Jun 25, 10:25 am, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Derek C wrote: >> >>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking >>> first that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was >>> called the Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they >>> are committing the offence of 'Jaywalking'. >> >> No such offence in the UK. AIUI "Jaywalking" is an offence in the >> USA (or parts of). >> >> Pedestrians only have right of way at >> >>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch >>> out for RLJing cyclists). >> >> Rights of way only determine who is to blame for litigation claims >> and prosecution. It is unlikely that any claim or prosecution would >> be brought against a pedestrian for crossing the road when the >> little man was red. > > Rules for pedestrians: > > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108 I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although I do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution which pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to motorways and level crossings. I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking" or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication. HTH
From: mileburner on 25 Jun 2010 09:39 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i02b1u$ekl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Derek C wrote: >> >> Rules for pedestrians: >> >> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108 > > I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although > I do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution > which pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to > motorways and level crossings. > > I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking" > or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication. Oh I get you now... You think that "Rules for pedestrians" in the Highway Code means that these are "Laws" which pedestrians must obey. They are not. The "rules" in the Highway Code are in fact Rules of the Code (not rules enshrined in law). Where a Highway Code rule *is* a legal requirement it is denoted by the words MUST/MUST NOT in the rule. Otherwise, the Highway Code is just that, a code.
From: Matt B on 25 Jun 2010 09:45 On 25/06/2010 14:15, Derek C wrote: > On Jun 25, 11:37 am, Matt B<matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: >> On 25/06/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote: >> >> >> >>> Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster >>> than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code. >> >> It's only not sensible where people don't do it and so drivers/riders >> aren't expecting it to happen there. >> >> There are places where it is the norm and perfectly sensible, and where >> the roads are safer as a consequence. >> >> The way we kowtowed to vehicular traffic in the middle decades of the >> 20th century and initiatives such as the green cross code have led to >> the number of places where it is not sensible increasing and thus to the >> roads becoming less safe. >> >>> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the >>> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be. >> >> On the roads where there is a separate footpath, yes. And this may well >> be how the whole problem started, by pedestrians giving de-facto >> priority to vehicles on the roadway where there were also footways. >> >> Having been virtually granted it, and taught from a young age that >> drivers/riders must have it, they do, of course, take it for granted. >> >>> Pedestrians >>> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to >>> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. >> >> Yes, where there is a footpath this has unfortunately been the consequence. >> >>> They >>> have no God given or legal rights to do this, >> >> They have exactly the same right to use the roadway as drivers/riders do. >> >>> and would be considered >>> legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing >>> so without taking due care and attention. >> >> They also, as drivers/riders do, have the duty to use the roads >> responsibly and with due care. That is of course if they are old enough >> and capable of understanding that duty. >> >> Of course it isn't only pedestrians (compos mentis or otherwise) that >> might unexpectedly enter the road into the path of traffic, and >> drivers/riders need to be able to avoid collisions with them too. >> >> -- > > Rules for pedestrians: > > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108 Yes, but what point are you making? They reinforce what I said - don't they? Was I wrong about something? Do you disagree with something I wrote? You'll notice that there are only 3 or 4 *MUST NOT*s, and none of them relate to what we were discussing; they are the only ones that are legally enforceable. The rest are "common sense" advice, some of which I believe has led to the problems that we have today. -- Matt B
From: Just zis Guy, you know? on 25 Jun 2010 12:49
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:32:46 -0700 (PDT), Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >Several little old ladies have been knocked over and killed or >seriously injured by cyclists in my area. I bet that was statistically >significant (relevent) to them! No, statistically significant has a very specific meaning, and that is not it. It may well have been relevant but it was not /statistically/ significant. I am no fan of pavement cycling, by the way, and avoid it where practicable. I have been harassed off one route altogether by drivers trying to "educate" me about the excellence of pavements as a place to cycle, in one case by attempting to side-swipe we with a 38T truck. I avoided it by the very narrowest of margins. And yes it bloody well was deliberate. So I think it's time to stop preaching to the choir and work on the real culprits: councils with their Magic White Paint (TM). Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed to be worth the price paid. |