From: Adrian on 25 Jun 2010 05:40
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>> Is his name Doug, by any chance?
> I don't know, I'll ask him.
If he denies being Doug Bollen, then he quite probably is.
From: mileburner on 25 Jun 2010 05:42
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote in message
>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>> "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote in message
>>>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now
>>>>> for pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using
>>>>> crossings. There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned
>>>>> 'Stop, look and listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic
>>>>> will stop for them. This is very noticeable particularly at
>>>>> pedestrian crossings.
>>>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>>>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange
>>>> beacons at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars
>>>> will have stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!
>> There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly
>> fail to to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic
>> can be moving at speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently
>> drummed into my kids to, always check the traffic even if the man is
>> green, especially since I had to grab one of them to stop crossing
>> the road when the man was green but a car was approaching at speed
>> and didn't stop anyway.
>>> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one
>>> almost outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking
>>> up to the kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no
>>> pause to see if there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes
>>> a couple of cars may go by before one stops for me when I wait at
>>> the kerb. And a small waive of acknowledgement or a mouthed
>>> 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not go amiss either. It
>>> certainly seems to be the younger age range (even including school
>>> age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.
>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as
>> his duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present
>> his "Stop" sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does
>> not even wait for there to be somone wanting to cross the road.
>> Instead he will jump in front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the
>> pavement if they want to cross. And they do not always want to.
> Then report him - he is supposed to stand at a the side with his
> lolly pop sticking out into the road a little until the cars stop -
> then he should walk into the middle and have people cross in front of
> him. I think you are completely within your rights to run him down if
> he "darts into the road completely unannounced"!
 I have reported him, at the police station. The following day he had a
supervisor with him.
 Again today he nipped out from behind a (tall) car coming in the
 I nearly did run him over once, got out of the car and tried to have a
poilite word with him.
I thought they are supposed to hold the lollipop upside down when not
commanding the traffic to stop, and to show the sign before marching into
the road. They had a campaign some time ago "Stop Means Stop" (which is fair
enough). This guy seems to think if he runs in front of cars unannounced
they will stop. They do. One day though, one day...
From: mileburner on 25 Jun 2010 06:15
Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:33 am, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 9:40 am, Matt B <matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt B<matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent<jennings...(a)fastmail.fm> considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
>>>>>>> 16:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the
>>>>>>>>> pedestrian crossing"
>>>>>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between
>>>>>>>> cycling along a footway and failing to accord precedence to a
>>>>>>>> pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.
>>>>>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
>>>>>>> lights (if present).
>>>>>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and
>>>>>>> there was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>>>>>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only
>>>>>>> on their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>>>>>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
>>>>>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would
>>>>>> be unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk
>>>>>> out (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>>>>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking
>>>>> first that it is safe to do so.
>>>> Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders
>>>> certainly can't bank on then doing so.
>>>>> I seem to remember that this was called the
>>>>> Green Cross Code when I was at school.
>>>> Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and
>>>> to always kowtow to them. That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the
>>>> problems we now have on our roads. Generations of drivers and
>>>> riders who were taught from an early age that as such they can take
>>>> de-facto priority over pedestrians on the streets.
>>>>> Otherwise they are committing
>>>>> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>>>> There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. All road users have
>>>> equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific,
>>>> and local exceptions).
>>>>> Pedestrians only have right of way at
>>>>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch
>>>>> out for RLJing cyclists).
>>>> No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads,
>>>> despite what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them
>>>> to believe. That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow
>>>> the sensible advice laid down in the highway code.
>>> 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.
>>> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
>>> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.
>>> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
>>> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. They
>>> have no God given or legal rights to do this, and would be
>>> considered legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a
>>> result of doing so without taking due care and attention.
>> Since it was pointed out that stepping onto the road is *not* a
>> criminal offence, you are now trying to claim that stepping on to
>> the road is negligent if a pedestrian is injured or killed as a
>> result. That itself is a huge leap of (mis) information and if you
>> carry on like that by the end of the day a pedestrian in the road
>> will be entirely exempt from any blame whatsoever.- Hide quoted text
>> - Show quoted text -
> In the UK pedestrians have the right to enter roadways, except
> motorways. Otherwise we would not be able to cross the road, or to
> travel on foot on those country roads that do not have footpaths.
> However you are still expected to exercise this right in a responsible
Wow, the shift is now complete in going from incorrect information to what
is reasonable and correct.
From: Matt B on 25 Jun 2010 06:37
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.
> 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.
> 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.
From: Derek C on 25 Jun 2010 09:11
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: