Worst nightmare....

[yagamuffin]

just to add to this...when i teach cycling prof...all the car drivers are polite and careful around them.i wonder what they would be like if they didnt have hi viz vests on....

footnote
should all cyclists and mbikers wear h viz vests by law ~?
as far as im aware in france its going to be mandatory for all mbikers to have too.from there its a short step for all on two wheels id say.

Would make Le Tour interesting with 200 yellow jerseys on the start line!

 

[JamesM]

So the car has the right to turn into a road he currently doesn't occupy over the pedestrians right to step onto the same road?

Yes, assuming the pedestrian is still on the pavement, and all other things are equal - say no crossings.

That basically gives the car a priority over this new piece of road that neither have currently laid claim too, meaning the cars have a greater right of way.

Cars have greater priority than pedestrians, when pedestrians are not actually crossing, and not on some kind of crossing.

Unless of course the pedestrian was never on the pavement and was infact walking down the road next to the pavement. But that would just put him in the same position as a car traveling up the road which would also have the right of way here. I'm strugling to see here how a pedestrian has anymore rights of way than a car, I just know they do.

When a pedestrian is crossing the road, they have priority.

When they're not crossing the road, and are on the pavement, vehicles have priority.

All other things being equal, and we're not talking about any kind of pedestrian crossing.

If a car is at a junction pulling out onto a road from a side road and a pedestrian is waiting on the pavement to cross that side road who has right of way here? Surely the car must give way as he is at a give way line?

The car has priority, until such time as the pedestrian is already crossing.

The give way lines are to show priority to traffic using the road the car is about to join.

So in short then, pedestrians have the right of way on the road when they are on the road. But, when they aren't on the road they don't have right of way on the road. But why would they, they aren't on the road.

 

[Neil]

So the car has the right to turn into a road he currently doesn't occupy over the pedestrians right to step onto the same road?

Yes, assuming the pedestrian is still on the pavement, and all other things are equal - say no crossings.

That basically gives the car a priority over this new piece of road that neither have currently laid claim too, meaning the cars have a greater right of way.

Cars have greater priority than pedestrians, when pedestrians are not actually crossing, and not on some kind of crossing.

Unless of course the pedestrian was never on the pavement and was infact walking down the road next to the pavement. But that would just put him in the same position as a car traveling up the road which would also have the right of way here. I'm strugling to see here how a pedestrian has anymore rights of way than a car, I just know they do.

When a pedestrian is crossing the road, they have priority.

When they're not crossing the road, and are on the pavement, vehicles have priority.

All other things being equal, and we're not talking about any kind of pedestrian crossing.

If a car is at a junction pulling out onto a road from a side road and a pedestrian is waiting on the pavement to cross that side road who has right of way here? Surely the car must give way as he is at a give way line?

The car has priority, until such time as the pedestrian is already crossing.

The give way lines are to show priority to traffic using the road the car is about to join.

So in short then, pedestrians have the right of way on the road when they are on the road. But, when they aren't on the road they don't have right of way on the road. But why would they, they aren't on the road.

(shrug) you were asking about that very thing...

Best not to confuse rights with priority, though - that's why the term "right of way" tends not to be used any more.

 

[JamesM]

Yeah I must confess I fail to see the difference between right of way and priority too.

I ran home from work today along some 9 miles worth of busy A road with dozens of side roads. Had I waited at every side road until no vehicles approached (as you stated I should in an earlier post) I'd still be there now. In that situation I'd be much better off running down the road itself rather than the pavement.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It is really down to common sense.

Like you say, it would take forever if you were waiting for an empty road every time. You are running, you decide how much of a gap to leave.

Legally you should not be running out into the road, but why not unless it caused a car to stop abruptly?

I see this the same way I see cycling on the pavement.

I really don't expect to get stopped for riding on the pavement unless there are pedestrians using it and I am riding amongst them unsafely.

The law versus the reality of life.

The law really is there for those who would run out in front of a vehicle and cause an issue, not for those who are trying to take the healthy alternative to motorised transport.

 

[JamesM]

The way I see it is if I'm standing on a pavement next to a road waiting to cross a side road and cars are approaching the side road how am I suposed to know whether they intend turning in on not. How far up the road do I need to look and try to judge if a car is intending to turn in before I'm allowed to exert my priority over them? As far as I'm concerned if the car hasn't actually comitted to turning into the side road then I'm going to step of the pavement, and once I do its my right of way. If said car is turing right (with its indicator on so its intention is clear) and has to cross the other lane but is having to wait due to oncoming traffic then again I'm going to step off the pavement and once I do he can wait for me too, even if there is no no more oncoming traffic blocking his way. Otherwise as I said, I'd be there all day.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I know where you are coming from.

My wife runs most days, and charges over the junctions. She is used to London traffic, and the cut and thrust thereof.

I have always been cautious around urban roads.

When you are running at a decent pace you are taking next to no time across the roads so no one is really having to wait.

I don't see the harm.

The difference is where you come into conflict with another road user you ran out 'in front' of.

The court would decide where fault lies, regardless of how obvious things look, but it would be likely to find against you had you ran out at pace if the other road user was within the safe guidelines.

 

[Neil]

Yeah I must confess I fail to see the difference between right of way and priority too.

Because rights implies something different - which is often - as witnessed in this thread, confused and conflated to mean something else.

Pedestrians have rights to use roads, vehicles are allowed to use the roads by privilege.

Priority whilst using the road is a different thing - that's likely the reason why they'd (you know, them) prefer the old-fashioned "right of way" phrase to disappear into the sunset - fade to black.

Yet some can't leave it alone, and conflate / confuse it with other aspects of road use.

I ran home from work today along some 9 miles worth of busy A road with dozens of side roads. Had I waited at every side road until no vehicles approached (as you stated I should in an earlier post) I'd still be there now. In that situation I'd be much better off running down the road itself rather than the pavement.

In fairness, the roads aren't there to suit one demographs personal use - and when running like you are, you are notably faster than pedestrians, and emerging onto roads faster, so using them in an atypical fashion.

As highlandsflyer has said - there's no point trying to assert your claim to priority from beneath the wheels of a vehicle.

Dashing out into the road, then asserting you have "right of way" is no better than a vehicle driving considerably faster than ideal for the conditions, then complaining when there's an obstruction - both are race conditions, then appeal that placing and position stakes priority - so don't delude yourself on that score.

You want to carry on with what you're doing - fine - I hope you don't live - or not live as the case may be - to regret it - just don't be under the misunderstanding that by running out into the road, you're suddenly putting the weight of "right" (as you put it) on your sudden position, and vehicles and their drivers "wrong" when they complain, or worse.

 

[markwashington]

I don't understand the rights or not of crossing or not crossing a road as a pedestrian, I just tend to use crossings or make sure nothing's coming.

I've only been involved in three cycle related accidents, one was when a driver opened their door on me as I was passing their car. The driver in question was exceptionally old and could barely see over the steering wheel, so presumably the side mirrors were also an issue. In fairness he was very nice, especially as I'd just totalled the door of a brand new BMW.

The second was on my daily commute to Heathrow Airport, I was in one of those "ghost" islands turning right a I got shunted by a double decker bus. The driver was very contrite although her excuse was that she couldn't see me as she was only looking for cars.

The third time was when I was at university (ages ago) and I was the victim. I was walking along a pavement and a guy on a bike ploughed straight into me. I was knocked into the road, into oncoming traffic, luckily the driver managed to brake and I was ok, I have no problem with people cycling on the pavement as long as they only cycle as quickly as people are walking, otherwise they should be on the roads.

 

[Neil]

m

I don't understand the rights or not of crossing or not crossing a road as a pedestrian

It's nothing like as complex as it's being made out.

It's really quite simple - if a pedestrian is crossing a road (assuming it's not a motorway, or other type of road where pedestrians are not permitted), regardless of whether they are on a crossing, or not, have priority at that point. That means that drivers who sound their horn, or rant and rage are doing so from a position of ignorance - or perhaps that the pedestrian didn't ensure that the road was (or would have been) reasonably clear before crossing.

Assuming no crossings, if a pedestrian is on the pavement, vehicles have priority on the road.

What isn't catered for, easily, within those quite simple concepts, is runners crossing roads quickly, pedestrians just suddenly taking a wild hair and darting into the road (as a consequence / extrapolation of those suggesting - "Well I got their first, I have priority..." - this scenario is a suggestion that merely being in the road, suddenly, does not automatically mean approaching or colliding traffic are in the wrong), and vehicles driving too fast for the conditions, or into other roads, then behaving like somebody has taken the jam out of their donut when they suddenly discover pedestrians crossing and in their way.

I just tend to use crossings or make sure nothing's coming.

Ah, common sense, it has been a while, I've missed you...

I've only been involved in three cycle related accidents, one was when a driver opened their door on me as I was passing their car. The driver in question was exceptionally old and could barely see over the steering wheel, so presumably the side mirrors were also an issue. In fairness he was very nice, especially as I'd just totalled the door of a brand new BMW.

Well in fairness, it very much sounds like he was in the wrong, and cosmetic damage to a door could have been the least of the damage.

Near misses, or worse, collisions when somebody suddenly opens a car door, makes for heightened observation when passing cars - I always look for evidence of somebody inside, and / or give cars a wide berth where conditions allow.

The second was on my daily commute to Heathrow Airport, I was in one of those "ghost" islands turning right a I got shunted by a double decker bus. The driver was very contrite although her excuse was that she couldn't see me as she was only looking for cars.

And my experience tells me that's not an isolated thing- people only really looking for cars / vehicles. A contributory factor in me no longer being particularly comfortable cycling on the road, these days.