yagamuffin
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
gibbleking":3779qgsz said:
Would make Le Tour interesting with 200 yellow jerseys on the start line!
Worst nightmare....
- Thread starter saltyman
- Start date
Would make Le Tour interesting with 200 yellow jerseys on the start line!
(shrug) you were asking about that very thing...JamesM":1ifvmrl2 said: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":1ifvmrl2 said:
Best not to confuse rights with priority, though - that's why the term "right of way" tends not to be used any more.
JamesM
Senior Retro Guru
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.
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
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
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.
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
Senior Retro Guru
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
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
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.
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.
Because rights implies something different - which is often - as witnessed in this thread, confused and conflated to mean something else.JamesM":2clyla40 said:
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.
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.JamesM":2clyla40 said:
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
Senior Retro Guru
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.
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.
m
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.
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.
It's nothing like as complex as it's being made out.markwashington":1as35c49 said:
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.
Ah, common sense, it has been a while, I've missed you...markwashington":1as35c49 said:
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.markwashington":1as35c49 said:
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.
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.markwashington":1as35c49 said:
