"Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way"
That's rule 170. Is it the most abused and ignored rule in the Highway code?
How many times everyday do you see this rule bent or broken, by both cars and bikes? Maybe you give the pedestrian a little wave to say 'thanks' or 'sorry' when they give way to you?
Imagine what the streets would be like if this rule was followed? How much nicer would it be getting your kids to school, stopping in at the corner shop for the newspaper and milk, your evening stroll to the park with the dog?
So, why is the nicewaycode not targeting that?
6 comments:
In Germany (and I think most other European countries too) a similar rule isgenerally respected, and it does make an enormous difference.
In fact, the German rule is stronger. Pedestrians have not only priority when they "have already started to cross" (as in UK), but cars have to wait if pedestrians show an intention of crossing the side road. Intention means, for example, if a pedestrian is approaching the junction in normal walking speed, the car driver has to assume that the pedestrian actually wants to cross, so has to give way.
Does this include junctions with a pelican crossing do you know? i.e. if a pedestrian has started to cross on a red man do they still have right of way?
Hmmm....red man/green man only advisory, but if at a cross street, then there is presumably a red light as well as a red man? So presume they should not go. Certainly have always presumed this applied only to non-signalized junctions. Will see if I can find someone who knows better than me.
I was knockdown halfway across a junction the car driver said she did not see me her insurance say it is my fault
Another thought on the German situation, also in response to nick's experience.
With the different rules of priority (see above) and stricter liability, it's no excuse for a driver to say "I didn't see you". The driver has an obligation to look and make sure there are no pedestrians.
I read about a case, for example, where a child was hit when crossing the road. The driver said the child was hidden by the mother who was pushing a pram, and the mother had stopped so he thought he could pass, when the child suddenly ran out from behind the pram. however, the driver was found to be responsible because in such a situation the driver should reasonably expect another child with the mother, and he should have been extra careful and slow.
Anyway, the rule 170 (whether in its current form or an improved form) will certainly be taken more seriously once strict liability is introduced, as the "didn't see you mate" excuse is no longer valid.
On this same issue - my understanding is that is UK law too. pedestrians can go anywhere and we must stop for them, even if they're walking on red etc. sounds to me like insurance company is out of line, but I'm not an expert.
Post a Comment