Accident on Newport Road - Tue 13th Mar 2012

Toble

Well-Known Forumite
Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. I'm fairly certain that it is stated very early on in The Highway Code (a document I believe should be mandatory to carry in a car).
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
So if a pedestrian jumps out on you, they have right of way? So I can throw myself in front of slow moving traffic, go see parasitesRus for a no win -no fee - no morals representation and be quids in?
 

gilbert grape

Well-Known Forumite
So if a pedestrian jumps out on you, they have right of way? So I can throw myself in front of slow moving traffic, go see parasitesRus for a no win -no fee - no morals representation and be quids in?
That was the point I was sort of trying to make in a less forthright manner, due to my own experience in that area, including being spat and and abused for daring to beep my horn at somebody who ran through my headlights.
I dont want a drawn out debate on Cars V Pedestrians V Cyclists etc etc, just want people to value their own lives a little more.
PS - I drive, walk and Cycle myself.
 

Wyred

Well-Known Forumite
Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. I'm fairly certain that it is stated very early on in The Highway Code (a document I believe should be mandatory to carry in a car).
Only if you are crossing at a junction, see below.
Highway Code Rule 8
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).
Extract from Highway Code Rule 170
Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way.
 

wizzard

Well-Known Forumite
Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. I'm fairly certain that it is stated very early on in The Highway Code (a document I believe should be mandatory to carry in a car).

Yes they have the right of way on a pedestrian crossing, not running over 2 lanes of traffic because they cannot be bothered to walk down to the traffic lights to cross where it is safe to cross. Yes it's bad that this accident has happened, but most of the accidents on that stretch of road are caused by pedestrians not bothering to spend a minute crossing where they are supposed to be crossing.
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
I get really annoyed by the attitude that pedestrians come second to motorised traffic and that traffic has the ultimate right of way. Using a crossing is no guarantee of safety either - count how many cars go through any set of lights in Stafford on red, it's appalling. That whole area is crap for pedestrians because we mustn't delay motorists more than necessary must we?

Just because someone may have been crossing away from where you think they "should" have crossed doesn't make it all their fault.

Here we go again.... :xd:

How's this for an idea... cars have priority on roads, pedestrians have priority on the pavements and trains have priority on train tracks.... If a car needs to cross a footpath / railway then it gives way to a pedestrian/train, if a pedestrian needs to cross a road / railway then they give way to the car / train.

This whole "poor pedestrian being bullied by big mean motorist" inferiority complex does you no favours... the fact is that pedestrians DO have priority, ON A CROSSING (when active if applicable)!
 

staff4ord

Well-Known Forumite
It would make it a little safer if the pedestrian railings went all the way along. This would stop people crossing in a dangerous place
 

Em L

Mental Floss
I have a friend who argued that pedestrians should automatically have right of way as if they are hit by something they are more likely to come off worse - in this instance though that just isn't true, the bloke who came off the motorbike was in a far worse state than the pedestrian (who incidentally is out of hospital now thank god)
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
Here we go again.... :xd:

How's this for an idea... cars have priority on roads, pedestrians have priority on the pavements and trains have priority on train tracks.... If a car needs to cross a footpath / railway then it gives way to a pedestrian/train, if a pedestrian needs to cross a road / railway then they give way to the car / train.

Nope.

This whole "poor pedestrian being bullied by big mean motorist" inferiority complex does you no favours... the fact is that pedestrians DO have priority, ON A CROSSING (when active if applicable)!

It isn't about complexes. It's about a simple statement of fact - our urban spaces largely favour the car over the pedestrian. It isn't all about segragating everybody into where they "should" or "shouldn't" be as according to those who favour their car.

Where signalised crossings are concerned they only give priority to the pedestrians when the crossing deems it convenient for traffic... The crossing outside the station takes forever to change yet is probably used by as many pedestrians in an hour as there are cars driving up Station Road, yet cars are given far greater priority.
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
Yes they have the right of way on a pedestrian crossing[

Why shouldn't pedestrians be afforded consideration elsewhere then?

, not running over 2 lanes of traffic because they cannot be bothered to walk down to the traffic lights to cross where it is safe to cross. Yes it's bad that this accident has happened, but most of the accidents on that stretch of road are caused by pedestrians not bothering to spend a minute crossing where they are supposed to be crossing.

I see. So there's never any lack of observation and anticipation on a car driver's part? Or driving in the "get out of my way" manner that a lot of drivers demonstrate towards pedestrians?

The fact is apart from motorways pedestrians have the right to cross the road anywhere ,not just at crossings. People need to be driving with that in mind and not place pedestrians as being in the wrong because they exercise that choice.
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
Is that response aimed at my post?

Yes, absolutely.


If so, read it again and take note at my sympathy for the situation and basic common sense. Motor cyclist and pedestrian injured in an avoidable accident. Who said pedestrians come second? Pedestrians shouldnt walk in roads when theres traffic moving in the same way cars shouldnt drive on pavements. Basic self preservation and common sense.
I hope both make full recoveries and are not permanently scarred by the experience.

Your attitude is implicit in your statements about where pedestrians "should" and "should not" cross.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
So if a car pulls out on you they are in the wrong, but if a pedestrian runs out at you somewhow you think they should have priority? I don't even drive and I think thats BS!
 

gilbert grape

Well-Known Forumite
Yes, absolutely.




Your attitude is implicit in your statements about where pedestrians "should" and "should not" cross.

Implicit or factual? You got me on that one? I think time and place comes into it, surely.......
This could go on forever and probably will.
 

staff4ord

Well-Known Forumite
The big problem is there is no come back against pedestrians at all. You can't get a ticket from the police for crossing on a red light and cause an accident. But you can in a car.
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
Where signalised crossings are concerned they only give priority to the pedestrians when the crossing deems it convenient for traffic...

If that was the case then the crossings would never activate as it would never be convenient..... ha.

The crossing outside the station takes forever to change yet is probably used by as many pedestrians in an hour as there are cars driving up Station Road, yet cars are given far greater priority.

For the same reasons that traffic lights are on green for 30 seconds or a minute each time and not 10 seconds... stopping and starting (whether cars or pedestrians or anything) disrupts flow because of the buffer that is needed to ensure one lot have stopped before the other lot start.... If the lights changed the second anyone pressed the button, at peak times the whole of Stafford would be gridlock, the same as if the lights stayed green (for cars) everytime a car approached no one would ever get to cross the road....

But I wouldn't expect any of the above to change your selfish attitude of "if I am at the crossing, I want to cross instantly and to hell with everyone else"......
 
5

52.8N-2.1W

Guest
However they rework that area they have to take into consideration that it is not in the human nature to double back on yourself unless absolutely necessary so if you can jump something and save a few steps many who can will.
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
The big problem is there is no come back against pedestrians at all.

Why is it a problem?

You can't get a ticket from the police for crossing on a red light and cause an accident. But you can in a car.

No, because crossing the road isn't illegal. If a pedestrian does cross on a "red light" then the risk is to them, if a car goes through one then the risk is killing someone else. Red light jumping by cars is absolutely rife in Stafford, and the enforcement/risk of a penalty is round about zero.
 
Top