Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
The red man.Who said pedestrians come second?
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
The red man.Who said pedestrians come second?
Technically yes.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.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?
Only if you are crossing at a junction, see below.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).
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).
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.
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
Here we go again....
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)!
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.
Is that response aimed at my post?
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.
Yes, absolutely.
Your attitude is implicit in your statements about where pedestrians "should" and "should not" cross.
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.
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.