Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The problem, matthew123, is that you are wrong - and your own posts of the Code show that. You have made two points repeatedly: that "pedestrians have right of way at junctions" and that "pedestrians have priority at road junctions". Both statements are dangerously wrong as they miss a very, very important point.


Skidmarks' post is correct, though. The code says that pedestrians have priority provided they have started to cross. This is an important distinction. If a pedestrian steps out into the path of a car turning at that junction they will be at fault: as per highway code rule 7d [pedestrians] If traffic is coming, let it pass and highway code rule 8: [pedestrians] At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you.


So, if a pedestrian wished to cross the road at a junction and a car wishes to turn at that junction the car has the right of way. If the pedestrian has already begun to cross then - and only then - do they have priority.


The exception to this is at a zebra crossing where pedestrians do indeed have right of way.

What LOZ said?

Totally.



I see so many pedestrians who don?t even bother looking.



Arrogant Footers?

Or death wish Footers?

Or followers of the Matthew123 school of walking?


? It?s bleedin annoying.



When I walk across junctions I look I wait for the cars I?m in no hurry to end up in hospital.


I?ve noticed pedestrians are getting more and more arrogant.


I see pedestrian rage every day at crossings they try to cross on the red man and then get annoyed when you drive through on a green light.



Rush Rush Rush



Pedestrians who are rushing for WHAT? An accident?




Idiotic ARROGANCE.



Edit


Forgot to add


"STUPID FOOTERS"!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What a ridiculous plan. If this is to stop traffic "cutting through" where do they think it is now going to "cut through" via? Has the council produced any data on the scale of the problem on Ryedale - anything to back up their hypothesis? You cannot do these things in isolation as all it does is displaces traffic elsewhere. Dunstans is going to become awful - I feel for the residents there. Councils should not be allowed to implement these experimental TMOs, they are clearly using them to circumvent proper planning and engagement. Has anyone contacted the local councillors about this? The laughable thing was the local ward councillors were concerned about displacement from the wider Dulwich LTNs on their ward so is this an indirect acknowledgement that they are being impacted?  Ridiculous.  
    • I would never leave my dog tied up outside a shop nowadays. A large proportion of ‘dogs stolen’ notices feature dogs nicked from outside shops- fancy dogs, old dogs, mongrels , all sorts. Stolen on a whim, for mischief, for profit or as a bait dog to train fighters. A thief might abandon them shortly afterwards, but the heartbreak and confusion is already done and a reunion not guaranteed.
    • It's a terrible idea, will damage trade in Forest Hill Road and is just creating a nice private road for someone to enjoy. Congestion in the road is caused mainly by delivery vans, well, let's help stamp out those scourges. And an 18 month trial is at least a year too long if you are just interested in judging impact. And there has been no consultation at all, save, perhaps, with the privileged Rydale-ers. I live a block away in Underhill and I've heard only via social media. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...