[Article] Pedestrians getting killed at alarming rate

mike65

from Limerick Post

GARDAI are again reminding all members of the public that they should exercise extreme caution while using Irish roads as national figures for road fatalities for 2007 are released.

Analysis of fatal traffic collisions nationally indicates that 13 pedestrians, 12 drivers, six passengers and two cyclists have been killed this year already.

With the main bulk of fatalities among pedestrians, motorists are urged to be more conscious of pedestrians on the road.

"A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30km per hour has a 90 per cent chance of survival. Hit at 50km per hour 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed if hit at 60km per hour," a spokesperson for the Garda Press office said.

Pedestrians are advised to wear bright, reflective clothing and to walk facing oncoming traffic. They are also asked to use footpaths, pedestrian and designated crossings (where available) and to take whatever other steps necessary to ensure their safety on the roads.

The number is now 15 out of 34 killed as of last night. So whats the story? Just usual reckless winter walking behaviour or might it be a side-effect of the drink-driving crackdown as the slightly worse for wear weave thier way home along dark narrow roads.?

Mike.

KTRIC

People around my neighbourhood seem to just walk out in front of on coming cars, when they see the car coming they actually slow down, then they wonder why the pedestrian deaths are up.

Seems to be the same story in the city center, just wandering out in front of fast moving bikes / cars and hoping for the best. Then when you beep them they don't even acknowledge you.

When people get a bit of cop on then the deaths will decrease.

b3t4

I'd like to know a little more about these accidents.

1. What speed what the car travelling at?
2. Was the car within the speed limit?
3. Was the pedestrian at fault or the driver?
4. Where did these accidents take place?
5. Ages of the pedestrians?

I've noticed, from the reports that I have heard, is that a good few of the people killed were elderly. I know that at some crossings they do not allow enough time for someone elderly to cross the road.

As a pedestrian in Dublin I have seen the following behaviour
1. Blatant breaking of red lights. I have to make myself very sure that the cars are actually going to stop before I begin to cross the road.
2. The people who break the lights but realise that they won't make it before the other cars move and park on the area meant for pedestrians to cross. Some of these drivers then don't take any note that the green light for pedestrians is on and move forward when a pedestrian is trying to manoeuvre around their car.
3. The speeders who's only care appears to be to get to wherever they are going as fast as possible regardless of the fact that they are in a built up area.

Pedestrians could also do with listening to the safe cross code a couple of times. Does anyone know why they stopped teaching this to kids? My next door neighbour who's 11 doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about when I mention it.

A.

Zoney

KTRIC wrote:

When people get a bit of cop on then the deaths will decrease.

Yes, including motorists who speed up when approaching lights or junctions (in order to "get out"), those who speed up approaching zebra crossings (to get across before a pedestrian starts to cross) or who just blatantly don't give way to pedestrians at Zebras. Motorists who don't indicate before turning at a roundabout exit or junction (where of course pedestrians cross) are also morons. I know of at least one location where most vehicles don't indicate, but from the central pedestrian island one cannot tell if a vehicle will be turning or proceeding round the roundabout based on its trajectory.

Then we have the issue of all these "pseudo-crossings" so favoured in Ireland, where a dish in the pavement is provided and nothing else (or even sometimes, ped crossing warning signs despite it not being a proper zebra crossing). The mind boggles as to an actual wheelchair-bound individual rolling out onto the road at some of these dished pavement positions.

There should be far more zebra crossings in Ireland - fortunately the authorities seem to be cottoning on to this, and being a bit more sensible too as to where they site them (i.e. not just off roundabout exits, but with pavements realigned so that the natural crossing point for pedestrians is further back from it, as well as the zebra crossing being sited further back).

Most roundabouts in Ireland are deathtraps for pedestrians and cyclists, and not too good for motorists avoiding knocks either.

It is little wonder pedestrians too have bad habits, considering there is no attempt to be "proper" about real crossing points. We cannot just continue to make things up as we go along in this country, and we will not foster adherence to laws and common-sense until our infrastructure is an environment in which they can feasably be exercised. Motorists - I need only say one thing - speed limits - for you to know what I mean.

b3t4

That's another good one Zoney. The whole no indication or indication when they aren't in fact going either left or right. I swear some motorists believe me to be pyshic at times. This has led to two near misses that I can remember.

A

daymobrew

Zoney wrote:

Then we have the issue of all these "pseudo-crossings" so favoured in Ireland, where a dish in the pavement is provided and nothing else (or even sometimes, ped crossing warning signs despite it not being a proper zebra crossing). The mind boggles as to an actual wheelchair-bound individual rolling out onto the road at some of these dished pavement positions.

In California there is an implied crosswalk (with pedestrian priority) at such locations. As a pedestrian moves toward one of these, motorists almost stop in fear (they know that the law[suit] will come down hard on them).

Zoney wrote:

There should be far more zebra crossings in Ireland - fortunately the authorities seem to be cottoning on to this, and being a bit more sensible too as to where they site them (i.e. not just off roundabout exits, but with pavements realigned so that the natural crossing point for pedestrians is further back from it, as well as the zebra crossing being sited further back).

Agreed. My favourite crossing point in the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre is the zebra crossing in front of the library. The other crossing points are traffic light controlled where pedestrians are made to wait. On one side of the centre they shut off the pedestrian crossing at weekends, to keep car traffic flowing. All customers to the place become pedestrians at some point!

BrianD

b3t4 wrote:

I'd like to know a little more about these accidents.

1. What speed what the car travelling at?
2. Was the car within the speed limit?
3. Was the pedestrian at fault or the driver?
4. Where did these accidents take place?
5. Ages of the pedestrians?

I've noticed, from the reports that I have heard, is that a good few of the people killed were elderly. I know that at some crossings they do not allow enough time for someone elderly to cross the road.

As a pedestrian in Dublin I have seen the following behaviour
1. Blatant breaking of red lights. I have to make myself very sure that the cars are actually going to stop before I begin to cross the road.
2. The people who break the lights but realise that they won't make it before the other cars move and park on the area meant for pedestrians to cross. Some of these drivers then don't take any note that the green light for pedestrians is on and move forward when a pedestrian is trying to manoeuvre around their car.
3. The speeders who's only care appears to be to get to wherever they are going as fast as possible regardless of the fact that they are in a built up area.

Pedestrians could also do with listening to the safe cross code a couple of times. Does anyone know why they stopped teaching this to kids? My next door neighbour who's 11 doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about when I mention it.

A.

Of course motorists have a responsibility of care and when a motorist exceeds the speed limit or breaks a red light the consequences can be horrific.

However, the number of times that the issues that you point out occur is insignificant compared with the number of times that pedestrians jay walk. Even if a motorist breaks a pedestrian redlight as it turns yellow to red a pedestrian is safe provided they obey their signal. Same applies to a car where the motorist is technically in control but speeding and if the pedestrian stays on the footpath.

Every morning, I meet business people walking down the centre of the street (not crossing it ....walking down it!!) Peope scurrying accross pedestrian crossings when it is not safe to do so and people wandering through traffic that is stationary. This is a massive risk if trucks are in stationary traffic as the driver can mot see those who decide to wander in front of them.

Plus if you have the pedestrians at night time particularly in unlit areas who do not make thmselves visible to other road users at night.

I think that you might find that pedestrians might need to ask themselves first how they can reduce the risk. The reality is that some motorists don't indicate but the majority of pedestrians will jay walk - I do it myself.

markpb

BrianD wrote:

However, the number of times that the issues that you point out occur is insignificant compared with the number of times that pedestrians jay walk. Even if a motorist breaks a pedestrian redlight as it turns yellow to red a pedestrian is safe provided they obey their signal. Same applies to a car where the motorist is technically in control but speeding and if the pedestrian stays on the footpath.

I won't say that drivers and pedestrians aren't at fault but it's been shown in several European studies that Dublin is a very pedestrians unfriendly city. Crossings are badly positioned, have longer wait times than most cities in Europe and the system is almost always prioritised for cars.

I spoke with DCC about making some pedestrian crossings go green when it wouldn't conflict with car movements and they said they didn't do it because it would slow down cars too much, ie waiting for pedestrians to finish crossing when there were no cars moving in the opposite direction. Basically, keep cars moving and facilitate pedestrians only when absolutely necessary seems to be the policy.

If there were more crossings and you didn't have to wait 3+ minutes to get a green light, people might be more willing to cross the road legally.

b3t4

BrianD wrote:

However, the number of times that the issues that you point out occur is insignificant compared with the number of times that pedestrians jay walk.

I see the issues I pointed out happen every single day in Dublin. Motorists in Dublin only seem have one care and that's about themselves.

Even if a motorist breaks a pedestrian redlight as it turns yellow to red a pedestrian is safe provided they obey their signal.

If it was only people breaking the yellow that was a concern I wouldn't be too bothered. Speeding through a yellow isn't the safest behaviour mind. I've seen motorist break red lights in Dublin.

Plus if you have the pedestrians at night time particularly in unlit areas who do not make themselves visible to other road users at night.

I'd be interested to know how much this was a factor in the deaths of these pedestrians.

A.

Zoney

BrianD wrote:

Plus if you have the pedestrians at night time particularly in unlit areas who do not make thmselves visible to other road users at night.

Not much hope there when there are plenty of *motorists* who don't make themselves visible! There are a serious number of people driving around with a broken headlight or taillight, and many more who insist on not putting on their headlights in low visibility (even heavy rain and fog nevermind dusk and moderate rain/drizzle) - and then those misguided individuals who use their parking lights. It's idiotic.

No - if you want to start getting pedestrians to follow the rules and behave sensibly, you first need to have an environment in which it's feasible to do so. We are *so* far from that it is unreal - if you don't believe me, just visit continental Europe.

Of course, I found some places in the US far worse than even we are here - busy four way city road junctions with no ped crossing lights/phase on the traffic lights! But again, despite them having more severe laws there, people were jay-walking like mad - hmmm... I wonder why?

jman0

While i can agree that pedestrians sometimes are reckless with their safety, it is motorists that are killing other road users.
Anybody can be a pedestrain and indeed we all are.
However motoring is a special privilege and requires special attention.
The onus is on motorists to stop killing people and cease making the roads dangerous for other road users.

Victor

b3t4 wrote:

I've noticed, from the reports that I have heard, is that a good few of the people killed were elderly. I know that at some crossings they do not allow enough time for someone elderly to cross the road.

Part of this is down to older people being more fragile. A young person can heal a broken leg relatively easily, whereas an elderly problem may find that it never heals properly. Extrapolate that to head and chest injuries and you will find more older people dying.

Secondly, some elderly people, especially men, forget that they aren't as nimble or that their sight and hearing isn't as good as it was. After young men (risk takers - "I'll live forever"), elderly men are the ones most disproportionately represented in accidents.

carryboy

mike65 wrote:

from Limerick Post



The number is now 15 out of 34 killed as of last night. So whats the story? Just usual reckless winter walking behaviour or might it be a side-effect of the drink-driving crackdown as the slightly worse for wear weave thier way home along dark narrow roads.?

Mike.

It can be both!:mad: When will we ever learn?

BrianD

jman0 wrote:

While i can agree that pedestrians sometimes are reckless with their safety, it is motorists that are killing other road users.
Anybody can be a pedestrain and indeed we all are.
However motoring is a special privilege and requires special attention.
The onus is on motorists to stop killing people and cease making the roads dangerous for other road users.

So really what you are saying is that pedestrians are blameless? I am a motorist and a pedestrians. I see pedestrians by their own actions putting their own lives at risk of death or injury every day of the week. Of course, I have a special duty of care as a motorist - even with the utmost care and attention if I collide with a pedestrian I will do more damage to them.

What you are really saying is that "it's somebody elses fault" and pedestrians can continue on without modifying their behaviour. The onus is on pedestrians to behave properly and make the roads safe for all users.

It would be interesting to see the stats of how each incident occured and why. I think that there is an onus on the media to report this - this is whay happened and why. At least there will be lessons to be learned by the misfortune of others and others will not be injured or killed.

RedPlanet

BrianD wrote:

So really what you are saying is that pedestrians are blameless?

No, didn't you read the sentence "pedestrians sometimes are reckless with their safety"

BrianD wrote:

I see pedestrians by their own actions putting their own lives at risk of death or injury every day of the week. Of course, I have a special duty of care as a motorist - even with the utmost care and attention if I collide with a pedestrian I will do more damage to them.

What you are really saying is that "it's somebody elses fault" and pedestrians can continue on without modifying their behaviour. The onus is on pedestrians to behave properly and make the roads safe for all users.

It would be interesting to see the stats of how each incident occured and why. I think that there is an onus on the media to report this - this is whay happened and why. At least there will be lessons to be learned by the misfortune of others and others will not be injured or killed.

BrianD, there are a lot more pedestrians than motorists.
You don't have to sit an exam to become a pedestrian.
How are you going to change pedestrian behavior?
Are you going to start policing pedestrians at intersections in every city up and down the country?
No, besides to what end are you policing them?
If a pedestrian collides into another pedestrian, nobody generally gets hurt.
Take a look at some of these intersections in town, sometimes you get crowds of pedestrians standing 4 or 5 deep waiting for the green man.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote:

"A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30km per hour has a 90 per cent chance of survival. Hit at 50km per hour 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed if hit at 60km per hour," a spokesperson for the Garda Press office said.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/bike/Safe-Routes-2002/forms.html

* A pedestrian struck by a car traveling at 40 mph has a 15 percent chance of survival. At 30 mph there is a 55 percent chance of survival. At 20 mph there is an 85 percent chance of survival. (U.S. Department of Transportation)

* Seventy-three percent of children between 5 and 9 years old killed in accidents were riding in cars. (NHTSA)

* Twenty to twenty-five percent of morning traffic is parents driving their children to school. (Department of Environment and Transport Regions, London, England; Marin CMA)

* Forty-six percent of traffic crashes involving kids as pedestrians occur when a child darts out into the street. (NHTSA)

* Fifty percent of children who are hit by cars near schools are hit by cars driven by parents of other students. (Washington State Department of Transportation)

http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm

More than half of the pedestrian fatalities in the age groups of 21-24, 25-34, and 35 to 44 involved intoxicated pedestrians (55 percent, 57 percent, and 55 percent, respectively).

I can't find the original - but this is quoted a lot in survival vs. speed
U.K. Department of Transportation, Killing Speed and Saving Lives, London, 1987.
see - http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/safe2travel/keyfacts.html

daymobrew

RedPlanet wrote:

How are you going to change pedestrian behavior?
Are you going to start policing pedestrians at intersections in every city up and down the country?
No, besides to what end are you policing them?

Friends of mine got ticketed for jay walking when they lived in San Francisco.

A few years ago, around Christmas time, I saw an idiot cross the road at the Bachelor's Walk/O'Connell Bridge junction. A Garda was directing the heavy traffic. The idiot ran into the Garda!! He should have been made an example of.

I've had numerous pedestrians walk out in front of me during my cycling through the city. They simply didn't look. I would welcome some enforcement.

Of course, the facilities for pedestrians need to be improved - it is not fair to have to wait long periods for the 'green man'. I liked the 30 second sequence that used to be at the Ha'penny Bridge/Liffey Street crossing. The only decent one with a frequent crossing sequence that I know about is the Millennium Bridge/Jevis Street crossing.

Zoney

daymobrew wrote:

Of course, the facilities for pedestrians need to be improved

Further than that - in city centre areas, pedestrians need to have priority. Whatever is needed as regards alternatives for cars, and arrangements to divert traffic, simply should be done. Pedestrians are after all, the majority, and even motorists are pedestrians a lot of the time.

More consideration of pedestrians would result in a better environment for all. The likes of Dublin and London city centres are just nasty environments in which to be at all. Even the bus traffic alone is highly incompatible with pedestrians trying to visit and get between businesses in the city centre; it's a wonder there have not been more people run over by them in the area around Dame Street and the front of Trinity, O'Connell St. and the Quays.

mackerski

Zoney wrote:

Further than that - in city centre areas, pedestrians need to have priority.

This is fundamentally a fair position, but I think it's only one of two:

1. Cities should favour the pedestrian, not the motorist
2. Somewhere or other, the pedestrian is going to encounter a situation where the motorist has priority. The pedestrian has to learn to recognise these situations and play his part in road-safety (and self-preservation).

Dublin pedestrians are not very good at (2). Skewing the priority further in favour of pedestrians has the potential to make this situation worse, regardless of its other merits. In practice, both messages should be treated independently (unless we're going to ban cars outright).

Zoney

You won't see (2) until there is an environment hospitable to pedestrians. It is not possible to have any "proper order" and application of laws against say, jaywalking, when even new and refurbished roads have a hap-hazard approach to pedestrian facilities.

MadsL

You won't see (2) until there is an environment hospitable to pedestrians. It is not possible to have any "proper order" and application of laws against say, jaywalking, when even new and refurbished roads have a hap-hazard approach to pedestrian facilities.

AGREED - O'CONNELL bRIDGE BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE!!

In the meantime a comprehensive ban on Bullbars might help...

Illegal to buy on a new car, but you can fit them 2 mins after you bought it.

mackerski

Zoney wrote:

You won't see (2) until there is an environment hospitable to pedestrians. It is not possible to have any "proper order" and application of laws against say, jaywalking, when even new and refurbished roads have a hap-hazard approach to pedestrian facilities.

I disagree. While it would be wrong to deliberately engineer a situation hazardous to pedestrians, it's one of the best ways of making pedestrians look where they're going. Anybody who's visited Paris will realise this. Pedestrians need to take responsibility for their wellbeing whether or not cities are accommodating to their needs.

wildswan

I think the workload's too great on drivers. Some of the new speed limits are so slow that I spend way too much time looking at my speedometer, to the detriment of pedestrians.

Also I think the overly-strict speed regulation on larger roads just gives drivers a bad attitude on the smaller roads. They think: "Ah, no speed cameras here then"

Surely happier drivers are safer drivers

talkingclock

Is it maybe the way of educating both pedestrians and motorists on how to behave in traffic? I mean, the times of donkey-lorries are long gone by now. And if you see how to obtain a driving license here then nobody should be surprised by any figures of traffic related deaths...

AlekSmart

My apologies to Victor and others for a posting on another thread which turned out not to have the elements I spoke of in it.

Essentially I believe that Dublin City`s administrators have little realization of the need to improve segregation between Pedestrian and Vehicle.
This is particularly noticable with Buses and HGV traffic.

The Bus obviously MUST interact with the pedestrian for most of its operational day and that period of interaction needs to be far more rigoriously controlled than is currently the case in Dublin.

My orignal point is that when surfing the Bus Spotting websites of Bus Pics in the UK,one should look beyond the gleaming Vehicles themselves and study the background of where they operate.

In a great many cases you will see small scale Bus interchanges with dedicated Car Free manouvering space OR if on street a preponderance of Pedestrian Barriers.

These barriers are particularly prevalent in many "Busy High-Street" type situations and some even have removable sections to facilitate deliveries at STRICTLY controlled times.

There is a wealth of difference between the DCC preferred "Bollard" and the concept of a "Barrier" .
The two do NOT perform the same task.

There are several locations in Dublin City Centre which demand segregation as an urgent means of heading off disaster.....might I suggest Westland Row as a starting point...????

daymobrew

Last week I wrote to Dublin City Council to get both sides of the pedestrian island on Drumcondra road at Clonliffe Road to turn green when pedestrians want to cross the road.
The reply said that it wasn't possible because of the width of the junction and volume of traffic on Drumcondra Road. As a result, pedestrians going west, toward Quinns side, can get stuck in the middle.
I phoned the traffic engineer and he explained the logic to me, it's just an unfortunate situation that can push pedestrians to take risks and jaywalk. Mix this with cars breaking the lights and the possibilities aren't great.

I asked the engineer to modify the pedestrian lights at at the other end of Whitworth Road to always be green when those coming from Whitworth Road see green. It's possible because there is no left turn from Whitworth Road (though some choose to ignore this). The engineer explained that always being green impacts nightly operations because the pedestrian crossing sequence has a minimum time it much be active for. The minimum time for a vehicle sequence is 6 seconds.

Having said all this, there are plenty of locations where things could be made more pedestrian friendly. Maybe it's a matter of raising them to DCC and asking for their reasons for the current situation.

cyclopath2001

AlekSmart wrote:

Essentially I believe that Dublin City`s administrators have little realization of the need to improve segregation between Pedestrian and Vehicle.

Do you mean a system of 'separate but equal'?

westtip

Zoney wrote:

You won't see (2) until there is an environment hospitable to pedestrians. It is not possible to have any "proper order" and application of laws against say, jaywalking, when even new and refurbished roads have a hap-hazard approach to pedestrian facilities.

Spot on. the problem is there are so many dangerous points on our roads that need footpaths - we spend all this money on upgrading roads and don't add footpaths. Give pedestrians footpaths to walk on adn they won't get killed at such alarming rates.

An example would be the N59 approaching ballina (co mayo) from Sligo. As you approach the town there are the usual new housing estates on the fringe of the town (in the vicinity of Judge's Garage for those who know the road), but not a bloody footpath in sight. Just after the aforementioned garage there is a blind summit which then goes down to a set of traffic lights, I have seen mothers clutching toddlers and pushing a buggy on this stretch of road in fear of their lives. Multiply this simple example by many others in particular on the edge of our booming towns and little wonder pedestrians are being mowed down. it is bloody dangerous out there if you are on foot. I recall last year walking with small children in the village of Lennane in Galway county, there is a footpath for about 50 yards out of the village centre - then it disappears, again blind summits mean you take your life in your hands - and there are plenty of houses to walk to in the part of the village I am talking about - It is endimic all over this country no one has given any thought to pedestrians and motorists being together in a safe enviroment.

AlekSmart

I too had some intercourse with DCC on the subject of Dorset St and pedestrian safety.
Sadly it appears that DCC and particularly it`s professional planning and engineering sections are totally enraptured by the aesthetics of design...etc etc.

The essence of their reply to me was that it was "Not Policy" to erect pedestrian barriers close to commercial premises due to deliveries etc etc..

The situation appears to be that until a major accident occurs at a specific location DCC will not attempt to preempt or otherwise address any issues there.

Mind you they moved pretty swiftly to have a brand spanking new section of railing erected around the grassy knoll just North of Fagans in Drumcondra during the week.......Possibly to increase the safety of the ........."recreational drinkers" who patronize the park benches just behind it.......:cool:

Mrs. MacGyver

The worst though is the delay in the changing of traffic lights in the evening from Busaras to Dept. Enviornment. I don't jaywalk but so many people take chances running out in from of buses etc. Don't they know that visibility is restricted in these vehicles? Also this may be a bit harsh but i think it should be mandatory for persons to wear hi vis vests in the evening to provide easier detection. It might look naff but its better to be safe than sorry.

monument

KTRIC wrote:

People around my neighbourhood seem to just walk out in front of on coming cars, when they see the car coming they actually slow down, then they wonder why the pedestrian deaths are up.

Yes, and many drivers think they can knock people down (ie speed up etc) just because the walkers are on their road.

cyclopath2001

monument wrote:

Yes, and many drivers think they can knock people down (ie speed up etc) just because the walkers are on their road.

While pedestrians are required to take reasonable care for their safety, an equal duty applies to motorists in relation to pedestrians. In addition to this, a motorist must give way to a pedestrian who has started to cross a road. Sounding a horn or deliberately intimidating a pedestrian could be considered 'driving without due care or considersation'.

AFAIK There is no legally specified distance that a pedestrian must allow a car to have, before commencimg to cross a road. That's a point that would have to be argued in any subsequent court case, although the unfortunate pedestrian might not survive to contest any difference of opinion with an average Irish motorist.

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

While pedestrians are required to take reasonable care for their safety, an equal duty applies to motorists in relation to pedestrians. In addition to this, a motorist must give way to a pedestrian who has started to cross a road. Sounding a horn or deliberately intimidating a pedestrian could be considered 'driving without due care or considersation'.

AFAIK There is no legally specified distance that a pedestrian must allow a car to have, before commencimg to cross a road. That's a point that would have to be argued in any subsequent court case, although the unfortunate pedestrian might not survive to contest any difference of opinion with an average Irish motorist.

Only an equal duty of care? Be careful what you wish for. By that logic, it would be socially acceptable for cars to drive through red lights without even looking at them or checking for pedestrians on the crossing. Oh, sorry, now I see - you're saying that pedestrians should stay off the crossings when the lights tell them to. Good idea, I concur.

As to the intimidation, the horn is to alert people to your presence. A pedestrian stepping out in front of a tonne of moving metal could probably do with such a notification. Are moving cars bearing down on a pedestrian scary? You betcha. Can the pedestrian avoid having the scare? Yes also. It just takes good manners on either side. Pedestrians (and I include myself here) will indignantly insist on their right of way at green lights and pedestrian crossings, and rightly so. Today the law prescribes situations in which motor cars (and other vehicles, such as pedal cycles) have right of way. Fight the law if you will, but right of way laws need to be dependable if we're to have safety on the roads, so ignore the law at your peril (and at the risk of the feeling of intimidation that comes from stepping stupidly in front of a moving car).

Victor

cyclopath2001 wrote:

While pedestrians are required to take reasonable care for their safety, an equal duty applies to motorists in relation to pedestrians.

Surely the duty of a motorist is greater (not deminishing hte responsibility of pedestrians) seeing as they are the ones moving the 1 tonne piece of metal.

Capt'n Midnight

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In addition to this, a motorist must give way to a pedestrian who has started to cross a road.
...
AFAIK There is no legally specified distance that a pedestrian must allow a car to have, before commencimg to cross a road. That's a point that would have to be argued in any subsequent court case, although the unfortunate pedestrian might not survive to contest any difference of opinion with an average Irish motorist.

I think the point there is that you aren't supposed to pull out in front of someone if it means they have to slow down to avoid you.
So while you must yield to anyone making a crossing, they aren't allowed to start if you'd get there first.

cyclopath2001

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I think the point there is that you aren't supposed to pull out in front of someone if it means they have to slow down to avoid you.

The law requires pedestrians to take reasonable care to avoid such a situation, it's not an absolute. Certainly, not crossing the road at all, or waiting for long periods in inclement weather would be unreasonable.

The weight of this duty may depend on the cirsumstances, for example, a court might decide that a child, elderly or disabled person should not have as heavy a duty of care in such situations as a motorist, comfortably ensconced in plush leather upholstery.

Reasonable care in the case of a driver may require traveling at a speed which, may be below the maximum speed limit and avoiding causing distress or fear in others. Sounding a horn, quite close to a person who is already aware of a motorist's presence may constitute an assault.