Why do pedestrians try to kill themselves ?

aynon

queen-mise wrote: »

What the rules of the road say on this is: larger vehicles have to watch and protect smaller road users i.e. Artics, trucks, vans, cars, bikes, pedestrians. If you hit something smaller than you, you are most likely automatically wrong.

On carlow crossings, my exp is cars etc drive too fast not enabling them to be able to stop.

put it this way, i dont think many pedestrians do the green cross code, whether your in the right or the wrong, so many of them walk out, nearly getting hit at high speed!

ShayK1

aynon wrote: »

put it this way, i dont think many pedestrians do the green cross code, whether your in the right or the wrong, so many of them walk out, nearly getting hit at high speed!

No vehicle should pass a crossing at high speed!!!

aynon

high speed=faster then walking

SV

queen-mise wrote: »

What the rules of the road say on this is: larger vehicles have to watch and protect smaller road users i.e. Artics, trucks, vans, cars, bikes, pedestrians. If you hit something smaller than you, you are most likely automatically wrong.

Eh, what?

Queen-Mise

when driving a vehicle on irish roads you have an extra responsibility for smaller road users than yourself e.g. When overtaking on public roads, extra care is needed for motorbikes.
Basically all road users are not equal. If a drunk falls out of a pub plastered and falls in front of your car, you are still responsible for not seeing the hazard.
Articulated truck drivers have to watch everything because of the size of them, they can do so much damage to a smaller road user.

This brings me onto a pet hate artic drivers driving on the dublin road in carlow like they are rally cars. Coming to fast via old bowling alley and out of the town. They could kill someone in a sec, its like they forget or dont realise.

SV

queen-mise wrote: »

when driving a vehicle on irish roads you have an extra responsibility for smaller road users than yourself e.g. When overtaking on public roads, extra care is needed for motorbikes.
Basically all road users are not equal. If a drunk falls out of a pub plastered and falls in front of your car, you are still responsible for not seeing the hazard.
Articulated truck drivers have to watch everything because of the size of them, they can do so much damage to a smaller road user.

This brings me onto a pet hate artic drivers driving on the dublin road in carlow like they are rally cars. Coming to fast via old bowling alley and out of the town. They could kill someone in a sec, its like they forget or dont realise.

I guess I missed that part in the rules of the road.

Where does it say that all road users are not equal and that the bigger vehicle is usually automatically responsible for any accident?

A pedestrian is not a road user btw.

aynon

SV wrote: »

I guess I missed that part in the rules of the road.

Where does it say that all road users are not equal and that the bigger vehicle is usually automatically responsible for any accident?

A pedestrian is not a road user btw.

i'll get my rules of the road book out and check.

Super-Rush

If a drunk falls out of a pub plastered and falls in front of your car, you are still responsible for not seeing the hazard.

I seriously doubt this. If you are drunk and step off the footpath you can be arrested for being a danger to yourself and others around you.

HugoIrl

super-rush wrote: »

I seriously doubt this. If you are drunk and step off the footpath you can be arrested for being a danger to yourself and others around you.

I can definitely say it does work that way, work in the insurance industry and taxis are always getting stung for personal injuries for drunks falling out in front of them.

foggy_lad

if you hit any pedestrian even if they run out onto the crossing in front of you then you are in the wrong for not anticipating the hazard and reducing your speed in preparation

aynon

exact exert from the rules of the road book, take from it what you will:

Zebra Cross-
Drivers Must stop and let you cross.as they approach the crossing, they should slow and prepare to stop. They must stop behind the stop line if there is one and [bold]must[/bold] not enter any part of the crossing.

Drivers must not overtake or park within area covered my zig zag markings on either side of the crossing. Section 10, on parking has more information.

-you do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step onto the crossing. never step onto the crossing if this would cause a driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

-you must not cross within the areas marked by the zig-zag white lines if these are provided on either side of the zebra crossing. if they are not provided, you must not cross within 15 metres of the crossing.

-if there is a central island, treat each side as a seperate crossing.

-always watch carefully for approaching traffic. place one foot on the crossing to indicate that you wish to cross. wait until traffic has stopped before you star to cross.

(care of page 166 of the RSA rules of the road handbook.)

so my point is valid as is queen-mise's.

aynon

foggy_lad wrote: »

if you hit any pedestrian even if they run out onto the crossing in front of you then you are in the wrong for not anticipating the hazard and reducing your speed in preparation

nope read the below.

you do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step onto the crossing. never step onto the crossing if this would cause a driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

Git101

queen-mise wrote: »

when driving a vehicle on irish roads you have an extra responsibility for smaller road users than yourself e.g. When overtaking on public roads, extra care is needed for motorbikes.
Basically all road users are not equal. If a drunk falls out of a pub plastered and falls in front of your car, you are still responsible for not seeing the hazard.
Articulated truck drivers have to watch everything because of the size of them, they can do so much damage to a smaller road user.

I started this thread because I was totally annoyed about how pedestrians used zebra crossings but it has since turned into people making up their own rules of the road

Common sense would suggest that if there is any doubt it may be best to give way to the larger vehicle, this doesn't mean that the larger vehicle is in the right but is becomes a moot point when you are lying crushed under truck/car.

As a cyclist I have often given way to cars/trucks although I legally didn't have to. Why ? because I didn't want to die.
Which brings me back to back to my original post "you are responsible for your own safety"

Maybe you believe that you can walk out on a zebra crossing without any warning and expect drivers to anticipate your erratic movements, but is it worth risking a collision with a vehicle to save 5 seconds off your journey, why not wait for the traffic to stop and then cross safely?

Jaysus, It's not rocket science... don't step out in front of tonnes of moving metal just because you think your right !!

Queen-Mise

SV wrote: »

I guess I missed that part in the rules of the road.

Where does it say that all road users are not equal and that the bigger vehicle is usually automatically responsible for any accident?

A pedestrian is not a road user btw.

Really and how do they get from one footpath to another then. And if you walking on a country road. Why is there set sides of the road for them to walk, opp to pushbike users.

Larger vehicles are not automatically wrong, but they have to be more careful.
Pedestrians for example doing stupid things, drunk or not, are classed as hazards. The driver is wrong for not anticipating the hazard. For artic drivers they are just more hazards.

The point im saying isnt tied to crossings only, a child running out of a house to get a ball. Just because child didnt do safe cross code doesnt mean its ok to hit them.

Back to point of this thread, a person stepping straight out in front of you at a crossing is a hazard. If you are not able to stop you are going too fast.

Queen-Mise

hugo may say this better. This debate prob doesnt revolve on rules of the road but what is classed by legal system as road liability.

SV

queen-mise wrote: »

Really and how do they get from one footpath to another then. And if you walking on a country road. Why is there set sides of the road for them to walk, opp to pushbike users.

there's no 'rules' for pedestrians, just guidelines. Pedestrians are _not_ defined as road users.

queen-mise wrote: »

Larger vehicles are not automatically wrong, but they have to be more careful.

Then why did you say that they are? ;

queen-mise wrote: »

What the rules of the road say on this is: larger vehicles have to watch and protect smaller road users i.e. Artics, trucks, vans, cars, bikes, pedestrians. If you hit something smaller than you, you are most likely automatically wrong.

the rules of the road says nothing of the sort. It says to be careful around cyclists and motorbikes but that's common sense. Says absolutely nothing about 'smaller vehicles'

queen-mise wrote: »

Pedestrians for example doing stupid things, drunk or not, are classed as hazards. The driver is wrong for not anticipating the hazard. For artic drivers they are just more hazards.

Yes they are classed as hazards alright, and no one debated this.
You should note, that if they were classed as road users then they would be capable of being responsible.

queen-mise wrote: »

The point im saying isnt tied to crossings only, a child running out of a house to get a ball. Just because child didnt do safe cross code doesnt mean its ok to hit them.

No one ever said it was ok.

queen-mise wrote: »

Back to point of this thread, a person stepping straight out in front of you at a crossing is a hazard. If you are not able to stop you are going too fast.

At a crossing, yes, you are going too fast as you should expect to stop.


If it's not a crossing, however, then there's no basis for saying they were going too fast. (I know you didn't say that, I'm just commenting on it before anyone does)

queen-mise wrote: »

hugo may say this better. This debate prob doesnt revolve on rules of the road but what is classed by legal system as road liability.

In the legal system it states that;

118.—Where a person (in this section referred to as the user) uses a mechanically propelled vehicle, with the consent of the owner of the vehicle, the user shall, for the purposes of determining the liability or non-liability of the owner for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by the user, and for the purposes of determining the liability or non-liability of any other person for injury to the vehicle or persons or property therein caused by negligence occurring while the vehicle is being used by the user, be deemed to use the vehicle as the servant of the owner, but only in so far as the user acts in accordance with the terms of such consent.

Nothing about the size of the vehicle.


The reason vehicles are usually(99% of the time) blamed for knocking down pedestrians is because they're not considered to be road users. That's the only reason.

slimjimmc

SV wrote: »

there's no 'rules' for pedestrians, just guidelines. Pedestrians are _not_ defined as road users.

There are rules for pedestrians but people may not be generally aware of them.

Also pedestrians are defined as road users. I think you're confusing 'road users' with the term 'traffic', which does not include pedestrians.

The Rules of the Road clearly state:

The rules of the road are for all road users - drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, horse riders and cyclists.

Now before anyone says that the RotR is not the law some of its rules do have a legal basis according to its own statement:

It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly demands or forbids.

There are quite a few rules which pedestrians must obey such as

• If there is a footpath you must use it.

• If there is no footpath, you must walk as near as possible to the righthand side of the road (facing oncoming traffic).

A quick search through the Statutes throw up a number of laws which apply directly to pedestrians :
eg. S.I. No. 97 of 2003

“(e) that a pedestrian shall not proceed past a certain point on a road or a part of a road upon which there is a light railway at which the traffic sign has been provided.”,

and

S.I. No. 181/1997

(iii) the lamp referred to in paragraph (ii)(b) may be illuminated on an intermittent basis to indicate that pedestrians already in the course of crossing the road may continue to do so, but, otherwise, pedestrians shall not cross the road;
(iv) the other lamp shall show, when lit—
(a) a red light through the full area of the lens (which may contain in black letters a message such as the word "WAIT"), or
(b) a figure of a pedestrian in red on a black background,
indicating that pedestrians shall not cross the road;