Pedestrians and right of way.

Chuck Stone

I remember reading somewhere that a pedestrian claims right of way by placing his foot on the road. So I decided to google it and could only find this.

Q52: How should a pedestrian claim priority at a crossing?

A: Putting foot on road

Source.

Here's the question.

Although it says crossing above does a pedestrian always technically have right of way by walking on the road?

I mean, if a person is walking on a country road (or even on a urban/suburban road) there won't be a crossing nearby so he will be forced to cross the road not at a crossing.

Thoughts?

Anan1

Yes, in the sense that you're not allowed to hit them.

Mycroft H

" So you hit a pedestrian"

" Yes, your Honour. He didnt have right of way...."

CiniO

BX 19 wrote: »

" So you hit a pedestrian"

" Yes, your Honour. He didnt have right of way...."

You are laughing here, but not that far away - in Poland - that's exactly how it works.
If pedestrian has no right of way and is hit by vehicle, it's pedestrians fault.

Therefore there's like 20x bigger pedestrian road death rate per 100,000 than in Ireland.

naughtysmurf

This 'law' was mentioned to me years ago in Cape Cod, didn't have a car overthere at the time but putting a foot on the road brought traffic to a standstill for the pedestrian, very strange but courtious driving

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

You are laughing here, but not that far away - in Poland - that's exactly how it works.
If pedestrian has no right of way and is hit by vehicle, it's pedestrians fault.

Therefore there's like 20x bigger pedestrian road death rate per 100,000 than in Ireland.

The general attitude here being "I have right of way at all times", "it's the driver who must look out for me, not the other way round" and "If he hits me, it's his fault"
I have seen young mammies stick their prams into traffic (in front of articulated lorries), forcing everyone to stop and then slowly amble across the road.
Pedestrian rights are a good thing, but telling them that they always have right of way, it's the drivers that need to look out and they can't be at fault will only lead to people not even looking when they're stepping out into the road.
Maybe someone should tell them what happens when nearly two tons of metal run over them at 50 km/h.

opti0nal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Here's the question.
Although it says crossing above does a pedestrian always technically have right of way by walking on the road?

In any case if you hit a pedestrian, you'd better find a good lawyer.

Here are some specific instances (from the RT regs) where you MUST give way to a pedestrian, it's not just at pedestrian crossings:

8 (2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.
(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.
(4) A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.
(5) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.
(6) A driver approaching a road junction to which sub-article (5) does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians approaching the junction from the right by another road.
9. Save where otherwise required by these Regulations, a vehicle shall be driven on the left hand side of the roadway in such a manner so as to allow, without danger or inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians...
12. (1) Before reversing, a driver shall ensure that to so reverse would not endanger other traffic or pedestrians.

CiniO

opti0nal wrote: »

In any case if you hit a pedestrian, you'd better find a good lawyer.

Here are some specifics instances (from the RT regs) where you MUST give way to a pedestrian, it's not just pedestrian crossings

That's a great set of regulations.
But what if you hit a pedestrian on the middle of motorway?
Can a person walking on the motorway even be called "pedestrian"?

Anan1

I'd say a simple rule of thumb is that if you hit a pedestrian and you hadn't tried your hardest not to then you're f*cked. Which effectively gives them right of way everywhere.

Mycroft H

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The general attitude here being "I have right of way at all times", "it's the driver who must look out for me, not the other way round" and "If he hits me, it's his fault"
I have seen young mammies stick their prams into traffic (in front of articulated lorries), forcing everyone to stop and then slowly amble across the road.

I have one better. Cycling into town through Ballyfermot one busy lunchtime. I'm in a cycle lane and the traffic stops due to the pedestrian lights. I'm coasting up to the lights when a particularly dim mammy pushes her pram out from behind a van and causes me to swerve to avoid her. In the process, I clip a Dublin Bus and hit the deck (slow enough mind you, but enough to fall hard...).

A little bit dazed, I get up and the mammy says "serves ya ****ing right for nearly hitting my child", and walks off. Wasn't worth the argument, I thought as she walked off. No major injuries an xray revealed. My hand was sore for weeks though.

Ya cant win

opti0nal

CiniO wrote: »

That's a great set of regulations.
But what if you hit a pedestrian on the middle of motorway?
Can a person walking on the motorway even be called "pedestrian"?

You mean like, someone whose car has broken down and who is walking to an emergency phone? They're still people.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

That's a great set of regulations.
But what if you hit a pedestrian on the middle of motorway?
Can a person walking on the motorway even be called "pedestrian"?

More like a Darwin award nominee.

dr.fuzzenstein

opti0nal wrote: »

You mean like, someone whose car has broken down and who is walking to an emergency phone? They're still people.

OK, granted.
CiniO maybe referring to people who walk on the actual roadway. Or decided to take a stroll down the hard shoulder anyway.

Jimbob 83

People have right of way on the roads over cars, i thought this was common knowledge ?

Old fashioned law but it works for obvious reasons.

opti0nal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, granted.
CiniO maybe referring to people who walk on the actual roadway. Or decided to take a stroll down the hard shoulder anyway.

He'd have to explain why he was driving on the hard shoulder?

CiniO

opti0nal wrote: »

He'd have to explain why he was driving on the hard shoulder?

I was more likely thinking about people just crossing the motorway from one side to the other.

Popoutman

Unlike in Sweden, where you hint at crossing at a pedestrian crossing, and cars brake fairly sharpish for you. However, try to jaywalk, and they will be unlikely to stop for you as you were not crossing at a designated crossing point. Much healthier way of doing it with a bit of mutual respect on both sides. At least there are enough sanely-located pedestrian crossings in the town to make this outlook work well.

opti0nal

As I look at the poll just now, it's rather alarming that so many don't know that pedestrians have right of way at more than just pedestrian crossings.

Anan1

Popoutman wrote: »

At least there are enough sanely-located pedestrian crossings in the town to make this outlook work well.

On which subject, whatever happened to all our zebra crossings? Surely they made more sense than pedestrian lights..

opti0nal

Anan1 wrote: »

On which subject, whatever happened to all our zebra crossings? Surely they made more sense than pedestrian lights..

Zebra crossings were not popular with motorists as they allowed pedestrians to cross when they wanted to.

Chuck Stone

opti0nal wrote: »

As I look at the poll just now, it's rather alarming that so many don't know that pedestrians have right of way at more than just pedestrian crossings.

I don't think it's that people believe they can run over pedestrians who walk out in front of them so much as they imagine driving along and someone walking out in front of the car unexpectedly from behind a parked van or something.

It would be almost impossible to avoid hitting a pedestrian in certain situations but still the pedestrian can claim right-of-way.

cackhanded

opti0nal wrote: »

Zebra crossings were not popular with motorists as they allowed pedestrians to cross when they wanted to.

Not very popular with pedestrians either due to the large number of motorists who fail to stop when a pedestrian is trying to cross.

Anan1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think it's that people believe they can run over pedestrians who walk out in front of them so much as they imagine driving along and someone walking out in front of the car unexpectedly from behind a parked van or something.

It would be almost impossible to avoid hitting a pedestrian in certain situations but still the pedestrian can claim right-of-way.

A pedestrian has a very strong personal interest in not allowing that to happen.

fullstop

BX 19 wrote: »

I have one better. Cycling into town through Ballyfermot one busy lunchtime. I'm in a cycle lane and the traffic stops due to the pedestrian lights. I'm coasting up to the lights when a particularly dim mammy pushes her pram out from behind a van and causes me to swerve to avoid her. In the process, I clip a Dublin Bus and hit the deck (slow enough mind you, but enough to fall hard...).

A little bit dazed, I get up and the mammy says "serves ya ****ing right for nearly hitting my child", and walks off. Wasn't worth the argument, I thought as she walked off. No major injuries an xray revealed. My hand was sore for weeks though.

Ya cant win

Were you going through the red light?

Mycroft H

fullstop wrote: »

Were you going through the red light?

No, when did I mention that

Voodoomelon

There's a stretch of road around the corner from my house, think of it as an small-sized two lane country road. It's on a route known as "the circle" and people walk this "circle" daily, along with joggers, people walking dogs etc.

The stretch by my house is on a very sharp blind bend, you'd want to take it at 30-40kph to be sure of staying on the correct side of the centre line as its so narrow, with bushes and trees obscuring the view.

But stupid twats walk this blind bend (no footpath) into oncoming traffic, coming up to the 50kph limit. You turn the corner and some gob****e is walking towards you, so hard on the brakes or verge to other side of the road.

How on earth is this a drivers fault?

Voodoomelon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

How on earth is this a drivers fault?

"Drive at a speed that enables you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear."

Go and have a read of the rules of the road like a good man.

Voodoomelon

Still quoting that chestnut 2 years on?

I can stop within the distance I see to be clear, but if someone walks or runs into this space from around a corner, I will be unable to avoid them.

There has to be a level of responsibility on the pedestrian, most pedestrians cross to the road on that bend to the clearer view, however the odd daredevil does not. The very fact that the pedestrian feels "in the right" is why they take this ridiculous chance.

Voodoomelon

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Still quoting that chestnut 2 years on?

If by "chestnut" you mean one of the most important rules of the road, then yes.

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

"Drive at a speed that enables you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear."

Go and have a read of the rules of the road like a good man.

Go have a read of the road traffic act in the Irish statute book, good lad. You'll soon find ROTR != RTA.

That's advice (and common sense), not law.

ardmacha

But stupid twats walk this blind bend (no footpath) into oncoming traffic, coming up to the 50kph limit.

What do you expect them to do, exactly?
Is it not suggested in the Rules of the Road that pedestrians walk facing oncoming traffic?

They are using the road legally, you are driving too fast.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

Go have a read of the road traffic act in the Irish statute book, good lad. You'll soon find ROTR != RTA.

That's advice (and common sense), not law.

The ROTR are an interpratation of the statue law, (which is not easy reading) and are used frequently by judges when ruling on traffic cases.

Everything in the ROTR that has a "must" before it is based directly on the statue law.

The piece I quoted initially is one of those "musts".

Here we go, directly from the statue book, "Road Traffic General Bye Laws, 1964"





18. A driver shall not drive at a speed exceeding that which will enable him to halt the vehicle within the distance he can see to be clear

Mycroft H

challengemaster wrote: »

Go have a read of the road traffic act in the Irish statute book, good lad. You'll soon find ROTR != RTA.

That's advice (and common sense), not law.

Section 53 of the RTA, 1961

Dangerous driving.


53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

I can see very clearly where "Drive at a speed that enables you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear" is interpreted from.

Dunno bout the rest of ye..

EDIT:

James has the right one there.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a18

Chuck Stone

Anan1 wrote: »

A pedestrian has a very strong personal interest in not allowing that to happen.

That doesn't insulate people from making a mistake though. A lapse of concentration and anyone could find themselves out in front of a car.

Also, kids wouldn't be as aware of the dangers. There was a case in Cork a few years back where a child ran out from between two parked cars and even the judge said he found it hard to make the driver responsible because there was no chance the driver could have been reasonably expected to avoid the child.

monument

I did a lot of extra walking in my first year as a dad, most often with a pram or with my son in a baby carrier, and mostly around Dublin city centre. Here's some observations:

Pedestrians and motorists overall seem to have way less respect for each other than motorists and cyclists (but I'm guessing we hear more about the latter because growing numbers of cyclists and everybody is a pedestrian at some stage, but it's not the same for cycling).

In Dublin city, lots of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians seem to think that you can only cross the road at crossings. A percentage of those seem to think that people should always run across roads.

There's a shocking lack of respect for pedestrian crossings -- any kind of heavy traffic at all and the crossing is blocked or partly blocked. Once traffic gets heavy at all some drivers think it is a licence to slowly roll on and break a red light. They seem to put more valve on making slow progress or getting out of the way of traffic than they do to stopping for somebody with a pram who has a green and is already crossing! This means a lot more when pushing a pram and I'm told it can be worse still for people in wheelchairs.

One major problem is filter lights: a large chunk of drivers don't seem to see them at all! For example, where traffic going straight on get a green but the left filter is red, very frequently drivers break the red light. A large section of drivers seem to be blind to the filter light setup or just don't care, or a bit of both?

There's still quite a few spots in the city where there are traffic lights but no ped lights (outside Cineworld, some places along the Grand Canal etc), but motorists always seem to presume that there are ped lights.

As motorists and cyclists already know from waiting a ped crossings with nobody there -- too many ped crossings still leave people waiting so long that -- depending on the crossing -- some, many or most don't wait. I forced myself to wait to the point it drove a bit of me insane.

Off topic, but parking on footpaths is at epidemic levels in places / at times. I've been forced out onto roads with a pram more times than I can remember. It's also very annoying having to come to a dead stop on a footpath just because you are unsure if the driver is going to start moving their car nicely parked on the path.

coolbeans

Voodoomelon wrote: »

There's a stretch of road around the corner from my house, think of it as an small-sized two lane country road. It's on a route known as "the circle" and people walk this "circle" daily, along with joggers, people walking dogs etc.

The stretch by my house is on a very sharp blind bend, you'd want to take it at 30-40kph to be sure of staying on the correct side of the centre line as its so narrow, with bushes and trees obscuring the view.

But stupid twats walk this blind bend (no footpath) into oncoming traffic, coming up to the 50kph limit. You turn the corner and some gob****e is walking towards you, so hard on the brakes or verge to other side of the road.

How on earth is this a drivers fault?

If the bend is blind and sharp you are supposed to take it slowly. In the absence of a footpath peds are supposed to walk against traffic for good reasons. You obviously drive far too fast for the conditions. How are the peds the stupid ones? Surely it's the other way around.

robbie_998

I know this will sound a tad ropey on my half so i do apologize in advance.

Driving around Dublin city on a very regular basis myself on all sorts of streets / roads etc. you see a lot of this of people walking out onto small back streets that may only be one lane across and main roads that may be 3 lanes each side.

But i do have the idea in my head that people might have some comman sense in them that "its a main road. If i walk out onto it I might get hit by a big metal object hurdling itself in my direction at 40 - 50 KM/h. Maybe i'll wait until its safe to cross the road with no traffic"

but they dont.

and they also do it at pedisterian crossings with traffic signals (green man, red man etc.) where there would be a red man but because the traffic has stopped from one direction they are completely invisible from the other side or around the corner, so when im coming from that corner i proceed at a normal driving condition speed and generally people will run out of the way.

I do slow down or stop if needs be if i get too close to a person however.

but if we stopped and the people just kept walking across the road with no end you cant go because you must give right of way even if they have red man etc. and i dont agree with that.

So a lil scare gets them moving.


but if you used the theory that the pedrestian has right of way and jumps out in front of a car does that mean they can sue the driver for hitting them because they felt like jumping onto the road ? thats a bit silly.

it shouldnt be automatic right of way In My Humble Opinion.

opti0nal

robbie_998 wrote: »

So a lil scare gets them moving.

You use a threat of injury to get your way? Careful there.

robbie_998 wrote: »

but if you used the theory that the pedrestian has right of way and jumps out in front of a car does that mean they can sue the driver for hitting them because they felt like jumping onto the road ? thats a bit silly.

Have you examples of where this has happened, or are you just imagining that it does?

robbie_998 wrote: »

it shouldnt be automatic right of way In My Humble Opinion.

The law defines where pedestrians have right of way and there are limits.

Anan1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That doesn't insulate people from making a mistake though. A lapse of concentration and anyone could find themselves out in front of a car.

Also, kids wouldn't be as aware of the dangers. There was a case in Cork a few years back where a child ran out from between two parked cars and even the judge said he found it hard to make the driver responsible because there was no chance the driver could have been reasonably expected to avoid the child.

This is true, but I think giving the pedestrian right of way gives them the best chance of survival in these circumstances. Even under our current system we do get drivers arguing that the presence of pedestrians is infringing on their right to speed into a blind bend.

opti0nal wrote: »

You use a threat of injury to get your way? Careful there.

Have you examples of where this has happened, or are you just imagining that it does?

The law defines where pedestrians have right of way and there are limits.

Honestly, don't bother.

Cabaal

Voodoomelon wrote: »

But stupid twats walk this blind bend (no footpath) into oncoming traffic, coming up to the 50kph limit. You turn the corner and some gob****e is walking towards you, so hard on the brakes or verge to other side of the road.

How on earth is this a drivers fault?

Do you not know the rules of the road at all?

1. Motorists should be driving at the speed they can control the car

2. If there is no footpath then the people walking must walk so that the cars are coming towards them...this is all perfectly legal and actually safer then the people walking with the cars coming behind them

In short, as long as they are not in the middle of the road they are not in the wrong

seamus

At the end of the day, every pedestrian is another human being, a member of someone's family and nobody's infallible. We've all made mistakes as pedestrians and drivers, and if I was to kill someone with my 1 tonne metal box, right-of-way would be very little comfort to me. No matter who has right-of-way, in every crash with two moving objects, either person could have done something to avoid the crash.

And I know for a fact that even if I was completely in the right, if I killed someone I would agonise over what I could have done different - driven 5km/h slower, driven further out, etc - for the rest of my life.

Actually as odds would have it, I nearly ran over a child last night coming out of my estate. Narrow road, sweeping around to the right (and down a hill), two cars parked on the path on my right-hand side. A car passed me in the opposite direction, and a child or 6 or 7 came sprinting out from behind the parked cars to cross the road, she'd obviously only looked at the other car before proceeding.
Even though I stopped without incident a good few feet short of the child, I still spent the next two hours wondering what I could have done differently.

Because I'm the one driving a big fncking metal box around the place, I'm the one who bears full responsibility to ensure I don't kill anyone else with it.

robbie_998

opti0nal wrote: »

robbie_998 wrote: »

So a lil scare gets them moving.

You use a threat of injury to get your way? Careful there.

robbie_998 wrote: »

but if you used the theory that the pedrestian has right of way and jumps out in front of a car does that mean they can sue the driver for hitting them because they felt like jumping onto the road ? thats a bit silly.

Have you examples of where this has happened, or are you just imagining that it does?

robbie_998 wrote: »

it shouldnt be automatic right of way In My Humble Opinion.

The law defines where pedestrians have right of way and there are limits.

No I don't threat them, it happens everywhere when then light turns green cars begin to move off even buses too even if there's still people crossing, and they do it how I described too. Accelerate and brake if necessory.

I was asking a question

I don't know how much of what the law defines for pedestrian right of way with limits etc.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you not know the rules of the road at all?

1. Motorists should be driving at the speed they can control the car

2. If there is no footpath then the people walking must walk so that the cars are coming towards them...this is all perfectly legal and actually safer then the people walking with the cars coming behind them

In short, as long as they are not in the middle of the road they are not in the wrong

Just in general terms I fully agree with the points you make.
To me the problems with telling pedestrians "You are always in the right, cars have to look out for you, not the other way round and you always have priority" leads to people just stepping out into the road whenever it suits them without looking.
It's all about education. As a driver I know that pedestrians are vulnerable and I have to be on the lookout. Otherwise I would have flattened a few of them over the last years.
But are pedestrians being told that? Probably not since the Safe Cross Code, which seems to have been replaced with "Just run out on the road, sure it's not your fault if you get knocked down", especially in Limerick city.

langdang

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

"Just run out on the road, sure it's not your fault if you get knocked down", especially in Limerick city.

Haha you've noticed this too?
They also can't tell the difference between a zebra crossing and a "suggested crossing point" - cue impotent "im entitled" rage when you don't come to a complete stop for them (even tho you haven't inconvenienced them at all by going around them)

Anan1

Where are all these pedestrians jumping out in front of cars? Drunks aside, I hardly ever see one.

langdang

Anan1 wrote: »

Where are all these pedestrians jumping out in front of cars? Drunks aside, I hardly ever see one.

cork city is and always was bad for jaywalking but not the taking-the-piss style. Limerick city is terrible for ignorant yokes bringing traffic to a standstill.

langdang

langdang wrote: »

cork city is and always was bad for jaywalking but not the taking-the-piss style. Limerick city is terrible for ignorant yokes bringing traffic to a standstill.

No such thing as jaywalking in this country. Pedestrians can cross wherever they like, as long as they are not within 15m of a pedestrian crossing, in which case they must use the crossing.

Voodoomelon

ardmacha wrote: »

What do you expect them to do, exactly?
Is it not suggested in the Rules of the Road that pedestrians walk facing oncoming traffic?

They are using the road legally, you are driving too fast.

What do I expect them to do? How about crossing to the other side of the road like any normal person who values their safety.

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you not know the rules of the road at all?

1. Motorists should be driving at the speed they can control the car

2. If there is no footpath then the people walking must walk so that the cars are coming towards them...this is all perfectly legal and actually safer then the people walking with the cars coming behind them

In short, as long as they are not in the middle of the road they are not in the wrong

You call it safe walking around a blind bend into oncoming traffic where the lane is the width of a car, safe?

I gingerly take this bend now fully expecting to see someone right infront of me and a dog on a lead in the middle of the road.

But this thread reeks of "this is the law, black and white" and all common sense is thrown out the window.

Anan1

Voodoomelon wrote: »

But this thread reeks of "this is the law, black and white" and all common sense is thrown out the window.

In this case, the law and common sense are the same thing. You just can't go into a blind bend that fast, there could be anything around it.

langdang

Deleted User wrote: »

No such thing as jaywalking in this country. Pedestrians can cross wherever they like, as long as they are not within 15m of a pedestrian crossing, in which case they must use the crossing.

You know what I meant, so does everyone else.
It's another one of these "real life" common sense / fuzzy logic situations.