Who has priority where the road crosses the footpath?

pietromas

Can anyone settle this [light-hearted] argument.

Who has the right of way on the bit of "road" that crosses a footpath to provide entrance to a property, for example a house's driveway or a petrol station forecourt?

I maintain that it is not actual road, and so pedestrians have the right of way and motorists should technically, when safe, allow pedestrians to continue along the footpath unimpeded before crossing it.

My friend argues that it is either road, or that it belongs to the property in question, e.g. the petrol station, and that as such they have the right to decide who has priority, so technically pedestrians must always yield to cars entering or exiting.

I'm sure you all have opinions on this hot topic, so by all means give them, but can someone point to a specific part of the road traffic act or something that will definitively answer this? (ideally before the pubs close tonight!)

Fluorescence

pietromas wrote: »

Can anyone settle this [light-hearted] argument.

Who has the right of way on the bit of "road" that crosses a footpath to provide entrance to a property, for example a house's driveway or a petrol station forecourt?

I maintain that it is not actual road, and so pedestrians have the right of way and motorists should technically, when safe, allow pedestrians to continue along the footpath unimpeded before crossing it.

My friend argues that it is either road, or that it belongs to the property in question, e.g. the petrol station, and that as such they have the right to decide who has priority, so technically pedestrians must always yield to cars entering or exiting.

I'm sure you all have opinions on this hot topic, so by all means give them, but can someone point to a specific part of the road traffic act or something that will definitively answer this? (ideally before the pubs close tonight!)

Pedestrians always have right of way - they do crazy **** and you have the potential to squish them with your metric tonne of death-machine if you don't give way :P

Not sure that the Rules of the Road actually mention anything about this situation though

mathepac

Fluorescence wrote: »

Pedestrians always have right of way ...

Spot on. Even if they're "in the wrong" (jay-walking, locked, acting the eejit) motorists must always cede right of way to pedestrians.

Sheldons Brain

A footpath is like a traffic lane for pedestrians. You do not have the right to charge across it to the driving lane just as you do not have the right to charge across one driving lane to get to another one. This is the true whether turning in or out.

biko

Hm, so you have to turn off the main road and cross a footpath to go down the new road?
You'd be leaving your lane so must give way to traffic, ie pedestrians.

Is there a particular junction you're thinking of? Can you link to is so it's easier to visualise?

Fluorescence

biko wrote: »

Hm, so you have to turn off the main road and cross a footpath to go down the new road?
You'd be leaving your lane so must give way to traffic, ie pedestrians.

Is there a particular junction you're thinking of? Can you link to is so it's easier to visualise?

I think he means that at the entrance to a driveway/house, there's a dip in the footpath to allow cars through. It's still a footpath.

pietromas

Fluorescence wrote: »

I think he means that at the entrance to a driveway/house, there's a dip in the footpath to allow cars through. It's still a footpath.

Yes, that's what I mean. And I'm of that opinion too, but like I said my friend (and seemingly most people when they are in their cars!) disagree.

But we'd like to know for certain if the law states that it's still footpath and as such I have the right to continue walking rather than being compelled to stop by an important driver. We have a tenner each bet on it.

(To be fair of course this is not generally a big issue and more often than not drivers have the decency to wave you through, at least on their way back out onto the road).

Outkast_IRE

You would actually notice many of the newest petrol station forecourts built in the last 2 years have painted a line and the word STOP when exiting the petrol station before you reach the footpath, obviously they themselves are of the opinion that the pedestrians have right of way.

I don't know how this is an argurment, I would worry about anyone driving that doesn't understand that pedestrians always have right of way in these situations.

Sheldons Brain

No doubt about it
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

section 8
(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

now this may have been superseded by a newer regulation, but I doubt that it is any different.

meathstevie

When exiting a private property ( be it a public place like a petrol station or not ) all traffic and road users on the road including cyclists and pedestrians have priority over you.

When turning right or left entering into a premises, private road or property you can not hinder and must give way to all road users whose path you're going to cross.

For your info, a good rule of thumb is that the road stops where private property begins so it's definitely not restricted to the section that's used by motorised vehicles.

I can't tell you why

meathstevie wrote: »

For your info, a good rule of thumb is that the road stops where private property begins so it's definitely not restricted to the section that's used by motorised vehicles.

Except when there is a path in between, which is for pedestrians.

miss no stars

Darragh D ADI wrote: »

Except when there is a path in between, which is for pedestrians.

I think that was his point? To consider that path as a pedestrianised part of the road and treat it like any other lane that needs to be crossed.

meathstevie

Darragh D ADI wrote: »

Except when there is a path in between, which is for pedestrians.

Darragh, I haven't got the exact legal definition of a public road to hand but I'm sure it is made up of all the parts of the road that are maintained by a public body and to which the road using public has access. That includes the lane(s) for vehicular trafic, hard shoulder, parking spaces, road markings, median boundaries, paths, cycle lanes etc etc.

Sure if the footpath wasn't part of the road how could it be a road traffic offence to for example park on one ?

jimgoose

Fluorescence wrote: »

Pedestrians always have right of way...

^^^
This. We don't have jay-walking in this jurisdiction.

I can't tell you why

The path is not the road. It is simply not a good idea to think it is. Don't drive on the path (except to pass over it for access)

meathstevie wrote: »

Sure if the footpath wasn't part of the road how could it be a road traffic offence to for example park on one ?

It could be considered illegal to park on the path because it is the path and not the road.

tricky D

pietromas wrote: »

Yes, that's what I mean. And I'm of that opinion too, but like I said my friend (and seemingly most people when they are in their cars!) disagree.

Your friend and most people need to gen up on the rights of way for pedestrians. They have a lot more right of way than too many think.

Eg: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a22

22.—

(2) A driver 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 bye-laws, and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws.

whomitconcerns

jimgoose wrote: »

^^^
This. We don't have jay-walking in this jurisdiction.

yes we do....in the vicinity of a crossing in ireland..not using the crossing properly is an offence, dont know if they call it jaywalking but it its called something

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997 (‘the Regulations’), wherein is stated:

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.
(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.
(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where (…) [pedestrian lights] [have] been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.

(…)

(7) On a roadway on which a (…) [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

meathstevie

Darragh D ADI wrote: »

The path is not the road. It is simply not a good idea to think it is. Don't drive on the path (except to pass over it for access)



It could be considered illegal to park on the path because it is the path and not the road.

Darragh, on a public road the path is definitely part of the road. It's just a part of the road that isn't primarily reserved for driving on with common motorised vehicles.

I've rooted out the legal concept of a road for info;


“road” includes—

(a) any street, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage,

(b) any bridge, viaduct, underpass, subway, tunnel, overpass, overbridge, flyover, carriageway (whether single or multiple), pavement or footway,

(c) any weighbridge or other facility for the weighing or inspection of vehicles, toll plaza or other facility for the collection of tolls, service area, emergency telephone, first aid post, culvert, arch, gulley, railing, fence, wall, barrier, guardrail, margin, kerb, lay-by, hard shoulder, island, pedestrian refuge, median, central reserve, channelliser, roundabout, gantry, pole, ramp, bollard, pipe, wire, cable, sign, signal or lighting forming part of the road, and

(d) any other structure or thing forming part of the road and—

(i) necessary for the safety, convenience or amenity of road users or for the construction, maintenance, operation or management of the road or for the protection of the environment, or

(ii) prescribed by the Minister;


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0002.html

I can't tell you why

@ MeathStevie: That is indeed a legal definition. Do you honestly consider everything listed there as part of the road. If yes, please don't try to drive on gantries, viaducts, telephones, walls, pedestrian refuges, etc. That is a legal definition for the purpose of adjudicating rules and responsibilities.

In the everyday, real world the road is the bit cars drive on. Don't drive on the path (except to pass over it for access). It is for pedestrians.

Thinking of the path as part of the road is what caused the OP's friend to think they had priority in cars. Is it such a crazy idea to think of the path, as a path for pedestrians?

meathstevie

Darragh, you're right in saying that some parts covered by the legal definition are not exactly suited to being driven on but from a "rules of the road" perspective it is vitaly important that they are included in the definition of what a road is and the rules are not just restricted to the carraigeway part of a road.

If they weren't there would be no road traffic legislation applicable to them and it would leave for example pedestrians on the path as outlaws who didn't enjoy certain protections offered by legislation that for example prohibits driving and parking on designated paths and it would be extremely complicated to have rules and regulations covering for example emerging from and pulling into lay-by's, emerging from private properties accross paths and cycle lanes to join the carraigeway part of a road and so on.

Purely theoritically speaking if a pedestrian got clipped by a car on a path and the path wasn't by law part of the road it wouldn't even be possible to class it as a road traffic colission because it didn't happen on a road and the situation in regards to sorting out liabilities and all would become a lot more complicated than it would be under the fairly clear cut road traffic legislation as it is now.