Rules of the roads regarding crossing pedestrians

TheMonster

Just wondering how many motorists actually know the rules of the road regarding turning from a main road onto a side road. Quite a few times recently I (as a pedestrian) have been crossing different roads and been nearly run down by agressive drivers who refuse to even slow down

It came to a head this morning when I was crossing the road beside Tara St Dart Station(East side that turns up by O'Reillys) and a lunatic in a Merc speeds up the bus lane and proceeds to blow at the people who are crossing. Some people stopped but I kept going along with 1 other. This annnoyed him more and he winds down the window and shouts at us to move. I remained calm and walked up to him and told him to check the "Rules of the Road". He just stared blankly as me as if I was mad.

My understanding is that once a vehicle it turning from a main road onto a lesser road that pedestrians have the right of way(they are effectively travelling on the main road) and that the same applies to vehicles turning onto a main road from a lesser road.

Saruman

Hang on.. were you crossing a road where there was traffic lights and you had a Red light and he had a green? If so i would be pissed too. Jwalking is not enforced here but i think its still against the law technically.. or maybe its talk of making it so i heard about a while back...

kenmc

as far as I know, at least in the absence of any lights, if I turn into a road and there's a pedestrian with at least one foot on the road Ihave to yield to them. However if I'm there first, they have to let me go by and can't walk out in front of me. In theory.

magpie

If you are turning a corner and a pedestrian is already in the process of crossing the road then he has right of way. It's in the Rules of the Road, and the sequence of traffic lights has nothing to do with it.

Downtime

In my opinion pedestrians are too fond of walking across the road when the pedestrian lights are red or crossing in the middle of the road and not looking a lot of the time. We are all guilty of it.The rules of the road are for everyone, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians but everyone balmes the other.

TheMonster

No traffic lights and the pedestrians were half way across.

kenmc

sounds pretty clear cut - car had to yield, least the rules that I know anyway....

Downtime

Road traffic Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI182Y1997.html#ZZSI182Y1997A8 in relation to pedestrians says you must cross at the lights but also says (I guess if there are no lights)

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.

Actually reading through the whole thing - it is an offence to cross the road when the pedestrian light is red but if you do cars must stop for you.

Alun

Downtime wrote:

Actually reading through the whole thing - it is an offence to cross the road when the pedestrian light is red but if you do cars must stop for you.

That's correct, whether they have crossed on a red light or not is immaterial, you still have to give way to them ... accompanied by an evil stare and a loud blast of the horn while pointing vigorously at the bright red pedestrian light, of course!

Downtime

Alun wrote:

a loud blast of the horn while pointing vigorously at the bright red pedestrian light, of course!

Unless its after 11.30pm when it is illegal to use your horn.

edmund_f

to make the point..

you, the pedestrian, are technically correct and so armed with this information your next of kin can sue the car driver if they hit you?.

people wonder why insurance costs so much here?

just to encite even further..

you were half way across the road.. assuming you checked both ways as you are obliged to do, you would have noted the car coming down the road, and yet still continued to cross the road knowing that you could not complete the crossing before the car got to you. You intended to excerise your rights of the road against 2 tonnes odd of a merc?. You even pointed out that a number of people had enough time to return to their side of the road, but you, in your rightenouss, decided to put the rules of the road to the test emperically?.

seamus

Downtime wrote:

Actually reading through the whole thing - it is an offence to cross the road when the pedestrian light is red but if you do cars must stop for you.

Yep.
Base rule: A pedestrian who is on the road has right of way.
Whether the car it coming out of a minor road, turning into a minor road, driving the wrong way down a bus lane, towing another vehicle, is all irrelevant. The pedestrian always has right of way.

Certain statutes say that a pedestrian, when crossing at an uncontrolled junction, should indicate their intent to cross by placing one foot on the roadway. Drivers should see this, and stop to allow the pedestrian to cross. Failing to do this is probably an offence, but you'd still have right of way.

Where pedestrian lights exist, this is not required, but the pedestrian still has right of way regardless of the colour of the pedestrian light.

edmund_f

I was looking through the rules of the road

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

and could not find anything to reflect what is being discussed?

the closest thing i could find was in a Dublin city by law

DUBLIN TRAFFIC BYE-LAWS, 1937. (section 5)

5. Wherever a crossing-place for pedestrians over a roadway in the Dublin Metropolitan Area is indicated by means of signs or marks placed upon the surface of such roadway by the Council charged with the maintenance of such roadway, no pedestrian shall cross such roadway outside and within fifty feet from the crossing-place so indicated.

which means you cannot cross a road within 50' of a ped crossing (i think)..

can anyone find anything to clarify the whole car V's pedsetrian argument?

blorg

How about when the pedestrian crossing light is orange, and the car light is red - that means 'go' for the car, right? As that's how many drivers in Dublin seem to see it these days ;-)

Also, of course rule 221(b) of the Rules of the Road:

221(b) You may not proceed through a red stop light, unless:

(i) You are the first car to see the red stop light;

_or_

(ii) The car in front of you has already proceeded through the stop light.

While there is a lot of red light running going on these days in Dublin (I believe it has been the cause of many of the Luas crashes), I think drivers are far happier to disregard reds at pedestrian crossings than at other junctions, proabably because the likelihood of damage to their cars from these actions is lesser...

TheMonster

edmund_f wrote:

just to encite even further..

you were half way across the road.. assuming you checked both ways as you are obliged to do, you would have noted the car coming down the road, and yet still continued to cross the road knowing that you could not complete the crossing before the car got to you. You intended to excerise your rights of the road against 2 tonnes odd of a merc?. You even pointed out that a number of people had enough time to return to their side of the road, but you, in your rightenouss, decided to put the rules of the road to the test emperically?.

. I was approaching from the Tara St side and was thus actually about 60/70% across.
Its my right to continue the crossing once I have started, I always do so if possible unless some maniac obviously won't stop and even so I will let him know what I think of him. I always give way to pedestrians when they are crossing and expect other drivers to do the same.

Its a busy crossing and has a fairly constant flow at that time - the people who stopped were approaching from the other side (the car was coming from their back) and had just started to cross and jumped back and were obviously intimidated by the driver.

Slightly off topic - Out of courtesy I always when safe allow pedestrians to cross at roundabouts.

edmund_f

i think, again totally my opinion, that this comes back to the opinion that some people have of themselves. That they are right. I know we have a police force, useless as they are, they are still the police. If you wish to enforce the law, become one.

I just cannot believe someone would endanger their lives just because they have the right to, i suppose each to their own.

why am i reminded of the label 'may contain nuts'?

seamus

blorg wrote:

I think drivers are far happier to disregard reds at pedestrian crossings than at other junctions, proabably because the likelihood of damage to their cars from these actions is lesser...

Tbh, while I've seen a lot of amber gamblers, seeing a car blatantly going through a red pedestrian light is a good bit rarer in my experience. Perhaps you're seeing the newish amber system, where the ped lights and the car lights go amber together - allowing the car to go if the crossing is clear?

Curiously enough:

GENERAL BYE-LAWS FOR THE CONTROL OF TRAFFIC, 1937.

9.—(1) At a road junction, the driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who is crossing the roadway at a pedestrian crossing.


(2) A pedestrian who is crossing or proceeding along a roadway at any place other than a pedestrian crossing shall yield the right of way to a vehicle proceeding along or across such roadway.

Yet if they fail to yield right of way, the driver will be at fault for allowing darwin's law to take effect. :rolleyes:

TheMonster

edmund_f wrote:

i think, again totally my opinion, that this comes back to the opinion that some people have of themselves. That they are right. I know we have a police force, useless as they are, they are still the police. If you wish to enforce the law, become one.

I just cannot believe someone would endanger their lives just because they have the right to, i suppose each to their own.

why am i reminded of the label 'may contain nuts'?

I won't endanger myself but will continue until it is obvious the idiot won't stop. I am not going to be a pansy who waits on the side of the road for every one who doesn't know the rules to turn.

When you approach a simialr junction do you keep going if there are pedestrians waiting or do you stop and allow them cross?

edmund_f

i will always, always stop. But never because there is a rule for it. I will do it because of the incredible damage a car can inflict on a human being, even at low speeds.

I will even stop for the idiots to will watch you drive along the road, look directly at you and then proceed to cross the road, forcing you to stop, in the full knowledge that they will have the full proection of the law when they are in their coma.

blorg

seamus wrote:

Tbh, while I've seen a lot of amber gamblers, seeing a car blatantly going through a red pedestrian light is a good bit rarer in my experience. Perhaps you're seeing the newish amber system, where the ped lights and the car lights go amber together - allowing the car to go if the crossing is clear?

I didn't think the flashing amber is new, they have certainly been around for at least the last quarter century! Flashing ambers are however not generally found in the city centre, and outside it only on smaller/slower roads.

Anyway, I'm thinking most specifically of the juntion between Baggot St and Pembroke St, where the car light will stay red until the pedestrian one goes red, and which (for pedestrians) has a very short green period followed by a very long amber (car light will be red through all of this).

It is _very common_ there that a stream of cars will continue through the red after the pedestrian light goes green, 'following' the one in front. This often continues until the pedestrian light goes orange and I've actually even seen a string of cars proceed through with no break whatsoever, until their light goes green again, preventing pedestrians from crossing at all. Thing is, this would never happen at a non-pedestrian junction and anyone trying it would get hooted out of it by the other traffic.

I've also - although much more rarely - seen drivers in a hurry take the pedestrian orange to mean 'go' when their own light is red (in fairness I've only seen this a handful of times.)

It's part of a mindset among a minority of motorists that cars simply have automatic and total priority over other road users; the same mentality that says a 'yield' sign means yield to other cars but not to cyclists.

Obviously one has to look out for one's personal physical integrity above a sense of righteousness, but it's insane to use that to transfer the blame from a motorist breaking the rules to the pedestrian! Point is, the motorist should not be putting the rule-following pedestrian into a situation where their life is in danger beacuse the motorist wants to break said rules. On that logic large trucks should never have to yield to small cars because sure, they could just run them over. (Not addressed at you Seamus, and most people on this thread seem to understand this.)

seamus

blorg wrote:

I didn't think the flashing amber is new, they have certainly been around for at least the last quarter century! Flashing ambers are however not generally found in the city centre, and outside it only on smaller/slower roads.

I say newish...:D
I can only recall seeing them in Dublin suburbs in the last 10 years or so. I'm not old enough to remember further back though - for a long time pedestrian crossings were a new thing outside of Dublin City!

edmund_f

fair points..

I am trying to point out the extremes that the H & S menatality has been taken to. Above all you should look out for your personal safety and then all others around you. If that happened we would never have any accidents (not technically possible due to the definition of 'accident' but you know what i mean)

I am commenting on the number of pedestrians who quite simply walk out in front of cars just as they have 'right of way' and generally get quite annoyed at you for driving down the road. (how dare i drive my car down a road!)

i am not condoning any action where it put anyone in danger, i am trying to make the point that just because the law of the land may be on the pedestrians side the laws of physics are not, and this should be remembered when staring down a merc... how sure are you that it can stop in time?

I am not trying to associate blame, i am trying to understand the mentality that irrespective of how illegal or dangrous a car is driving that the sheild of the law will protect you, when common sense clearly states otherwise.

If someone is crossing a road at a junction and a car suddenly turns in and runs someone over, drivers fault

if a pedestrian steps out in front of a moving car, accoring to our law, drivers fault

point i am trying to make, in both cases the ped. ends up in hospital. The law is there to protect in the first case, and in the second the law is being abused . I am not saying that the law should be changed. i think that any person using a road forces someone else into an action based on the fact that they kow they are in the right is very irresponsible, are you sure you are right, are you sure the other person knows they are in the wrong. People should be trying to avoid accidents, not uphold the letter of the law.

blorg

edmund_f wrote:

If someone is crossing a road at a junction and a car suddenly turns in and runs someone over, drivers fault

Agreed, and that was the situation the OP was talking about.

As for the reason insurance rates are so high, I'm convinced that the reason is _not_ fraudulent claims, but rather the insane legal and medical process that claims are forced through. I had my arm broken myself when someone drove right into the back of my bike (broad daylight); two witnesses stated it was the drivers fault and the x-rays show the arm was broken; open and shut case you would think.

However it's still going on over a year later, multiple expensive medical reports are needed for each side, and the insurance company tries legal trickery to avoid/reduce the settlement by pointing out that as the witnesses were French they mightn't be available for cross-examination in a courtroom.

An American friend of mine had a similar experience (motorbike this time and someone drove into him from a side road) and the story was the same; rather than just settling they put him through two years of forcing him to return to Ireland for medical reports (they would not accept report from a US doctor) on the theory that he would just give up. Well he didn't, and eventually they had to pay up.

That's why your insurance costs are so high; frankly as an injured party I'd be happier if there was a list of injuries with a price tag beside each.

edmund_f

again fair points.. but,
to go back to Monster's first post

'Some people stopped but I kept going along with 1 other' (emphasis on KEPT GOING)

this means that everyone had an oppurtunity to stop as

'proceeds to blow at the people who are crossing'

Monster did not as he was sure of his 'Rules of the Road'

yes he was legally right, yes if he got hit he would get paid, yes, the the driver was wrong.

I am asking, is it such an effort to try to avoid accidents, espically if you are the one that is going to end up in hosiptal, let the police enforce the laws. that is what they are paid to do.

I am sorry to hear of your accident, i am sure it will get sorted, sounds like the usual legal wranglings, do not take it personally





would totally disagree with you on the 'list of costs'

i assume you mean EU5,000 for a broken arm etc..

the idea of insurance is to bring you back to the point you were before the accident, indemnity, so a 17yr old apprentance brick layer v's a 60yr old banker, once costing 20K/yr and the other 100k/yr, plus the time taken for healing being longer the banker would get more

i would agree that insurance companies shoudl get a flat fee for settling (e.g. EU500 ) and that the stress part of it, or whatever it is called, should also be standardised.?

TheMonster

maybe I should have been a little clearer - the car stopped (actually think the other guy who kept going had headphones on and wasn't facing the car) and proceeded to blow at us to get out of the way. The people who stopped were not directly in the path and were afraid to proceed.

blorg

the idea of insurance is to bring you back to the point you were before the accident, indemnity, so a 17yr old apprentance brick layer v's a 60yr old banker, once costing 20K/yr and the other 100k/yr, plus the time taken for healing being longer the banker would get more

Sure, but you could replace 'list' with 'formula' and 'arbitration' here, and aim to deal with the majority of cases; there will always be exceptions/complications that need a longer/more expensive/adversarial process. My point is that in my personal exerience the legal/medical process appears to be ridiculously lengthy and costly and appears to constitute a substantial percentage of the cost _of every claim_ and that this would be a more fruitful area to look for savings than the relatively few fraudulent claims (which do however get the press coverage)...

I also _seriously_ doubt that there are a substantial number of people throwing themselves in front of cars in order to claim compensation; certainly the number is lesser than the number of motorists driving dangerously or recklessly! If anyone is doing this, it is indeed idiotic, as you point out yourself the compensation isn't going to do you a lot of good if you're dead. I know if I could go back I'd choose just not to have had my arm broken, thanks very much...

Blitzkrieger

TheMonster wrote:

My understanding is that once a vehicle it turning from a main road onto a lesser road that pedestrians have the right of way.

This is true but only if the pedestrian has made sure there's no cars coming first. It's not a blanket right of way for the pedestrian. In the city every pedestrian tends to put a foot out onto the road while they look to see if there's traffic and will start to cross the road before the traffic has passed. The pedestrian has an obligation to check that the road is clear before crossing. If the pedestrian has done this and has started to cross the road then they have right of way. You don't have right of way just because you happen to be following the main road.

TheMonster wrote:

and that the same applies to vehicles turning onto a main road from a lesser road.

That's just bizarre - of course the traffic on the main road has right of way.

RicardoSmith

At the end of the day if you (pedestrian) get creamed, or you run (motorist) someone over. Will it have been worth proving your point?