IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN!?!

[migrator]

Peter,

The Concise Oxford dictionary (yes - we have now dropped to that level) defines 'jaywalk' as 'cross or walk in the street or road without regard for traffic'.

Henrik has clearly indicated that a full check on traffic activity was made and on the data available at the time a decision was made to cross a road. This is not jaywalking.

I was not aware that there was a crime of 'jaywalking' in the UK.

As a road user on foot, Henrik has obeyed the Highway Code where it applies. The driver of the vehicle involved has not obeyed Rule 146 (see elsewhere in this forum).

I was not aware that anybody in this country must pay for the right to travel on the public highway. Users must pay any legally levied tolls for the use of certain bridges, private roads etc but not for the public highway. The 'Road Fund Licence' arguement will not wash as that is only a disc indicating that 'Road Tax' has been paid. 'Road Tax' is a government fund for the maintenance and building of roads, bridges etc.

'Kerbs' do not exist everywhere that there are roads. Highway code Rule 146 applies as much in the countryside as in the built up area.

One problem there, road tax is not used for the maintenance and building of roads, bridges etc. Even the goverment has admited that in the past. :)

As for the issue of countrysides, I thought (and don't have a highway code book on me so sorry if this is incorrect) but although you still have the crossing issues on country roads there are rules regarding how to walk down such roads (walking against the traffic and that kind of thing) so the whole thing about kerbed pavements stands doesn't it, if the pavements are there?

As for jay walking, I didn't think that it applied in the UK either (or is it justnot enforced?)

Stu

[migrator]

Stu,

Governments diverting funds is another issue ...

This is still about turning from a major road to a minor road safely and properly. Unless we can be there to see for ourselves and take in the information ourselves the whole issue will be open to different interpretations.

Herein endeth the present lesson. Anyone wanting the last word - the floor is yours.

Hi All,

This and the previous thread have been a very interesting read. I have been driving since 1971 and the one thing that has changed dramatically since then is driver aggression.

As a young 'boy racer' back then you would get into a confrontation with another 'boy racer' and at the end of it there was a wave and recognition of another persons skill or otherwise. It was very rare (but not unheard of) for any serious to happen. Obviously this is a general statement.

Today, you had better be careful of upsetting another driver as before you know it you will be forced off the road and who knows what. As someone who travels about 1,000 miles a week on average (1500 this week) I have seen and had a lot of experiences.

My feelings on this thread are that Henrik may just live in the wrong area or may not be careful enough when he crosses the road or it may be a hundred different things. However, perhaps what we need to do is have sympathy with his situation rather than act equally agressively to him as what appears to have happened with other drivers.

Henrik, perhaps you should look seriously at the road you cross, is it a danger spot? Is there a slightly different route you can take, or can you cross the road in a slightly different location?

At the end of the day Henrik, your life may depend on it. It is no good going through the gates of heaven and saying to St Peter, 'but I was in the right, it was not my fault'. Take a stand, accept that there are some awful people out there and situations that we are not always able to control and find a different route.

Peace and calm to everyone.

Regards

Chris

"The pedestrian does not pay for the right to travel on the road which was designed for wheeled vehicular traffic NOT pedestrians."

Not that old chestnut again.....

The truth is that every taxpayer in the country pays for the roads - including cyclists and pedestrians.

The fact that we all need to pay if we use a certain type of vehicle does not give us rights over and above those of users who chose not to make the same choice - apart from some clearly defined areas eg motorways.

Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to use the roads enshrined in law. The use of motor vehicles on the public highway is only allowed under licence and is, in effect, a privilege that may be withdrawn. (For example if a driver does not insure their vehicle or their licence is suspended etc. etc.).

Pavements are there to seperate vehicles from pedestrians but where none exist (in the absence of special restrictions)a pedestrian has as much right to be on the carriageway as anybody else.

Society can only operate on the basis that all must contribute to facilities even if they do not use specific facilities themselves. Drivers who resent other road users sharing a space they are not directly taxed for are taking a similar stance to an individual who has no children resenting paying income tax as some of this is used on education.

Rant over

Will Plummer

Driver, cyclist & pedestrian

[sheerwater]

Hi all,
In my area on a major road there is an overpass for pedestrians, all the estates are built for pedestrians to have no contact with traffic. There is an underpass within 100 yards of the overpass. Within 20 yards of the overpass they built a pelican crossing. Why because 2 pedestrians who refused to use the other facilities were injured. They then reduced the speed limit from 50 to 40 because of the pelican crossing. Result? 2 very serious accidents involving vehicles where people were injured and loads of accidents in the immediate vicinity. (quarter mile stretch) People using public transport are now delayed and are late for work because of the stream of traffic which does not allow the bus to turn right onto the major road. (no alternative route) Cars now use the 20mph estate road with humps which passes two schools as a rat run because the traffic builds up so heavily due to the reduced limit. Why?? because two people could not cross the road properly. As for the crossing??? Its never used because the stationary traffic allows people to nip across the road anywhere they like between the cars. As for the road??? 30 years ago it was designed as a dual carriageway but only a single track was built which is why there are overpasses and underpasses but the road tax was diverted to other pet projects. If a dual carriageway was needed 30 years ago you can imagine todays traffic scene. Danger exists everwhere in society and it is for all to be aware of it. It is your responsibility to stay alive and your responsibility if you hurt somebody. You will never remove all danger in life but there is always a cost to playing to the safety campaigners. If you seize up traffic people die because ambulances cannot get to hospitals. People get stressed and become ill due to pressures of trying to meet deadlines but are snarled up in traffic and people earn less because they cant work as much. Therefore less tax is paid so less investment in all public sector services.
Of course we could get rid of cars completely and all live in huge tower blocks like they do in Hong Kong but that didnt work in the UK did it? Cheers Nige

Sheerwater

Excuse me for being a bit thick, but could you enlighten me as to what exactly is causing the problem on the stretch of road you describe?

You state that: "If a dual carriageway was needed 30 years ago you can imagine todays traffic scene." Yes I can and I would suggest that undercapacity is the main cause of the snarl ups rather than the speed limit which by saying "Its never used because the stationary traffic allows people to nip across the road" you suggest is largely irrelevant.

I live in MIlton Keynes and you will see exactly the same situation every rush hour. This is however on DUAL carriageways with a 70mph limit. Too many cars pure and simple - you could make the limit 150mph and they would still be stuck.

You state that: " As for the crossing??? Its never used because the stationary traffic allows people to nip across the road anywhere they like between the cars."

Well what would you do? In your car do you especially go a long way round choosing a route that makes you wait at some lights when a perfectly safe straight route exists? (we are talking about stationary traffic right?)Is the road closed to pedestrians?

How long has it been since you dragged a couple of kids and a pram up some steps or a steep ramp to an overpass? Would you be happy for your wife / daughter / (insert as appropriate) to use a lonely underpass alone in the evening? Or would you be happier for them to be where there are plenty of other people?.

"You will never remove all danger in life but there is always a cost to playing to the safety campaigners"

In a recent post you suggested we check out the ABD website - well I did. They quite obviously see themselves as safety campaingers and you would seem to have sympathy with their views (are you a member?.

Do we listen to them?

[sheerwater]

Hi,
In answer to the points you raise. Yes I am a member of the ABD and yes I am a fairly safe driver(I dare for anyone to say that they are a good driver because we all make mistakes) and I have never promoted unsafe driving in my life or on any posts. The ABD is safety orientated but also exposes the cons pushed at us by the Govt. and the magazine issued by them points out hundreds of cons designed to rid cars from the road.To take an example. Cars at 40mph kill more pedestrians than cars at 30mph. There was an article by somone of authority who clearly showed that the Govt. does not take into consideration points such as braking, evasion , driver reaction etc. They also add that a driver checking the speedometer to see if they are slightly over the speed limit adds 0.8 seconds to reaction time and severely increases impact speed. The equation for traffic flow is that traffic can get out of a stretch of road as fast as it can get in. If you have a 60mph road feeding a 40mph road then bottlenecks occur even if the road has the same dimension. The road in question was reduced from 50 to 40 and narrowed at the crossing area.
As for nipping across stationary or slow moving traffic.... That is why accidents happen. They are watching one lane which is slow and suddenly ending up on the white line with fast cars travelling in the opposite direction. This plus motorbikes weaving in and out, pedal cycles on the inside etc.etc. and the possibility of the initial stationary traffic starting to move thus stranding them.
As for the shortcut...yes I do take them but then I did not scream for a pedestrian crossing to be built in addition to the other facilities and I dont blame others for my mistakes. I am also old enough to know the green cross code and that if I run into traffic without looking I have a good chance of being hit hard and injured. The trouble with making everything 100% safe is that the up and coming generation assume that everything will be safe. It isn't and basic Health and Safety Law states that you are responsible for taking care at all times even if this means not doing something.
Regarding pushing / carrying a pram up steps. Yes I have done that in my time. The underpass and overpass both have gentle ramps. Then again how many prams are pulled across roads. In my experience the pram is the first item thrust into the traffic and is usually hovering with one wheel off the ground perilously close to moving traffic ready for the charge across.
As for the ABD they are listened to and are one of the few motorist organisations fighting for motorists rights. If the Transport 2000 group gets its way (ABD are thorns in this organisation) we will all be off the road and then what is the point of this website!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers Nige