4 ms·
Culturally, I've noticed Germans will absolutely not cross before the green man, even if there are no cars. In the UK it is very common to cross even if the ma
by Chriky 9y ago
Culturally, I've noticed Germans will absolutely not cross before the green man, even if there are no cars.
In the UK it is very common to cross even if the man is red. I've been in walking conversations with continental Europeans in London, then suddenly noticed they aren't at my side any more because they stopped at a crossing that was clear.
- krisdol 9y agoEven if they do cross, they have the right of way. Outside of maybe the autobahn, you should never be driving a car fast enough to where you cannot see a pedestrian in time to stop for them. It's pretty unlikely that the pedestrian is ever found at fault for an accident in Germany.
- Xylakant 9y agoNo, that’s entirely not true. See http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fussgaengerunfall-in-der-aktuellen-rspr-f45770 http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fu... for a summary in German with citations of relevant cases. It’s unlikely that the pedestrian is found to be entirely at fault, though. Tables with with cases and the resulting distribution are at the end.
- closeparen 9y agoYou have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?
- Symbiote 9y agoWhat is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road? I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield? [1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Crosswalk-Sign-K-6642.gif https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...
- closeparen 9y agoThat when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out. Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?
- Symbiote 9y ago> That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless. It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary. > "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1] The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that. [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...
- buckminster 9y agoWhere I live the signals are compulsory for drivers and advisory for pedestrians. It is not unreasonable for the regulation to apply only to the people who choose to create the risk.
- lmm 9y agoAs a way for cars to coordinate with each other, and to ensure there's a phase when cars stop.
- walshemj 9y agoAnd in stopped traffic its normal to cross normal roads (ie not dual carriageways ring roads ). There is also evidence that doing away with the aggressive use of traffic furniture to separate cars and people leads to safer driving. This also reduces the risk of people being crushed against railings and so on.