3 ms·
In the UK pedestrians have the "right of way" if they were crossing the road and a car comes up on them on all roads except on Motorways and slip roads where th
by thinkingemote 7y ago
In the UK pedestrians have the "right of way" if they were crossing the road and a car comes up on them on all roads except on Motorways and slip roads where they are banned. I put "right of way" in quotes because there's no set law - but almost all the time because a car will hurt a pedestrian - the law will side with the pedestrian. In terms of law, the written one says if a walker is crossing a side road that the driver wants to enter into, then the driver must give way.
One example would be if you were leading a walking group of 20 people and wanted to cross the road and it was safe to do so at the beginning but because the group is large it takes a long time. Any approaching cars would not have any right of way until all the group has passed.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoA right of way means that they have priority. In the UK pedestrians only have a right of way in specific cases. But drivers have a duty of care, and if a pedestrian is crossing a road then obviously they must do what is safe, i.e. slow down and let the pedestrian cross if (s)he is in the way.
- mumblemumble 7y agoAt least some US states don't have a legal concept of "right of way", specifically to avoid the tacit implication that the person who has right of way is under no responsibility to avoid a collision if someone in their path doesn't. e.g., where I live, the traffic laws are defined in terms of who has the responsibility to yield, and undergirded by a catch-all requirement that everybody who is able to act to avoid a collision must do so.
- chmod775 7y agoIt's perfectly fine to give pedestrians the right of way, because assuming they also have some sense of self preservation isn't really so far fetched. For instance in Germany they drill into you in driver's ed that when you hit someone with your car, it's pretty much always your fault. I'd say we don't have a jaywalking epidemic.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoIt's reasonable to give priority to pedestrians once they are on the road because it makes sense to allow them to leave the road as quickly as possible instead of being stuck there because cars don't let them, which is both very dangerous and bad for traffic. It's equally reasonable for pedestrians NOT to have priority to start crossing the road unless there is a clear, marked pedestrian crossing.
- chmod775 7y agoSure, you may get a ticket for not using a pedestrian crossing if there is one nearby, but if you get run over it's still probably the driver's fault. You can have both.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThere is a difference between having priority and having the right to be safe. Priority means that cars must give way, which is the case at pedestrian crossings: Cars must give way BEFORE a pedestrian has started to cross in order to let him cross. But in any case once a pedestrian is on the road cars have a duty of care not to hit him.
- mumblemumble 7y agoIt is. Legally, the two are entirely equivalent. The reason some US states choose to specify who should yield instead of who gets to go first is because framing things in those terms hopefully alters the ways that drivers think about things in a way that will improve safety overall. TBH, I suspect that it's an empty gesture that is being used as an alternative to implementing more rigorous driver education and licensure requirements; the US tends to view driving as more of a right than a privilege.
- mark-r 7y agoI have a saying: don't let your gravestone say "But I had right of way!"
- mirages 7y agoFrance road law specifies that a pedestian keep absolute priority even if they are infringing the law
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]