5 ms·

Here in the UK they have just changed the Highway Code (the rules that given all road users, including pedestrians) so that pedestrians have ultimate right of w

Here in the UK they have just changed the Highway Code (the rules that given all road users, including pedestrians) so that pedestrians have ultimate right of way in almost all cases. It’s the opposite of the situation in the US, a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way. It’s going to be interesting to see how it effects accident numbers, I’m worry it may actually make accident numbers go up. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change...

tim333 5y ago
>a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way. Speaking as a UK driver (and pedestrian) - no, that's not really the case. At least not that pedestrians have right of way. I mean cars will hit the brakes to avoid killing you but I wouldn't recommend relying on that. The only place they changed the right of way recently is at turnings with 'give way' markings as shown in your link.
was_a_dev 5y ago
I agree, it's ok to change the Highway Code but the infrastructure also needs to change to reflect it. A contradiction leads to uncertainity, which leads to accidents
- iso1631 5y ago
  The ruels haven't changed, the guidance has just been updated to better reflect the rules
paulcole 5y ago
It doesn’t matter who has the right of way if car drivers don’t give a shit — which is the case in the US.
gilbetron 5y ago
The small US city I live in made such a change, it we had several pedestrians get hit in the first year or so because drivers aren't used to it, can't see people very well, and pedestrians just figured everyone would now just stop. We changed the laws to restrict it to only crosswalks and added in a ton of new crosswalks. Even then, it was still a problem because pedestrians don't realize when someone can see them. If the are in the shade of a tree on a bright day, they can't be seen. There was a lot of learning and training to be done (some of it dumb), but now things are ok. "Crossing the road anywhere" is quite dumb, I think, and I guarantee you'll see a spike of pedestrians getting hit for a while. Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > "Crossing the road anywhere" is quite dumb, I think, and I guarantee you'll see a spike of pedestrians getting hit for a while Wrong. It's the very opposite. Research shows that drivers increase their attention when they know that there can be obstacles and/or the road is not wide and straight.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  You’ve been able to cross a road anywhere since the dawn of time in pretty much the entire of Europe (U.K. included). The changes in Highway Code really just say that cars should give way to pedestrians that are crossing minor roads, while walking down a major road. I.e. the general rule is that all traffic going down a major should wait and give way to continuing traffic, regardless of if it’s a car, bike or pedestrian, when they enter or leave the major road to/from a minor road. There’s is still an expectation that all road uses take care and respect other road users. You don’t ever have a “right of way” only the obligation to “give way”.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    > The changes in Highway Code really just say that cars should give way to pedestrians that are crossing minor roads, while walking down a major road. That was always the case, see Rule 182 from the 2006 version for example https://web.archive.org/web/20060418012127/http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20060418012127/http://www.highwa... "turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning" The change was you now had to give way to those about to cross the road too
gumby 5y ago
That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians." The cars are still obligated to stop to avoid hitting someone. It just allows a pedestrian to be ticketed for impeding a vehicle's travel (which is dangerous) while not being in an established crossings (which I believe includes implicit ones at intersections, but unsure about that part).
  - gumby 5y ago
    Well yes, that's the law as written, but generally not as enforced. I'm not sure what an implicit crossing is. In California every street intersection is explicitly a pedestrian crossing per CVC unless otherwise marked.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      That's what I mean - intersections do not need a marked crosswalk as the law treats it as one. Some people don't know this and think if it doesn't have a painted crosswalk, then it isn't one. Frankly, almost no law is enforced as it's written. Law enforcement discretion and judges legislating from the bench are extremely common in all areas. That said, if you hit someone, you will be investigated (how thoroughly depends on the circumstances).
- mrep 5y ago
  > California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. As an avid jaywalker, in what situation do you think you should be legally prioritized over a car on the road? If the car can stop in time sure but otherwise you're the one causing a problem.
dazc 5y ago
In my experience, if you are in the road then, in the mind of the driver, you should not be there and there are various ways in which they will demonstrate this to you. Ranging from an angry face, at one end of the spectrum, to purposely accelerating towards you, at the other. So, yes, I think you're right, casualties are more likely to increase since few drivers are going to be changing their behaviour any time soon.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I've been yelled multiple times this last year for crossing the road...at a stop light when I had a "walk" light. I always treat cars as if they are trying to kill me, but the levels of callous disregard for the safety and wellbeing of other road users seems like it has reached new highs. I think we need to get much more proactive about revoking licenses. I am also heavily considering getting a dashcam to start recording and reporting violators.
  - guitarbill 5y ago
    The police won't do anything, unless you get hit. But having a "dashcam" while walking is something I'd recommend. Some cyclists already do it. With that, at least in the worse cases, you'd have great evidence it was the driver's fault. Not having that uncertainty in an otherwise their-word-against-your-word situation should also make it easier to press charges or get insurance to pay.
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago
    As much as I understand that sentiment. I don't think license restrictions are a very good idea, except in really egregious cases. It would be nice to see in really extreme cases where pedestrians / bikers are disregarded in a really callous manor, but unfortunately I'm not sure the police see many clearcut cases of this. Taking away licenses is not a clean and easy thing in the US, because you basically make someone the ward of someone else, or an outlaw. People can't get by without vehicles, and much of the time they just have to risk it. Best case scenario someone else has to babysit them. I definitely agree we need to make it easier for people to get by without their cars. I just can't stomach making people second class citizens, which is what these laws do. I'm only in favor of them in really egregious, repeat violation situations. Like people that refuse to stop drinking and driving; the ones that just keep doing it over and over. Even then, I'm willing to talk about options in the grand scheme of things like ignition interlock systems (actually not even available to many repeat offenders in my state)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vinay427 5y ago
> It’s the opposite of the situation in the US It varies by city/state, as some other comments noted. In any case, in a few smaller towns I've been to in the UK, there are numerous crossings that seem incredibly unsafe to me from both a US and western European perspective. In much of the latter regions, marked crossings that aren't full-on zebra crossings with pedestrian-priority are incredibly rare, while these crossings (in which pedestrians yield to vehicles in a marked path) seem the norm here. With neither a pedestrian signal nor a priority marking, I find them rather alarming and pointlessly confusing given that vehicles sometimes have a signal for these same intersection, leaving pedestrians to just... guess? I've slowly grown accustomed to accepting the priority of vehicles over pedestrians here compared to in the US and continental European cities I lived in, but London seemed far more pedestrian-friendly and there are certainly US cities that are even worse than the above.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The placement of crossings is less about giving pedestrians right of way, and more about designating places where it's safe to cross. Unfortunately, the opposite often happens due to political pressure. People know that a blind curve is dangerous for pedestrians and demand a crosswalk and signs/ signals, which only encourages more people to cross at the unsafe location. (Even if it now has lots of paint on the pavement and flashing lights.) Yes, the big picture solution should be to minimize places where it's dangerous to cross via road design, but that isn't always possible or practical for various political or engineering reasons. The typical US laws are mostly misunderstood: Even where vehicles have the right of way, they have an obligation to yield to avoid hitting a pedestrian, just as having right of way doesn't permit you to intentionally cause a wreck. And unfortunately, there isn't a uniform set of rules between states to make row for pedestrians clear, but there has been a trend to at least give pedestrians right of way at all marked crossings, and in places that don't have a marked crossing within ~a block.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "The typical US laws are mostly misunderstood: Even where vehicles have the right of way, they have an obligation to yield to avoid hitting a pedestrian, just as having right of way doesn't permit you to intentionally cause a wreck." Worth repeating.
notacoward 5y ago
It's not quite the opposite of the US. AFAIK in most states there are laws saying drivers must take all reasonable measures (or some such wording) to preserve pedestrian safety. For example, in my own state there are actually two such laws, plus a third specifically requiring drivers to yield in parking lots and driveways. So it's not the same as giving pedestrians general right of way, but it's not quite "take your chances" either. There are situations in which both a driver and a pedestrian could theoretically be cited, though I doubt that ever happens. BTW I'm not saying whether those laws are right or wrong either way. Just clarifying what the status quo actually is.
P_I_Staker 5y ago
Generally, pedestrians have right of way, is what I was taught in the USA.

tim333 5y ago

>a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way. Speaking as a UK driver (and pedestrian) - no, that's not really the case. At least not that pedestrians have right of way. I mean cars will hit the brakes to avoid killing you but I wouldn't recommend relying on that. The only place they changed the right of way recently is at turnings with 'give way' markings as shown in your link.

was_a_dev 5y ago

I agree, it's ok to change the Highway Code but the infrastructure also needs to change to reflect it. A contradiction leads to uncertainity, which leads to accidents

iso1631 5y ago
The ruels haven't changed, the guidance has just been updated to better reflect the rules

paulcole 5y ago

It doesn’t matter who has the right of way if car drivers don’t give a shit — which is the case in the US.

gilbetron 5y ago

The small US city I live in made such a change, it we had several pedestrians get hit in the first year or so because drivers aren't used to it, can't see people very well, and pedestrians just figured everyone would now just stop. We changed the laws to restrict it to only crosswalks and added in a ton of new crosswalks. Even then, it was still a problem because pedestrians don't realize when someone can see them. If the are in the shade of a tree on a bright day, they can't be seen. There was a lot of learning and training to be done (some of it dumb), but now things are ok. "Crossing the road anywhere" is quite dumb, I think, and I guarantee you'll see a spike of pedestrians getting hit for a while. Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

goodpoint 5y ago
> "Crossing the road anywhere" is quite dumb, I think, and I guarantee you'll see a spike of pedestrians getting hit for a while Wrong. It's the very opposite. Research shows that drivers increase their attention when they know that there can be obstacles and/or the road is not wide and straight.
avianlyric 5y ago
You’ve been able to cross a road anywhere since the dawn of time in pretty much the entire of Europe (U.K. included). The changes in Highway Code really just say that cars should give way to pedestrians that are crossing minor roads, while walking down a major road. I.e. the general rule is that all traffic going down a major should wait and give way to continuing traffic, regardless of if it’s a car, bike or pedestrian, when they enter or leave the major road to/from a minor road. There’s is still an expectation that all road uses take care and respect other road users. You don’t ever have a “right of way” only the obligation to “give way”.
- iso1631 5y ago
  > The changes in Highway Code really just say that cars should give way to pedestrians that are crossing minor roads, while walking down a major road. That was always the case, see Rule 182 from the 2006 version for example https://web.archive.org/web/20060418012127/http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20060418012127/http://www.highwa... "turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning" The change was you now had to give way to those about to cross the road too

gumby 5y ago

That has long been the law in California, but enforcement is poor. California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. It's worse for bicycles: almost nowhere in the USA are drivers punished for killing cyclists, despite what's written in the vehicle code.

giantg2 5y ago
"California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians." The cars are still obligated to stop to avoid hitting someone. It just allows a pedestrian to be ticketed for impeding a vehicle's travel (which is dangerous) while not being in an established crossings (which I believe includes implicit ones at intersections, but unsure about that part).
- gumby 5y ago
  Well yes, that's the law as written, but generally not as enforced. I'm not sure what an implicit crossing is. In California every street intersection is explicitly a pedestrian crossing per CVC unless otherwise marked.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's what I mean - intersections do not need a marked crosswalk as the law treats it as one. Some people don't know this and think if it doesn't have a painted crosswalk, then it isn't one. Frankly, almost no law is enforced as it's written. Law enforcement discretion and judges legislating from the bench are extremely common in all areas. That said, if you hit someone, you will be investigated (how thoroughly depends on the circumstances).
mrep 5y ago
> California also has the "jaywalking" law that clearly prioritizes automobiles over pedestrians. As an avid jaywalker, in what situation do you think you should be legally prioritized over a car on the road? If the car can stop in time sure but otherwise you're the one causing a problem.

dazc 5y ago

In my experience, if you are in the road then, in the mind of the driver, you should not be there and there are various ways in which they will demonstrate this to you. Ranging from an angry face, at one end of the spectrum, to purposely accelerating towards you, at the other. So, yes, I think you're right, casualties are more likely to increase since few drivers are going to be changing their behaviour any time soon.

shkkmo 5y ago
I've been yelled multiple times this last year for crossing the road...at a stop light when I had a "walk" light. I always treat cars as if they are trying to kill me, but the levels of callous disregard for the safety and wellbeing of other road users seems like it has reached new highs. I think we need to get much more proactive about revoking licenses. I am also heavily considering getting a dashcam to start recording and reporting violators.
- guitarbill 5y ago
  The police won't do anything, unless you get hit. But having a "dashcam" while walking is something I'd recommend. Some cyclists already do it. With that, at least in the worse cases, you'd have great evidence it was the driver's fault. Not having that uncertainty in an otherwise their-word-against-your-word situation should also make it easier to press charges or get insurance to pay.
- P_I_Staker 5y ago
  As much as I understand that sentiment. I don't think license restrictions are a very good idea, except in really egregious cases. It would be nice to see in really extreme cases where pedestrians / bikers are disregarded in a really callous manor, but unfortunately I'm not sure the police see many clearcut cases of this. Taking away licenses is not a clean and easy thing in the US, because you basically make someone the ward of someone else, or an outlaw. People can't get by without vehicles, and much of the time they just have to risk it. Best case scenario someone else has to babysit them. I definitely agree we need to make it easier for people to get by without their cars. I just can't stomach making people second class citizens, which is what these laws do. I'm only in favor of them in really egregious, repeat violation situations. Like people that refuse to stop drinking and driving; the ones that just keep doing it over and over. Even then, I'm willing to talk about options in the grand scheme of things like ignition interlock systems (actually not even available to many repeat offenders in my state)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vinay427 5y ago

> It’s the opposite of the situation in the US It varies by city/state, as some other comments noted. In any case, in a few smaller towns I've been to in the UK, there are numerous crossings that seem incredibly unsafe to me from both a US and western European perspective. In much of the latter regions, marked crossings that aren't full-on zebra crossings with pedestrian-priority are incredibly rare, while these crossings (in which pedestrians yield to vehicles in a marked path) seem the norm here. With neither a pedestrian signal nor a priority marking, I find them rather alarming and pointlessly confusing given that vehicles sometimes have a signal for these same intersection, leaving pedestrians to just... guess? I've slowly grown accustomed to accepting the priority of vehicles over pedestrians here compared to in the US and continental European cities I lived in, but London seemed far more pedestrian-friendly and there are certainly US cities that are even worse than the above.

beerandt 5y ago
The placement of crossings is less about giving pedestrians right of way, and more about designating places where it's safe to cross. Unfortunately, the opposite often happens due to political pressure. People know that a blind curve is dangerous for pedestrians and demand a crosswalk and signs/ signals, which only encourages more people to cross at the unsafe location. (Even if it now has lots of paint on the pavement and flashing lights.) Yes, the big picture solution should be to minimize places where it's dangerous to cross via road design, but that isn't always possible or practical for various political or engineering reasons. The typical US laws are mostly misunderstood: Even where vehicles have the right of way, they have an obligation to yield to avoid hitting a pedestrian, just as having right of way doesn't permit you to intentionally cause a wreck. And unfortunately, there isn't a uniform set of rules between states to make row for pedestrians clear, but there has been a trend to at least give pedestrians right of way at all marked crossings, and in places that don't have a marked crossing within ~a block.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "The typical US laws are mostly misunderstood: Even where vehicles have the right of way, they have an obligation to yield to avoid hitting a pedestrian, just as having right of way doesn't permit you to intentionally cause a wreck." Worth repeating.

notacoward 5y ago

It's not quite the opposite of the US. AFAIK in most states there are laws saying drivers must take all reasonable measures (or some such wording) to preserve pedestrian safety. For example, in my own state there are actually two such laws, plus a third specifically requiring drivers to yield in parking lots and driveways. So it's not the same as giving pedestrians general right of way, but it's not quite "take your chances" either. There are situations in which both a driver and a pedestrian could theoretically be cited, though I doubt that ever happens. BTW I'm not saying whether those laws are right or wrong either way. Just clarifying what the status quo actually is.

P_I_Staker 5y ago

Generally, pedestrians have right of way, is what I was taught in the USA.