3 ms·

> 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 U

> 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.

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.