3 ms·
Yes I know. But the change makes it clear you shouldn’t impede continuing traffic (including pedestrians walking down the pavement), and you should consider the
by avianlyric 5y ago
Yes I know. But the change makes it clear you shouldn’t impede continuing traffic (including pedestrians walking down the pavement), and you should consider the pavement part of the highway (which it is), rather than a separate part of the road which automotive traffic is allowed to cut through with impunity.
Obviously cars should always give way to pedestrians in the roadway, the alternative is running them down. I don’t think we need a Highway Code rule to make it clear why that’s a bad idea.
- iso1631 5y agoCars of course have used the pavement as part of the highway for years, constantly driving and blocking it, mowing down about 40 pedestrians a week on the "safety" of the pavement, just for the convenience of the driver. The police nor council do anything about it. > I don’t think we need a Highway Code rule to make it clear why that’s a bad idea. While the UK is far better than the wild west of the US (pedestrians killed per million people per year. UK=5, New Jersey=22, New Mexico=47), there's still about 1 pedestrian a day killed by drivers, and 10 per day seriously injured. 20 children are killed or seriously injured every week for the "crime" of walking, almost all in towns where there is no need to be traveling more than 15mph (2 miles to get out of town or onto a major artery road, at 30mph that takes 4 minutes with no traffic lights, at 15mph that's 8 minutes)
- avianlyric 5y agoI literally have know idea what point you’re trying to make.