4 ms·

>>In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. That's not true - in Poland you get a green right turn arrow even on red,

>>In Europe cars are not allowed to drive through the crossing on the "walk" signal. That's not true - in Poland you get a green right turn arrow even on red, and you can legally drive over a crossing even when the pedestrians have a green light to cross. It is absolutely your responsibility to make sure that it is safe to do so. https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skretu-czyli-o-co-tu-chodzi/ https://www.gazelka.pl/blog/zielona-strzalka-warunkowego-skr...

paganel 3y ago
That's crazy, because we have the same right green arrow on red here in Romania but I'd go to jail were I to, God forbid, hit the pedestrians crossing the street on "their" green. If there are pedestrians on the crosswalk, you're turning right and you haven't stopped for them, chances are you'll get your license taken by the police (if the police happens to be in the area). I agree that the pedestrians should double-check in these sorts of situations, because the cemetery is full with people who have had the law on their side, but, nevertheless, it's primarily the drivers' responsibility to respect the law.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Sorry maybe this is a misunderstanding, I mean it as "you can drive over a [pedestrian] crossing" not "you can drive over a pedestrian". Obviously actually hitting anyone crossing the road would land you in jail. And yes you also have to stop if anyone is on the crossing. But assuming there isn't anyone and you have the green arrow then you can still drive over the crossing, even though pedestrians have a green "walk" light displayed.
Ekaros 3y ago
In Finland green arrow will explicitly tell you that no one else including pedestrians have right of passage. You are still not allowed to drive over anyone, but pedestrians certainly do not have green light at such moments.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Sure, which is my entire point - "Europe" isn't one place with unified rules everywhere. The "green arrow means you have unconditional priority" is actually a rule in Poland too.......except when it comes to this tiny side arrow for turning right on red. With that one you have to give priority to people crossing.
- mcv 3y ago
  Same in Netherland. Arrow means it's guaranteed to be safe (unless a pedestrian is running a red light, which is possible and not an excuse to hit them), whereas a solid circle means you have to watch out for crossing bikes and pedestrians (though of course you should always watch out).
cge 3y ago
>It is absolutely your responsibility to make sure that it is safe to do so. In aviation safety, it has long been established that, regardless of how clearly you establish who is responsible for what, if reality is such that people frequently can't actually carry out their responsibilities effectively, then you'll end up with disasters; disasters where you'll have someone to officially blame, but disasters nonetheless. This is quite relevant to many pedestrian-car interactions. The problem with right turns over crossings where pedestrians have priority, is that in many situations, even if the driver is responsible for ensuring the turn is safe, it isn't possible for them to do so effectively. In many California right-on-red situations, for example, the driver is responsible both for ensuring that the road to their left is clear, and that the crossing to their right (and in front of them) is clear. Traffic, visibility, and speeds often mean that ensuring the road to the left is clear requires the driver to be looking far to their left until almost immediately before turning, and then accelerate quickly. At the same time, ensuring crossings are clear requires them to look both ahead and to their right, and similarly, visibility and layout often mean that the relevant portion of the crossing can go from being clear to blocked almost instantly, so the driver must be looking to their right immediately before turning. The two responsibilities conflict, and in order to turn, the driver must choose which risk to prioritize: if they prioritize checking for pedestrians, they'll increase the risk of a two-vehicle collision, and if they prioritize checking for vehicles, they'll increase the risk of hitting a pedestrian. Not turning is an option, but at least in California there would be considerable pressure culturally and from other drivers to do so, potentially to the level of threats and violence. It is not a good situation to put someone in. The only time I have ever been hit by a car as a pedestrian was when I was very mildly hit by a driver turning right immediately after I stepped into a crossing. Legally, she was entirely at fault, but as I already felt the crossing was problematic, she was very apologetic, and I was entirely uninjured, we just didn't report it. And in hindsight, the intersection was just horrible. She couldn't see me because I was to her right and would have been obscured by trees and parked cars until immediately before entering the crossing; in order to avoid being hit by traffic, she needed to look to the left. While not legally my responsibility, in order to see her, I would have needed to look behind me before entering the intersection, but I also needed to watch carefully for cross traffic. In utterly bad design, despite heavy traffic and a 35mph speed limit, pedestrians always had legal right of way at the crossing, so she couldn't even have waited to have right of way.

paganel 3y ago

That's crazy, because we have the same right green arrow on red here in Romania but I'd go to jail were I to, God forbid, hit the pedestrians crossing the street on "their" green. If there are pedestrians on the crosswalk, you're turning right and you haven't stopped for them, chances are you'll get your license taken by the police (if the police happens to be in the area). I agree that the pedestrians should double-check in these sorts of situations, because the cemetery is full with people who have had the law on their side, but, nevertheless, it's primarily the drivers' responsibility to respect the law.

gambiting 3y ago
Sorry maybe this is a misunderstanding, I mean it as "you can drive over a [pedestrian] crossing" not "you can drive over a pedestrian". Obviously actually hitting anyone crossing the road would land you in jail. And yes you also have to stop if anyone is on the crossing. But assuming there isn't anyone and you have the green arrow then you can still drive over the crossing, even though pedestrians have a green "walk" light displayed.

Ekaros 3y ago

In Finland green arrow will explicitly tell you that no one else including pedestrians have right of passage. You are still not allowed to drive over anyone, but pedestrians certainly do not have green light at such moments.

gambiting 3y ago
Sure, which is my entire point - "Europe" isn't one place with unified rules everywhere. The "green arrow means you have unconditional priority" is actually a rule in Poland too.......except when it comes to this tiny side arrow for turning right on red. With that one you have to give priority to people crossing.
mcv 3y ago
Same in Netherland. Arrow means it's guaranteed to be safe (unless a pedestrian is running a red light, which is possible and not an excuse to hit them), whereas a solid circle means you have to watch out for crossing bikes and pedestrians (though of course you should always watch out).

cge 3y ago

>It is absolutely your responsibility to make sure that it is safe to do so. In aviation safety, it has long been established that, regardless of how clearly you establish who is responsible for what, if reality is such that people frequently can't actually carry out their responsibilities effectively, then you'll end up with disasters; disasters where you'll have someone to officially blame, but disasters nonetheless. This is quite relevant to many pedestrian-car interactions. The problem with right turns over crossings where pedestrians have priority, is that in many situations, even if the driver is responsible for ensuring the turn is safe, it isn't possible for them to do so effectively. In many California right-on-red situations, for example, the driver is responsible both for ensuring that the road to their left is clear, and that the crossing to their right (and in front of them) is clear. Traffic, visibility, and speeds often mean that ensuring the road to the left is clear requires the driver to be looking far to their left until almost immediately before turning, and then accelerate quickly. At the same time, ensuring crossings are clear requires them to look both ahead and to their right, and similarly, visibility and layout often mean that the relevant portion of the crossing can go from being clear to blocked almost instantly, so the driver must be looking to their right immediately before turning. The two responsibilities conflict, and in order to turn, the driver must choose which risk to prioritize: if they prioritize checking for pedestrians, they'll increase the risk of a two-vehicle collision, and if they prioritize checking for vehicles, they'll increase the risk of hitting a pedestrian. Not turning is an option, but at least in California there would be considerable pressure culturally and from other drivers to do so, potentially to the level of threats and violence. It is not a good situation to put someone in. The only time I have ever been hit by a car as a pedestrian was when I was very mildly hit by a driver turning right immediately after I stepped into a crossing. Legally, she was entirely at fault, but as I already felt the crossing was problematic, she was very apologetic, and I was entirely uninjured, we just didn't report it. And in hindsight, the intersection was just horrible. She couldn't see me because I was to her right and would have been obscured by trees and parked cars until immediately before entering the crossing; in order to avoid being hit by traffic, she needed to look to the left. While not legally my responsibility, in order to see her, I would have needed to look behind me before entering the intersection, but I also needed to watch carefully for cross traffic. In utterly bad design, despite heavy traffic and a 35mph speed limit, pedestrians always had legal right of way at the crossing, so she couldn't even have waited to have right of way.