second pedestrian light by Sydenham station

[stuart]

I thought that way about the zebra in the beginning too. However, I got quite comfortable with it. Look the driver in the eye and they were very good. I never had to scoot out of the way. I felt safe.

Now when I come out of the station and it isn't there I'm a bit reluctant to walk out of my way to held on a red light waiting whilst cars stop across my path and I have to weave between them on the green. Hence, now at the first opportunity I scoot across short of the lights. Sorry to annoy you Mary but the new arrangement is all downside for commuters who need to cross and go west.

Its increased unnecessary conflict.

Stuart

[Checkmate]

... people DO have the right to cross wherever and whenever they like.

Do they really?

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/contents

Where there is a crossing nearby, use it.

Whether you are anti- vehicle, anti-cyclist, or anti-pedestrian, the Highway Code confers certain rights and places certain responsibilities on every type of road user. And, (Bensonby moment) I believe I am right in saying that although the entire contents of the Highway Code are not enshrined in law, in any criminal investigation, if a person can be shown to have followed (or not) the Highway Code, it will count in their favour (or against them) in that investigation.

[Robin Orton]

I've always understood the position to be that if as a pedestrian you cross a road other than at a authorised pedestrian crossing, even if there is one nearby, you are not ipso facto committing an offence (as I believe you are, or were, in some countries.) I' m not sure whether that's the same thing as a positive 'right' (enforceable through the courts?) to cross the road wherever you like.

[Tim Lund]

I've always understood the position to be that if as a pedestrian you cross a road other than at a authorised pedestrian crossing, even if there is one nearby, you are not ipso facto committing an offence (as I believe you are, or were, in some countries.) I' m not sure whether that's the same thing as a positive 'right' (enforceable through the courts?) to cross the road wherever you like.

Cue discussion about positive and negative liberty?

[marymck]

I thought that way about the zebra in the beginning too. However, I got quite comfortable with it. Look the driver in the eye and they were very good. I never had to scoot out of the way. I felt safe.

Stuart

Fine during the day Stuart, but I was talking about at night. As a motorist, if I was lucky I could just about make out a shadowy figure crossing the road, silhoutted by an oncoming cars headlights. In the rain, at night, oncoming headlights at their brightest angle (the slope gave the effect of high beams) I couldn't necessarily see the figures till they were silhouetted. And I always looked really, really hard.

I don't think I ever crossed there as a pedestrian at night, but I'd be surprised if you could have seen a motorist's eyes in those conditions. As a motorist, I certainly couldn't have seen you looking me in the eye if there was a car on the other side of the crossing, headlights on.

And I always stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings ... if I can see them.

[stuart]

Checkmate,

The HC has two types of instruction: mandatory and advisory. There is an explanation at the beginning of the HC. Stuff that is mandatory (the law) uses the word MUST. This instance is advisory hence it does not restrict where you may cross. No offence is committed.

CM you may be thinking of claims for damages in a civil court. Adherence or not to HC advice MAY be used as an indicator to show contributory negligence. Provided you scoot across the road carefully with the object of not getting hit then this should not be an issue.

As HB said we all have a right to use the road except when driving a motor vehicle when we have to be licensed and subject to the laws governing driving. Conflict can arise when it is mistakenly seen the other way round.

Stuart

[stuart]

I don't think I ever crossed there as a pedestrian at night, but I'd be surprised if you could have seen a motorist's eyes in those conditions. As a motorist, I certainly couldn't have seen you looking me in the eye if there was a car on the other side of the crossing, headlights on.

Its usually night for me. Thanks to the extra lighting on the bridge and the high vantage point seeing the driver's eyes/attention was never a problem.

Guess if I could see you were blinded you wouldn't be stopping and I would hold back and you would experience nothing more than a mild 'bother' uttered as you progressed to the other side. There are lunatics who don't look and kids who forget to look. It really is our responsibility whether on wheels or not to progress at a speed that doesn't impact the latter. Speed is always an issue (20's plenty et al). But I guess even 20 is beyond hope with the current roadworks/traffic.

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Mary - You say there is always going to be through traffic on the High St. There is literally no good reason that this should be the case. The High St would be perfectly manageable and much more pleasant without it. It's just a lack of imagination and ambition that leaves us stuck with 1980s town planning.

Checkmate et al - I know this stuff well, a person's right to access the Public Highway is absolute, as Stuart has pointed out. Again, you can debate the advisability of a particular action given the prevailing environment, but I am allowed to cross the public highway wherever I please.

This evening I have been serenaded by the sounds of the local scumbags racing an Aston Martin up and down the High St and the occasional accompaniment of the local Scooter Grand Prix. This wouldn't be possible if we designed our roads for people rather than cars.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Checkmate]

HB, your right to cross the highway wherever you please is matched by the right of a motorist (assuming he has paid his road tax and car insurance) to drive along a public highway.

However, if ALL road users stopped thinking in terms of their rights first and started thinking of others things would be much nicer.

I am, at various times, a pedestrian or a motorist. When driving down the high street, I do so slowly and carefully, mindful that pedestrians may exercise their right to cross the highway suddenly and without warning. When walking down the high street, I cross it at one of the (ever increasing) places where i can do so safely and without inconveniencing motorists.

We must all live in harmony, and I do not share your apparent viwe that the motor vehicle is the root of all evil and must be curbed, any more than I would condone boy racers tearing up and down the high street causing pedestrians to scatter or be mown down.

[hairybuddha]

HB, your right to cross the highway wherever you please is matched by the right of a motorist (assuming he has paid his road tax and car insurance) to drive along a public highway.

Not quite. These rights don't match. The motorists right is conditional . The right of the pedestrian is not conditional and has existed since before the motor car, before the roads even.

I have never once said that the motor car is the root of all evil. The motor car is a wonderful invention (I drive one myself). You could argue that the Western World owes it's economic success in the 20th Century to the car. But our society's obsession with the car has swung so much beyond what is reasonable that society at large is suffering heavily and unnecessarily. Thousands of people a year die on the roads (and the pavements). There is a public health crisis in this country caused by pollution and sedentary lifestyles in part attributable to our over use of the car. Our public spaces, with a few exceptions, are horrible places because of our over use of the car. All I am suggesting is that we tip the balance back in favour of people and places. This can be done because it has already been done elsewhere. If you don't like the Denmark/Netherlands comparison then look at Valencia, or New York. Or Chicago, or Portland.

You're right to say that all road users must think of others and attempt to move in harmony. But again these responsibilities are not equal. If you are choosing to use a motor vehicle, your obligation to behave reasonably and safely to mitigate the danger you pose and to mitigate the pollution and damage to the public environment you cause through taxation is greater than if you were walking or cycling.

[Checkmate]

The right of the pedestrian is not conditional and has existed since before the motor car, before the roads even.

That's taking things a bit too far, don't you think? If a pedestrian is defined as a road user who is not using any kind of electrical or mechanical aid to move alond a road, then surely before the car and the bicycle, there were no pedestrians?

I have never once said that the motor car is the root of all evil.

Your posts repeatedly imply it!

[hairybuddha]

That's taking things a bit too far, don't you think? If a pedestrian is defined as a road user who is not using any kind of electrical or mechanical aid to move alond a road, then surely before the car and the bicycle, there were no pedestrians?

Bit of a straw man, no? In any case, roads existed before cars and bicycles so your definition is invalid.

My posts do not imply that I think the car is the "root of all evil". The car is a wonderful and blameless thing. The car has no agency. Our society's attitude towards the motor car is the cause of a great deal of social ill in this country. You are putting your own particular spin on my comments which I think says a lot about your own attitude - Though not much that you haven't already revealed.

[mosy]

I was going to say yesterday that I still traffic-dodge at the new station/Venner Road crossing unless someone else has pushed the button as it seems heartless to stop the traffic the instant the temporary roadworks traffic lights turn green in their favour. Such temp lights are really long-wait at the best of times and these currently incorporate Newlands Park so are 3-way - ouch.

Anyway, I see this morning that the station crossing is temporarily suspended. Fair play I reckon at times when traffic is simply stacked and motionless as long as people less able can still safely get across, thinking ramp as well as speed as the new kerbs are quite high.

As the road surfacing is of course both sides, I suspect temporary lights could be here for a while yet.