From September Lewisham will have a borough wide 20 mile per hour speed limit on every road except red routes. Is this happening everywhere especially, in Southwark, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley?
sounds like a road to riches for the traffic 'regulators' .. cameras and uniformed men with pads and pens at every borough border .. the independent fiefdom of SE13
... Except lots of other London boroughs are implementing, or have already implemented (in the case of Southwark, Islington and Camden) 20mph limits
Statistics show that, on average, there is an 8% risk of death when hit by a car travelling 30mph, reduced to 1.5% when travelling at 20mph
The vast majority of traffic on non-essential throughways (ie not red routes) is either pulling into or out of side roads en route home, or is rat-running (which isn't desirable for anyone other than the person in the car - especially not the poor soils who live on those roads)
Wonder how many cases of death are where people just stupidly step out into the road at the wrong time though.
I was turning into the Car Park where I work in Orpington yesterday and had to emergency stop because someone on their way to the Station couldn't register that they were crossing a road which cars would come down!!
Its like car accidents... The main blame for them is that someone was going at speed and couldnt stop in time whilst the main case is going to be if the person at fault was paying attention better and was leaving enough space then the incident would never happen.
Wonder how many cases of death are where people just stupidly step out into the road at the wrong time though.
I was turning into the Car Park where I work in Orpington yesterday and had to emergency stop because someone on their way to the Station couldn't register that they were crossing a road which cars would come down!!
Its like car accidents... The main blame for them is that someone was going at speed and couldnt stop in time whilst the main case is going to be if the person at fault was paying attention better and was leaving enough space then the incident would never happen.
I have no knowledge of your particular car park but normally they are entered through a driveway over the pavement on which pedestrians have right of way. It is more likely the case that the driver did not register that it was a pedestrian's right of way and that they may walk along it. If you had hit the person, you could have been done for careless/dangerous driving.
I kind of believe in sail before steam. If a pedestrian stupidly steps out in front of you, well when driving we should expect that, that's why we get trained in emergency stops. Pedestrians ought to always have precedence over vehicles every time, a small dent in a car is a broken leg to a person. Someone crossing the entrance when turning into a car park is a good example, in my opinion the vehicle stops for the person like it or not.
Wonder how many cases of death are where people just stupidly step out into the road at the wrong time though.
I was turning into the Car Park where I work in Orpington yesterday and had to emergency stop because someone on their way to the Station couldn't register that they were crossing a road which cars would come down!!
Its like car accidents... The main blame for them is that someone was going at speed and couldnt stop in time whilst the main case is going to be if the person at fault was paying attention better and was leaving enough space then the incident would never happen.
I have no knowledge of your particular car park but normally they are entered through a driveway over the pavement on which pedestrians have right of way. It is more likely the case that the driver did not register that it was a pedestrian's right of way and that they may walk along it. If you had hit the person, you could have been done for careless/dangerous driving.
Is a normal pedestrian crossing with traffic lights...
They dont cross any pavement at all so if they want to try and do me for careless driving then they're more than welcome
I agree though, one thing I hate is when your walking along the pavement and a car simply crosses the pavement in front of you to get to a car park / drive forcing you to quickly stop else you get ran over... The driver seems to think that because they're in a car they've got right of way because they're quicker!!
Funny how we need this in the age of iPhones and iPads. The amount of berks who just cross the road with headphones on without looking or staring at their phone is unreal. The only way they will learn sadly if when they get knocked 20 feet across the road and need years of physical therapy to recover.
Funny how we need this in the age of iPhones and iPads. The amount of berks who just cross the road with headphones on without looking or staring at their phone is unreal. The only way they will learn sadly if when they get knocked 20 feet across the road and need years of physical therapy to recover.
Usually though its the driver who needs the therapy because they've just killed the person and its the driver who is innocent because the person hasn't had the decency to look properly... I've always been of the opinion that if I accidentally knock someone down, I dont know how I'd recover from it and would probably quit driving
It's the people that can't be arsed to walk 20 yards to a pedestrian crossing that piss me off and walk out in front of you and get upset when you don't slow down though I don't hate them as much as I hate cyclists who think cars should watch out for them and give them right of way - I'm in a four wheel drive vehicle, they are on a bike, I'm not going to get hurt if they play chicken without me knowing it and we bash into each other. Bus drivers who think they have to use the middle of the road are probably the next worse.
The person, even if having the decency to look properly, should still have precedence and go first. If a pedestrian and driver make eye contact it is not a justification for the driver to go first, let alone knocking them down. What if a pedestrian is deaf and the driver can't see that, or visually impaired?
The person, even if having the decency to look properly, should still have precedence and go first. If a pedestrian and driver make eye contact it is not a justification for the driver to go first, let alone knocking them down. What if a pedestrian is deaf and the driver can't see that, or visually impaired?
The pavement is the pedestrians domain... the road is the vehicles domain.
If a pedestrian is deaf then they should take extra care to stop and look both ways before stepping into the road whilst a blind person will either have a stick or a Guide dog so are easily identifiable (the latter ensuring that they'll only walk with their owner once its clear as thats what they're trained to do)... If they only have a stick then surely they'll feel their way to a crossing whether it be pedestrian / island / traffic lights as thats what the bumps in the pavement are for
Either way for the standard pedestrian whatever happened to the: STOP... LOOK... LISTEN we were taught at school?
Slight aside, but does a pedestrian even have right of way when you're turning into a side road? As in, they are waiting to cross so the driver has to allow them to before turning? Someone told me that once and I'm not sure if it's true.
Slight aside, but does a pedestrian even have right of way when you're turning into a side road? As in, they are waiting to cross so the driver has to allow them to before turning? Someone told me that once and I'm not sure if it's true.
To be honest I've always had the opinion that pedestrian has right of way on the pavement and the vehicle has right of way on the road so that if a car is approaching a side road and is indicating then the pedestrian shouldnt cross
Same goes with if a pedestrian is close to the driveway that you need to get on to, you shouldnt just drive on to it.
The person, even if having the decency to look properly, should still have precedence and go first. If a pedestrian and driver make eye contact it is not a justification for the driver to go first, let alone knocking them down. What if a pedestrian is deaf and the driver can't see that, or visually impaired?
The pavement is the pedestrians domain... the road is the vehicles domain.
If a pedestrian is deaf then they should take extra care to stop and look both ways before stepping into the road whilst a blind person will either have a stick or a Guide dog so are easily identifiable (the latter ensuring that they'll only walk with their owner once its clear as thats what they're trained to do)... If they only have a stick then surely they'll feel their way to a crossing whether it be pedestrian / island / traffic lights as thats what the bumps in the pavement are for
Either way for the standard pedestrian whatever happened to the: STOP... LOOK... LISTEN we were taught at school?
I am afraid I disagree. The pavement and the road is the pedestrians domain. When pedestrians walk up Charlton Lane in the road after a match drivers don't have the right to plough through them. Not all visually impaired have sticks and guide dogs. We were taught that stuff in school to protect ourselves against dangerous drivers, not as a hard and fast rule of the road. In my view drivers should always give way to pedestrians however much it annoys them, if the pedestrian is a little kid, does a driver have a mindset that says 'feck em, they shouldn't be allowed out to get in my way' (on reflection that probably is the mindset of a lot of drivers). The simplest rule is people first, fast dangerous metal boxes second.
Slight aside, but does a pedestrian even have right of way when you're turning into a side road? As in, they are waiting to cross so the driver has to allow them to before turning? Someone told me that once and I'm not sure if it's true.
To be honest I've always had the opinion that pedestrian has right of way on the pavement and the vehicle has right of way on the road so that if a car is approaching a side road and is indicating then the pedestrian shouldnt cross
Same goes with if a pedestrian is close to the driveway that you need to get on to, you shouldnt just drive on to it.
But that's your opinion. The highway code states differently.
Slight aside, but does a pedestrian even have right of way when you're turning into a side road? As in, they are waiting to cross so the driver has to allow them to before turning? Someone told me that once and I'm not sure if it's true.
My understanding is that this is a bit of a grey area. Certainly if the pedestrian has put so much as one foot on the road the driver should give way. I think they should always give way and always invite the pedestrian to cross. I take Fiiish's point about pedestrians not paying as much attention as he or she would like, but the onus is on the HGV driver not to kill them or maim them. Maybe pedestrians need to be taught defensive walking around, but it is the drivers who have 99% responsibility to avoid hitting a person.
I agree with seth in that ideally drivers should slow down for potential hazards, but in my experience I have seen pedestrians step out onto a busy road with little warning and without looking where they are going. Usually whilst wearing headphones or staring at a phone. I saw a pedestrian nearly get hit yesterday because he was reading a book.
(D) If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.
If the pedestrian has right of way on the pavement AND the road, then why does it say do not cross until there is a safe gap?
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way
Fair enough as per the second point, I agree that if someone is already crossing the road when your approaching, they have right of way and that they shouldn't be taken out (Seriously why would you even think that I have the opinion that drivers should be allowed to plow right through them if they're already in the road).
In my case with entering the car park... there is less than 10-paces between the junction and the crossing...
I turned the corner and the pedestrians were still on the pavement, I kept my eye on all of them just in case one did walk out, one stupidly did put their foot in the road when they were less than 10-paces from me meaning that I had to emergency brake when in fact both the above points existed yet surely because the pedestrian DIDN'T cross when there was a safe gap puts them in the wrong.
And I agree... Had I turned and the pedestrian been half (or even a quarter) of the way across the road then I'd have had to stop!!
Statistics show that, on average, there is an 8% risk of death when hit by a car travelling 30mph, reduced to 1.5% when travelling at 20mph
And if we went back to a 4mph limit with a man holding a red flag in front of every vehicle the risk of death would probably fall even further. It's a delicate (and sensitive) balancing act.
I'm not a fan of blanket 20mph zones in general, because they are (a) not well enforced, and (b) generally get ignored.
There has been plenty of research done which suggests that drivers are far more likely to ignore speed limits which are inappropriately low, than those which are sensible for the road in question.
I would much rather see smaller, focussed 20mph zones in high risk areas (e.g. around schools, dangerous junctions, etc) which are then visibly enforced. Making the whole of London a 20mph zone means that areas which are genuinely hazardous are less likely to be noticed by the motorist who has become desensitised to the 20mph signs everywhere and is used to ignoring them.
The highway code for pedestrians is advisory to protect them and is good advice. It is not a rule of the road where drivers then automatically think the pedestrian ought to obey the advice. Learning to drive involves doing the highway code, and then there is a test. A pedestrian is not obliged to learn the highway code and be tested on it, however good an idea that may be. Road safety education is uneven throughout the land, not on the national curriculum as far as I know. Even if pedestrians behave like idiots you can't stop people being people, and drivers have to defer even if it is somehow wrong in their eyes.
We've had this down in Brighton for the last couple of years, the result is that on 30mph roads where everyone used to go 40mph, 99% of people now drive at 30mph, so it's worked in a way as it's got everyone driving slower (and it seems that was the anticipated result when rolled out anyway from what I've heard).
(As a side note, speed cameras can't detect slower than 30mph so the 20mph limit is legally unenforcable.... unless they catch you going over 30mph, or if they're tailing you and can compare your speed to theirs. In Brighton the police make zero attempt to enforce it for these reasons.)
We've had this down in Brighton for the last couple of years, the result is that on 30mph roads where everyone used to go 40mph, 99% of people now drive at 30mph, so it's worked in a way as it's got everyone driving slower (and it seems that was the anticipated result when rolled out anyway from what I've heard).
(As a side note, speed cameras can't detect slower than 30mph so the 20mph limit is legally unenforcable.... unless they catch you going over 30mph, or if they're tailing you and can compare your speed to theirs. In Brighton the police make zero attempt to enforce it for these reasons.)
Not true. SOME cameras - based on older radar technology can't reliably detect at speeds below 25mph. That doesn't mean they can't do it - just that they aren't ratified for use at those speeds, so could be open to being challenged by loophole specialist lawyers. In any case, all new cameras CAN detect reliably at speeds below 20mph, and if introduced into areas where cameras don't already exist, they would by definition be new cameras.
When turning into a side road and a pedestrian is approaching and about to cross it's always best to assume they're idiots who will just step out without looking. Then if/when they do, let out a nice blast of the horn so they jump out of their skin and hopefully realise if someone as careless as them were driving it would be a different outcome. At least that's what I do anyway.
Pedestrians have right of way always. That is what I was taught 35 years ago but that obviously doesn't mean pedestrians can step off the pavement and expect the traffic not to mush them into the tarmac. At 20mph everyone, has better time to react.
Comments
Statistics show that, on average, there is an 8% risk of death when hit by a car travelling 30mph, reduced to 1.5% when travelling at 20mph
The vast majority of traffic on non-essential throughways (ie not red routes) is either pulling into or out of side roads en route home, or is rat-running (which isn't desirable for anyone other than the person in the car - especially not the poor soils who live on those roads)
I'm thinking of getting a horse and dragging the old cart out back out of the barn English.
I was turning into the Car Park where I work in Orpington yesterday and had to emergency stop because someone on their way to the Station couldn't register that they were crossing a road which cars would come down!!
Its like car accidents... The main blame for them is that someone was going at speed and couldnt stop in time whilst the main case is going to be if the person at fault was paying attention better and was leaving enough space then the incident would never happen.
In Camberwell there are a few 20 mph routes but hit or miss if people stick to it.
Pedestrians ought to always have precedence over vehicles every time, a small dent in a car is a broken leg to a person.
Someone crossing the entrance when turning into a car park is a good example, in my opinion the vehicle stops for the person like it or not.
They dont cross any pavement at all so if they want to try and do me for careless driving then they're more than welcome
I agree though, one thing I hate is when your walking along the pavement and a car simply crosses the pavement in front of you to get to a car park / drive forcing you to quickly stop else you get ran over... The driver seems to think that because they're in a car they've got right of way because they're quicker!!
If a pedestrian and driver make eye contact it is not a justification for the driver to go first, let alone knocking them down.
What if a pedestrian is deaf and the driver can't see that, or visually impaired?
If a pedestrian is deaf then they should take extra care to stop and look both ways before stepping into the road whilst a blind person will either have a stick or a Guide dog so are easily identifiable (the latter ensuring that they'll only walk with their owner once its clear as thats what they're trained to do)... If they only have a stick then surely they'll feel their way to a crossing whether it be pedestrian / island / traffic lights as thats what the bumps in the pavement are for
Either way for the standard pedestrian whatever happened to the: STOP... LOOK... LISTEN we were taught at school?
STOP paying attention to anything around you
LOOK at Facebook constantly
LISTEN to the latest auto tuned rubbish on your iPhone whilst a HGV ploughs through your soft meaty body
LIVE the rest of your life eating through a tube
Same goes with if a pedestrian is close to the driveway that you need to get on to, you shouldnt just drive on to it.
The pavement and the road is the pedestrians domain. When pedestrians walk up Charlton Lane in the road after a match drivers don't have the right to plough through them.
Not all visually impaired have sticks and guide dogs.
We were taught that stuff in school to protect ourselves against dangerous drivers, not as a hard and fast rule of the road.
In my view drivers should always give way to pedestrians however much it annoys them, if the pedestrian is a little kid, does a driver have a mindset that says 'feck em, they shouldn't be allowed out to get in my way' (on reflection that probably is the mindset of a lot of drivers).
The simplest rule is people first, fast dangerous metal boxes second.
I think they should always give way and always invite the pedestrian to cross.
I take Fiiish's point about pedestrians not paying as much attention as he or she would like, but the onus is on the HGV driver not to kill them or maim them.
Maybe pedestrians need to be taught defensive walking around, but it is the drivers who have 99% responsibility to avoid hitting a person.
I agree with seth in that ideally drivers should slow down for potential hazards, but in my experience I have seen pedestrians step out onto a busy road with little warning and without looking where they are going. Usually whilst wearing headphones or staring at a phone. I saw a pedestrian nearly get hit yesterday because he was reading a book.
(D) If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly.
If the pedestrian has right of way on the pavement AND the road, then why does it say do not cross until there is a safe gap?
At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way
Fair enough as per the second point, I agree that if someone is already crossing the road when your approaching, they have right of way and that they shouldn't be taken out (Seriously why would you even think that I have the opinion that drivers should be allowed to plow right through them if they're already in the road).
In my case with entering the car park... there is less than 10-paces between the junction and the crossing...
I turned the corner and the pedestrians were still on the pavement, I kept my eye on all of them just in case one did walk out, one stupidly did put their foot in the road when they were less than 10-paces from me meaning that I had to emergency brake when in fact both the above points existed yet surely because the pedestrian DIDN'T cross when there was a safe gap puts them in the wrong.
And I agree... Had I turned and the pedestrian been half (or even a quarter) of the way across the road then I'd have had to stop!!
I'm not a fan of blanket 20mph zones in general, because they are (a) not well enforced, and (b) generally get ignored.
There has been plenty of research done which suggests that drivers are far more likely to ignore speed limits which are inappropriately low, than those which are sensible for the road in question.
I would much rather see smaller, focussed 20mph zones in high risk areas (e.g. around schools, dangerous junctions, etc) which are then visibly enforced. Making the whole of London a 20mph zone means that areas which are genuinely hazardous are less likely to be noticed by the motorist who has become desensitised to the 20mph signs everywhere and is used to ignoring them.
It is not a rule of the road where drivers then automatically think the pedestrian ought to obey the advice.
Learning to drive involves doing the highway code, and then there is a test.
A pedestrian is not obliged to learn the highway code and be tested on it, however good an idea that may be.
Road safety education is uneven throughout the land, not on the national curriculum as far as I know. Even if pedestrians behave like idiots you can't stop people being people, and drivers have to defer even if it is somehow wrong in their eyes.
(As a side note, speed cameras can't detect slower than 30mph so the 20mph limit is legally unenforcable.... unless they catch you going over 30mph, or if they're tailing you and can compare your speed to theirs. In Brighton the police make zero attempt to enforce it for these reasons.)
That is what I was taught 35 years ago but that obviously doesn't mean pedestrians can step off the pavement and expect the traffic not to mush them into the tarmac.
At 20mph everyone, has better time to react.