OT: Idiot using mobile 'phone

[Davey]

Driving along a busy street today, I see a pedestrian walking along the pavement on the other side of the road, with his mobile clamped to his ear. He gets to a pedestrian crossing, stops, and turns as though he wants to cross. The car in front of me stops to let him use the crossing. Pedestrian continues to talk on 'phone, does not set foot on crossing. Car ahead of me moves on. I move forward to the crossing and stop in case the pedestrian has changed his mind. He hasn't, so I move on as well. The pedestrian, still yapping on his mobile, turns away from the crossing and continues to walk along the pavement, apparently totally unaware of the frustration and confusion that he has left behind him.

And people claim that talking on the 'phone does not distract them.

[Graham.]

Most zebra crossings around here were converted to Pelican or Puffin years ago, so in that scenario there would be less doubt when you need to stop.

[Brian Gaff]

I'd liketo know if evolution will eventually move one of our eyes near our ears so we can see the screen as we talk. Brian

[Harry Bloomfield]

There is no actual requirement for a driver to stop, unless a pedestrian puts a foot on the crossing. It is the fact that most drivers ignore this rule, stopping when pedestrians just stand near a crossing, which has led to such confusion.

[Geo]

You dont /need/ to stop until I have a foot on the crossing.

From Highway code:- "look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

[Harry Bloomfield]

Geo explained on 26/03/2017 :

Quite right, it is those drivers who fail to understand this point and stop unnecessarily for someone stood near a crossing, who encourage pedestrians to assume that is the way they work. There is no legal reason to stop, until a pedestrian claims the right to cross, by placing a foot on the crossing.

[Robin]

Yes although Highway Code 195 includes:

"As you approach a zebra crossing...look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross"

And I was taught that, on a driving test, failure to give way to a waiting pedestrian will result in a failure. AIUI this is their interpretation of the requirement - on the basis that if there is anyone waiting to cross then, with thinking time, the car would have to be going very, very slowly indeed.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Robin submitted this idea :

I stop if a pedestrian is very obviously intending to cross - looking for a break in the traffic, facing the crossing etc.. I ignore anyone just stood in the area.

When myself trying to cross, I wait for a suitable gap, then put a toe on the crossing - then make eye contact as a final check. I would not expect any driver to continue, once my toe is on the crossing, but I wouldn't fail anyone for continuing until that point.

Just stood in the general area of the crossing is highly ambiguous. I often see drivers stop, just based on people stopping at a crossing for a chat.

This point in the HC needs to be clarified.

[Chris Green]

... but if you hit someone on a pedestrian crossing it's your fault, no argument. They can jump out suicidally in front of you and it's still your fault.

[Richard]

Is a person standing on the bumpy surface which aids the visually impaired on the crossing or not?

[Scott]

Whatever happened to courtesy towards other road users? I thought that was part of the Highway Code also. I take it you disapprove of letting drivers out at road junctions, allowing drivers to change lanes etc?

[Robin]

actually I'm not sure that'd be true if, say, it were Usain Bolt who'd appeared at full speed from an alley 3 feet from the crossing. But proving it without a video could be tricky :)

While that may be unlikely, they have installed near me a parallel zebra and cycle crossing[1] where a cycle path emerges from under a rail bridge and crosses a busy road. So many cyclists think "it's my right of way" and apply their law of conservation of momentum (ie "nothing's more important than conserving mine") and continue straight across at speed. Since an approaching driver can only see perhaps 3 metres of the pavement/cycle path from 20 meters away there's little option but to approach the crossing *very* slowly.

[charles]

cyclists are required to dismount when using a pedestrian crossing. HC para 79 - unless it is a push button operated light controlled "Toucan Crossing" HC para 80.

[Huge]

And good luck with that. Another rule for them to ignore.

[Robin]

Yes but these are *not* just pedestrian crossings. They are parallel crossings as provided for in legislation[1]. Not a lot of people know that :( And I don't know if other legislation has been amended for them. AFAICS the Highway Code hasn't.

I meant to point to a picture before -

[1] eg The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (SI 2016/362) defines them as

"a place on the carriageway? (a) where provision is made for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway; (b) the presence of which is indicated by? (i) a yellow globe of the type provided for at item 27 of the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 14 at each end of the crossing (except that globes need not be present at a crossing that only crosses a cycle track); (ii) in respect of the part of the crossing for pedestrians, the black and white stripes shown in the diagram at item 53 and in respect of which provision is made at paragraph 18 of Part 1 of that Schedule (including provision for the black stripes to be a different colour); and (iii) in respect of the part of the crossing for cyclists, the markings provided for at item 57 together with, where used, the cycle symbols shown in the diagram at item 53 of that sign table; and (c) the limits of which are indicated? (i) in so far as they relate to the part for pedestrians, the stripes; and (ii) in so far as they relate to the part for cyclists, the marking at item 57"

[Davey]

When I lived in Michigan, they had a law there that stated that, however much you might have had the right of way, if you did not do something that would have avoided a collision, then you were still partially at fault. Basically, this put the onus of watching out for the other idiot back onto you, so that you were aware of his stupidity, and could not claim that "Well, he was signalling that he was going to turn" as an excuse for not driving with due care.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Scott formulated on Sunday :

No, far from. I just object to the silly guessing game of do they (pedestrians), or do they not want to cross at a crossing. The rule was always one of put a foot on the crossing to claim use of it. That was clear and unambiguous.

[Harry Bloomfield]

charles pretended :

Quite correct, a cyclist on a bike, is not a pedestrian. There is no requirement to allow them use of a crossing, unless light controlled.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Richard wrote on 26/03/2017 :

I would suggest - not. Usual practise for those who need a white stick, is to raise it in the air, for the traffic to stop.

[dennis]

Where do you think a crossing starts? Its not the black and white stripes.