http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Rule 170 en Sun, 24 May 2026 12:00:53 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951&page=2#post-122535 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:27:03 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 122535@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No no no. If you'd read the NWC you'd know that motorists and cyclists have been told not to run you over because you're fragile and have a head like an egg. So you're perfectly safe now. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951&page=2#post-122527 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:51:30 +0000 Roibeard 122527@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot?? No sarcasm, I really was saying that pedestrians <strong>do</strong> understand physics better than they understand the Highway Code, so choose to scurry out of the way of vehicles rather than rely on the fact that they have priority when crossing a (side) road.</p> <p>However it was indeed a gross generalisation and I sincerely apologise to those folk that do have a better grasp of legal niceties than Newtonian physics...</p> <p>Of course, if they had been reading the NWC, I'm sure they wouldn't have attempted to cross in the first place, as that might impede another road user's progress, and hence wouldn't be nice...</p> <p>R<strike>p</strike>obert<br /> (who often has trouble spelling his name...) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951&page=2#post-122498 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:37:25 +0000 chdot 122498@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"pedestrians understand physics much better than legal priorities..."</p> <p>So you are saying that pedestrians don't understand physics. </p> <p>I think that is a gross generalisation that clearly seeks to stigmatise the minority who aren't enthusiastically reading the NWC as they cross the road. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951&page=2#post-122493 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:10:49 +0000 Roibeard 122493@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot - <a href="https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199">198</a> has it that pedestrians have priority to finish crossing even after the light turns green for the carriageway.</p> <p>However the pedestrian MUST NOT loiter (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossings-18-to-30">18</a>).</p> <p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossings-18-to-30">21</a> is only should not cross on a red man, or should not start on a flashing green man.</p> <p>Putting these together, if you get on to the crossing (denoted by the studs), you have priority, even if you should not have done so...</p> <p>The UK law and Code are pretty good on pedestrian priority, it's just that this legislates in the face of the laws of physics, and pedestrians understand physics much better than legal priorities... (Who says that we don't have effective science education in this country?)</p> <p>Rpbert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951&page=2#post-122489 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:45:30 +0000 SRD 122489@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hi DavidSpaven - thanks for inspiring me to think/write about rule 170 in the first place (although I'm pretty sure that wingpig has educated us on here about it before). </p> <p>As I think someone said, as a cyclist, it can be quite risky to stop for a pedestrian in this sort of situation if there's a car behind you. because nine times out of ten, the car won't be expecting you to stop. So, I stop when it's safe i.e. when there's no car behind me, but some other times I will slow/go around. </p> <p>I have, however, taken to stopping and explaining to pedestrians who try to wave me on, by saying 'No, you have priority, it's in the Highway code'. Needless to say, they all think I'm crazy. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122488 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:37:40 +0000 chdot 122488@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Mind you, I'm not holding my breath..."</p> <p>Well ScotGov just spent £424k on <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10807">something much less useful</a>! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122486 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:30:35 +0000 DavidSpaven 122486@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have only just registered - fascinating discussion. As others have said, Rule 170 doesn't apply at junctions with traffic lights. My experience is that very few motorists give way in Rule 170 circumstances, and you have to strongly exert your pedestrian rights. I suspect most car drivers have long forgotten this rule - if they ever knew it.</p> <p>A national publcity campaign on this could be transformational, if combined with local action to (a) make 'sweetened' corners a bity stickier for the motorist, and (b) maintain the pavement level across crossings, so cars consciously have to negotiate the bump. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122484 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:11:27 +0000 chdot 122484@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"then there's the informal rules and the plain perverse."</p> <p>True! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122483 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:09:54 +0000 Instography 122483@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Of course this leads to the guessing 'game' of whether they will stop."</p> <p>Sure but then a lot of using any mode of transport is a guessing game about how people will behave and what you will do if they deviate from either the rules or your expectations. The rules are only a rough indicator of what you might expect and then there's the informal rules and the plain perverse. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122482 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:46:15 +0000 chdot 122482@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Essentially the studs on the road mean it can be used as a zebra crossing..."</p> <p>Really??</p> <p>So the peds who 'always' cross Chambers Street when I turn off South Bridge are doubly correct?! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122481 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:39:42 +0000 chdot 122481@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"If they start, I can easily go round them."</p> <p>Of course this leads to the guessing 'game' of whether they will stop. </p> <p>Sometimes if you 'aim' straight at where they currently are they freeze - which is fine if they don't start walking again when you get closer!</p> <p>Of course in some of Europe (even parts of America) YOU (car/bike) have to stop! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122480 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:39:24 +0000 Roibeard 122480@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>AFAIK a pedestrian has priority when crossing a side street (170 - "into which you are turning", 206, etc) and while they are still on the crossing (regardless of the state of the signals) - <a href="https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199">198</a>. Essentially the studs on the road mean it can be used as a zebra crossing...</p> <p>I've always taken it to treat side roads as if there is a zebra crossing. I MUST give way if someone is crossing and I should give way if they look about to cross.</p> <p>People (like cattle, oddly enough), tend to walk where their head is pointing - we can (and do!) side step, but usually their body language indicates when they're about to cross. And even then, road users should be aware of the child running out after a ball, watching for legs under parked cars, driving within the limit of their visibility, etc...</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122478 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:14:47 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 122478@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What PS said... ^^^</p> <p>It might be that the car/cyclist has priority in that situation, but if someone is in clear sight and you run them over simply because you had 'priority' then you'll find yourself slapped with a dangerous driving charge (if in a car) at the very least.</p> <p>Skewed though our systems are in favour of motoring, I doubt a plea of, "Yes, I saw him from 100 yards away, it was perfect visibility and weather, had plenty of time to stop, but I had priority so I just drove over him" would get you far.</p> <p>Fortunately we don't live in a codified system where every conceivable notion is written down for us to obey, and common sense can still play a role in life. And while many lack common sesne I think the roads would be even more chaotic if we had none (contrast to somewhere like India where travelling around the north was 'interesting' - red lights really <em>do</em> mean nothing in Dehli; out in the countryside there isn't really a right side of the road to drive on (particularly hairy seeing a truck barrelling towards you on your side of the road, half on the road, half on the dusty verge) - the UK's roads generally are, in context of many many other countries, remarkably civilized, with people obeying the rules for the most part). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122475 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:46 +0000 PS 122475@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@stiltskin In theory you have right of way, but I would hope you wouldn't choose to run the ped down/punishment pass them/give them the finger (sorry, it's cyclists who do that. isn't it?).</p> <p>This gets to the heart of the matter - if we want the centres of towns to be liveable and welcoming places for people, we should create an environment where peds can cross the roads without fear of being mown down. So, lots of enforced 20mph zones and ped-prioritisation in street design required. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122474 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:07:33 +0000 Instography 122474@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I generally find, on straight sections, that I can see them in plenty of time and move far into the middle of the road putting plenty of space between me and a pedestrian teetering on the brink of walking. If they start, I can easily go round them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122472 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:59:20 +0000 stiltskin 122472@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>^ rather begs the question about what you are supposed to do with someone who steps into the road on a perfectly straight section. I would assume it is still the case that you still ought to give way to them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122471 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:50:39 +0000 wingpig 122471@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think you mean Morningsider, but anyway:<br /> peds can wander where they like, except where explicitly banned such as on the M8/A720/WAR.<br /> peds who have started to cross at a Zebra <a href="https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199">MUST</a> be waited for<br /> peds who have started crossing a side road SHOULD be waited for<br /> Rule 170 doesn't discern whether it matters whether or not an approaching vehicle has started indicating... when I'm pedestrianating I act as if I have Rule 170 priority (glaring etc.) only if no vehicle was visibly intending to turn into the road I'm crossing, whereas when I'm cycling I'll cede to peds even if they only started crossing when I'd already turned. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122470 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:45:14 +0000 HankChief 122470@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What about exiting roundabots?</p> <p>The entrance to the Tram Depot is a case in point. The entrance is very wide (for lorries) but as a pedestrian/cyclist it is very hard to be sure that none of the approaching vehicles won't be turning in as you are part way across.</p> <p>The official answer is that the paint/pretty bricks in the surface steer drivers to a smaller gap. In reality drivers would take any route and you woild just have to take your chances. Someone has (unofficially I think) put some old cones across the gap to narrow it - which is nice and hopefully will become permanent. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122469 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:38:41 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 122469@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>Rule 170 doesn't apply to these</p> <p>is that really true though?</em>"</p> <p>Yes, it's true. Wording of the rule, "<em>watch out for pedestrians crossing <strong>a road into which you are turning</strong></em>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122467 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:30:11 +0000 PS 122467@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My interpretation is that the ped has priority if the car is not on the road in question (ie, it is still on the other adjoining road from which it will turn). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122466 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:28:37 +0000 minus six 122466@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>absolutely agree that road design is the issue.</p> <p><em>Rule 170 doesn't apply to these</em></p> <p>is that really true though?</p> <p>wingpig knows about these things, perhaps he will clarify.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122465 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:21:01 +0000 chdot 122465@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I have trouble giving way to peds who ignore the red/green man phase"</p> <p>That's different. </p> <p>I think it's <em>strictly</em> true that pedestrians can wander where they like, they are clearly not <em>supposed</em> to ignore the 'pedestrian phases'. Rule 170 doesn't apply to these - it's for 'normal' turning into side streets off 'main' roads. </p> <p>Of course road design is often such that 'to improve traffic flow' corners at such junctions are much less 'pedestrian friendly' than they could/should be. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122461 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:56:24 +0000 minus six 122461@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have trouble giving way to peds who ignore the red/green man phase at a junction, without even looking to see if anyone is oncoming. Which happens frequently.</p> <p>Don't like berating peds but the trouble is, the scenario puts me in danger, as to yield in this situation can easily mean a taxi up the backside. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122457 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:18:17 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 122457@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>I get the feeling that quite a number of people interpret this as giving pedestrians the right to gain priority when crossing at a junction by stepping into a road when they can see that a car (or bike) is indicating to turn into that road</em>"</p> <p>Not sure I got that impression, but rather that if a pedestrian has already started crossing at a junction, before a car (or cyclist) has indicated its intention to turn into that junction, then the pedestrians have priority to complete their crossing.</p> <p>I think it stemmed from my post in the Rubbish Cycling thread. In that instance two pedestrians had started crossing, the cyclist didn't indicate, then threw out an arm as he made the turn, startling one ped back onto the pavement, and giving the other verbal for daring to be in his way. Rule 170, they'd started crossing unaware that he was about to turn in as he had not indicated his intention, therefore the peds had priority. Simples. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122453 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 22:32:29 +0000 allebong 122453@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Peds frequently do many things that really irritate me but I <em>always</em> yield and never succumb to the temptation to bully my way around or past them. It would be no different to drivers pulling the old 'they're just cyclists and probably deserved it anyway' routine to try and justify idiotic behavior. Riding a bike around peds is a responsibility as you are in charge of a faster and heavier vehicle. Which is not to say it's impossible to be involved in an incident with them that's their fault of course. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122447 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:01:56 +0000 recumboris 122447@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My wife failed her driving test because she turned right on the instruction of an elderly pedestrian waving her on. The elderly lady had taken a step onto the road and the main road was clear. It was round the corner from the driving test centre - we joked that it was a plant and something to entertain the elderly lady. Personally as a cyclist in town I go on the basis that a ped may step out at any time without looking! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122443 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:19:00 +0000 Instography 122443@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My understanding is that a driver of a car should stop and wait for pedestrians to complete their crossing rather than force them to scurry across the road by tooting at them or by showing no intention to moderate their speed. </p> <p>I don't think that includes my common scenario where I anticipate the sequence of the traffic lights and start to cross between the red of the lights on Queen Street and the lights on Castle Street reaching green. Even though I'm halfway across, in my mind the cars technically have priority and it's up to me to get across, although many cars do slow down (or don't accelerate as much) so that i can get across without scampering (because I show no intention to scamper). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122442 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:18:09 +0000 SRD 122442@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There was a comment onmy blog that said that n Germany if yu see a pedestrian aiming for the crossing ie walking purposively in that direction, you have to give them priority too, even if they've not reached the crossing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122441 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:14:16 +0000 gembo 122441@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I would just watch out for pedestrians full stop. I would not want to be in the position of being totally right but taking out a ped,</p> <p>Under strict liability in my universe then the cyclist would not have to pay so much compensation if it could be shown the ped was at fault. In my universe, cyclist still at fault as failed to avoid the ped. I know they can just step out without warning and tend to cycle as if they are going to.</p> <p>I prefer to feel smug that I have carefully manoeuvred my way around someone with no road sense than to point to the legislation and say technically I am right.</p> <p>Using middle meadow walk as the possible world, Peds can stray onto the bike side, they are allowed to do this. We must stay on our side and thole the errant Peds.</p> <p>Taking this line on Peds is consistent with moaning about bad driving which is one of my favourite hobbies.</p> <p>Otherwise it is a free for all. If you take out a ped the karma of the universe will lead to you being taken out by a motorised vehicle.</p> <p>I stress this is just in my universe. But the question was about personal interpretation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10951#post-122439 Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:58:43 +0000 custard 122439@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I read it as dont gun it when you see a ped on the road that you join/turn into<br /> the ped equivalent of a punishment pass </p>