Rule 170 « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Rule 170

(35 posts)

Started 10 years ago by stiltskin
Latest reply from Wilmington's Cow

No tags yet.

12 Next »

stiltskin
Member

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

Prompted by some of the comments in the rubbish driving thread. I'd be interested in people's interpretation of this.
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.

That is not how I see it at all....

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

Surey the principle ought to be that pedestrians way should not be obstructed? Sadly I dn't think it plays out that way in practice.

Posted 10 years ago #
stiltskin
Member

It is pretty clear what it is in practice, it is also pretty clear what most people on here would like it to be, the question is, what should it be, in law, as it stands

Posted 10 years ago #
wingpig
Member

It's a "you should" rather than a MUST.

Posted 10 years ago #
Kenny
Member

Sounds like peds have priority, assuming they get on to the road before the vehicle (car / bike / whatever) makes the turn. News to me. I really need to re-read the highway code sometime - and makes me very glad I didn't react to the school kids who always deliberately do this when they are walking to the high school!

Posted 10 years ago #
custard
Member

I read it as dont gun it when you see a ped on the road that you join/turn into
the ped equivalent of a punishment pass

Posted 10 years ago #
gembo
Member

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,

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.

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.

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.

Taking this line on Peds is consistent with moaning about bad driving which is one of my favourite hobbies.

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.

I stress this is just in my universe. But the question was about personal interpretation.

Posted 10 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

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.

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).

Posted 10 years ago #
recumboris
Member

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!

Posted 10 years ago #
allebong
Member

Peds frequently do many things that really irritate me but I always 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.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"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"

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.

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
minus six
Member

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.

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"I have trouble giving way to peds who ignore the red/green man phase"

That's different.

I think it's strictly true that pedestrians can wander where they like, they are clearly not supposed to ignore the 'pedestrian phases'. Rule 170 doesn't apply to these - it's for 'normal' turning into side streets off 'main' roads.

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
minus six
Member

absolutely agree that road design is the issue.

Rule 170 doesn't apply to these

is that really true though?

wingpig knows about these things, perhaps he will clarify..

Posted 10 years ago #
PS
Member

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).

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"Rule 170 doesn't apply to these

is that really true though?"

Yes, it's true. Wording of the rule, "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning"

Posted 10 years ago #
HankChief
Member

What about exiting roundabots?

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.

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
wingpig
Member

I think you mean Morningsider, but anyway:
peds can wander where they like, except where explicitly banned such as on the M8/A720/WAR.
peds who have started to cross at a Zebra MUST be waited for
peds who have started crossing a side road SHOULD be waited for
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.

Posted 10 years ago #
stiltskin
Member

^ 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.

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
PS
Member

@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?).

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

What PS said... ^^^

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.

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.

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 do 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).

Posted 10 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

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) - 198. Essentially the studs on the road mean it can be used as a zebra crossing...

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.

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...

Robert

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"If they start, I can easily go round them."

Of course this leads to the guessing 'game' of whether they will stop.

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!

Of course in some of Europe (even parts of America) YOU (car/bike) have to stop!

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Essentially the studs on the road mean it can be used as a zebra crossing..."

Really??

So the peds who 'always' cross Chambers Street when I turn off South Bridge are doubly correct?!

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

"Of course this leads to the guessing 'game' of whether they will stop."

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.

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"then there's the informal rules and the plain perverse."

True!

Posted 10 years ago #
DavidSpaven
Member

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.

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...

Posted 10 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Mind you, I'm not holding my breath..."

Well ScotGov just spent £424k on something much less useful!

Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Rule 170

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links