CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Rule 170

(35 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by stiltskin
  • Latest reply from Wilmington's Cow

No tags yet.


12

  1. SRD
    Moderator

    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).

    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.

    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.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Roibeard
    Member

    @chdot - 198 has it that pedestrians have priority to finish crossing even after the light turns green for the carriageway.

    However the pedestrian MUST NOT loiter (18).

    21 is only should not cross on a red man, or should not start on a flashing green man.

    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...

    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?)

    Rpbert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    "pedestrians understand physics much better than legal priorities..."

    So you are saying that pedestrians don't understand physics.

    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.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Roibeard
    Member

    @chdot?? No sarcasm, I really was saying that pedestrians do 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.

    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...

    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...

    Rpobert
    (who often has trouble spelling his name...)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    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.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin