To think i wasn't in the wrong here? (traffic lights/crossing issue)

[ASorcererIsAWizardSquared]

Outside my kids school (not directly, its about 500 metres down the road, but its the only one with lights/green man) there is a pedestrian crossing, lights and everything, just past it, literally about 4 car lengths away is a junction, so quite often, during school run time, the traffic will be jammed.

Now i know its illegal to park/stop on a crossing, so if i cant cross the crossing completely, i will stop before it, because people can still press the button and turn the lights red to use the crossing.

Today i was in that situation, but the light was still green, i just couldnt continue on due to the traffic, cars were still coming from the other way as normal because of a green light.

Now, a mom and her kids approached the crossing, just as the traffic cleared, and as i went to move off (still green light) they decided, without pressing the button or waiting for the red light, or even seeing if i was going to let them over, to step onto the crossing and i beeped at them to warn them i was actually moving, and the mom yelled at me.

I dont feel i did anything wrong. It was my green light there was no green man or beep to tell them to cross, the crossing was only clear because its illegal to stop ON the crossing, and there was still traffic approaching from the other way.

I wouldn't nod someone to cross in that situation as i cant predict, at only 4 cars lengths, that someone isn't going to suddenly turn into the junction at full speed with a green light and potentially run someone over.

AIBU to think she was taking a risk and shouldn't have been teaching her kids its ok to step out infront of a car on a crossing when its not a red light and there is no 'green man' to tell them to cross?

I was anticipating she might Ted, which is why i noticed that she'd stepped out after i pulled off.

FTR, i did stop when i beeped, i'm really not the kind of person who will just plough on regardless, but she pulled her kids back when i beeped and didnt try to continue crossing, shouted at me, and then i carried on over the crossing.

I noticed in my rear view that she pressed the button as the traffic behind me also continued through the green light!

Anyone else bothered by the fact that there are parents apparently teaching their kids thats its perfectly fine to step out into moving traffic, because once they're in the road they have ROW?

I hope to god the school are teaching them better!

Once the person is on the road the HC is completely irrelevant. It's the driver's responsibility to drive safely. If there was no possibility of stopping, then that's another issue. If you can stop, then legally, you must.

It's got sweet FA to do with the HC. Below is a quote from RAC website

[QUOTE]

One such story is the case of Watson v Skuse (2001). A driver was sued for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a vehicle which was being driven on a main road. The pedestrian dashed out in front of the car and was struck by the vehicle.

The case went to trial and to the surprise of everyone, the judge said that Motorists have a duty of care to all pedestrians and have to exercise a particularly high degree of vigilance to look out for the young, elderly, disabled, infirm and indeed foolish people, and additionally motorists should keep a lookout for pedestrians on the pavement who may be waiting to cross or otherwise liable to step into the road. He then went onto say that Drivers should proceed carefully and slowly in urban and residential areas, particularly when passing schools, shopping areas, bus stops, parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans and stationary buses, at which point he then awarded 30% contributory negligence in favour of the pedestrian making the driver 70% liable.

[/QUOTE]

Personally id rather teach my kids not to do something that stupid in the first place, then it wouldn't be a matter for the court to decide.

Do you seriously not realise how stupid and dangerous your attitude is?

Maybe, but we need to be clear: Legally, motorists have the responsibility to take care of all other road users (including other motorists) and I think a large proportion of them have no idea about it.

The only places pedestrians gain priority as soon as they step onto the road is on Zebra crossings. Otherwise they have priority on pelican/puffin crossings when they man is green. They do not have priority on the normal roads and to give them that would cause chaos! Of course there is an obligation on drivers to watch out for them and stop if some child or idiot runs out in front but that is very different from having priority. They can't have priority the rest of the time quite simply because cars, even at 20 mph, are going too fast to stop safely to allow it.

"FTR, i did stop when i beeped, "

If you'd stopped then you had no further need to beep.

"The only places pedestrians gain priority as soon as they step onto the road is on Zebra crossings. "

Not so, they also have priority when crossing a side road that a car wants to turn into.

if i'd stopped and not beeped, she'd have carried on with her children across the road AND STRAIGHT INTO ONCOMING FUCKING TRAFFIC.

FFS.

Bilberry, you could try explaining your views to a judge.

OP you did everything right. Letting her cross would have been foolish as she could be killed in the next lane, and you would have allowed it to happen. You beeped to warn her of danger, that she was crossing into moving traffic. But you cannot expect someone idiot enough to lead her children into moving traffic to thank you for pointing out the danger!

If OPhad facilitated the pedesteian in crossing the road against a red man signal, and someone had been killed ir injured in oncoming traffic, I would suspect a judge may find her liable in part for the deaths or injuries. She would have encouraged them to cross into danger. The responsible thing to do is stop to avoid hitting anyone and beep to warn them of danger. Which is exactly what the op did.

"If OPhad facilitated the pedesteian in crossing the road against a red man
signal,"

Facilitated them by not running them down in cold blood? Is that what you mean by facilitated?

“The HC isn't the fucking Bible.”

It’s funny Dora , but all this talk about the HC and no-one seems to have distinguished between the parts which are legal requirements (MUST/ MUST NOT) and the other rules which can be used in a court of law but which are not legal requirements as such ( www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction ). Looking at what the OP has quoted so far, it seems to be from the “should” sections not the “MUST” sections.

“They do not have priority on the normal roads and to give them that would cause chaos!”

Well de jure they do have priority, it’s just de facto a rather odd situation has arisen. Jaywalking is an offence in some countries, but not in the UK (further explanation here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6251431.stm ) This is because in the UK the roads are public highways i.e. they are for the public. When cars were first introduced onto the roads it was assumed that horse riders and pedestrians had priority over them. Cars were initially thought to be dangerous enough to require someone to walk in front of them with a red flag. Unfortunately what has happened is that over time car drivers have assumed right of way simply because if you drive at someone, they tend to move. It’s not actually right, it’s just might.

The HC is by and large written by motorists for motorists. I’m not saying there’s some sort of conspiracy going on, it’s just how society functions. So you see vestiges of the old legal situation in some sections (e.g. giving way at junctions) but much of the HC assumes that motorists have RoW. Legally things are rather shadier (see the case Dora quoted above).

Put it this way, imagine most people drive small cars. Now think about what would happen if someone in a juggernaut drove at them in a situation where the car driver had RoW. If the juggernaut kept going, the car driver would give way simply to avoid death. Now imagine that over time juggernauts became more and more affordable so that more people drove them and that these people assumed a superiority and just kept driving at cars. Pretty soon you’d be in a situation where anyone in a small car just got out of the way. Throw in a powerful industrial lobby making juggernauts and supporting laws that give them priority and you can see how eventually it would just be assumed that juggernauts had priority, even though hidden away would be a law that said otherwise. That’s pretty much what has happened on our roads, but it’s the pedestrians who have been shoved aside.

When I cycle, I assume that any pedestrian might step out in front of me and when they do, I just wait. They’re soft squidgy humans going about their business. I’d rather stop.

Try this, from another point of view...

I was travelling along an A road recently. I noticed traffic was going very slowly in the opposite direction, so slowed my speed down to 20mph (well below the 30mph limit). There was a pedestrian crossing ahead, and I was prepared to stop if the lights changed. However the lights were still green and in my favour. As I was on the crossing (NB not approaching!!), suddenly, and without warning, a mum with a baby in a pushchair and two two school age children walked into the road in front of me without warning!
I was unable to stop in time and unfortunately ran into the whole family. If only the driver travelling in the opposite direction had sounded their horn to alert the mum to the dangers of on coming traffic, things might have been so different. I am no longer able to work as I have the deaths of these four people constantly on my mind. If only the other driver had beeped.....

YANBU

I'd have honked as well. She was very much in the wrong.

Of course pedestrians have right of way if they are already crossing, because you are not supposed to run over them and stopping in the middle of the road can be more dangerous.
The same for cars crossing in front of you from a stop sign. You break to avoid a crash.

But... she shouldn't have started to cross if she had a red light for pedestrians, unless it was safe to do it without making a car stop or preventing it from moving.

Also, :( oldie.

That's something I tend to be very afraid of.

I narrowly missed some stupid pedestrian once crossing a road at night with lots of traffic in both directions because I simply couldn't see him with the lights from the incoming traffic. I could have killed him because

Pedestrians shouldn't simply assume drivers will see them. Personally, I don't even like crossing on green until I notice that cars are slowing down or stopping. Same with crossings without lights.

Ups, left it in half.

I could have killed him because I could have accelerated a bit more suddenly. And I only saw him when he crossed running in front of me. Stupid man.

Not a true story, just hyperthetically......

Dora I am sure a judge would be well aware of minimum stopping distances. If I was driving at 20mph which is well below the normal suburban speed limit then my stopping distance would be 40 ft, at 30mph it would be 75ft. If pedestrians had priority (as they do on a zebra crossing) then they could at any point step off the footpath into the path of my car and it quite simply wouldn't be possible for me to stop in time. When you approach a zebra crossing you slow right down and if anyone is around you must be prepared to stop at the crossing. This doesn't work for the rest of the roads where it is expected (and designed) for cars to go at just below the speed limit.

hypothetically!

This is a good description of why the onus is on the car driver to deal more with the mistakes of the pedestrian and why the judge in the above case even without a strict liability law in the UK found along the lines.

www.darkerside.org/2013/04/strict-liability-an-idiots-guide/

Inn Facilitated by not beeping to warn them. As I said.

Then there are roads where it is illegal to be a pedestrian at all...

If you are waiting at a red light or, in the OP's case waiting for the road ahead to clear before moving on you would have your hand break on presumably. When safe to move forward you'd take it off.

This is the riskiest time for a pedestrian to step out onto the road. Even if the car at the front of the traffic stopped in time to avoid a collision there is always the risk that without the hand break on they could be shunted from behind and still hit the pedestrian. So with the best will in the world the car at the front of the traffic, once moving, cannot always protect the pedestrian from a collision. A driver must yield to a pedestrian but doing so isn't always going to keep them safe.

OP you frightened and embarrassed this woman but you did so to alert her to the danger of moving onto the road. No one was hurt, no one was killed. Best out come all round I say.