Have people stopped giving a shit when crossing the road?

[whywei]

Twice in a matter of days I've had to slam my breaks on to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the road whilst on the phone. Both times neither were looking at traffic but just in their own bubble walkng as slow as possible (guy today was even smiling to himself). I'm talking big roads - in fact, I remember an old man dying in the exact spot I came across today (when I was a child).

I'm usually a live and let live kind of person but this seems to be happening more and more.

Do people have no self-preservation instinct?

People travelling sustainably (on foot, bike, public transport) should have priority over private vehicles 100% of the time.

Absolute rubbish, an Idiots' Charter!

They stopped giving a shit in general after they got their best friend - a mobile phone.
If this situation annoys you enough when you drive, maybe you should try leaning on a horn now and then ... Will make them more aware of you, I guess.

@whatsthecomingoverthehill there might e nothing in the statute books but the laws of physics would suggest that you need to allow for stopping distances when approaching a pedestrian crossing.

If you move onto a crossing when a car is doing 20mph and only 2 metres away from the crossing then no amount of being alert and responsible will enable that driver to halt the car before it hits you.

Always consider stopping distances. No amount of being in the right is worth a broken limb or worse.

If you move onto a crossing when a car is doing 20mph and only 2 metres away from the crossing then no amount of being alert and responsible will enable that driver to halt the car before it hits you.

They should either have seen you already, of if the visibility is that bad, slow down to make sure no one is going to cross. It is not an excuse for the driver to say they couldn't stop in time. The law is that the driver needs to stop if someone walks out before they reach the crossing so they are the ones who should be aware of the laws of physics and what stopping distances they need. There seems to be a misconception that you can drive through a crossing at 30mph, and if a pedestrian doesn't allow for the stopping distance then it is their fault if they walk out. It isn't.

Of course pedestrians shouldn't walk out when a vehicle is clearly not going to stop. But the vast majority of pedestrians don't. We have been very well trained to assume vehicles have priority. And this is why I say put a foot on the edge of the crossing first, thereby making it clear you are crossing and anyone who does go through has committed an offence.

Of course drivers should anticipate @whatsthecomingoverthehill, but ultimately it doesn't matter whether the driver is a bastard who shouldn't be on the road, a good driver having a bad day, or an absolute saint who simply didn't have time to stop; it'll hurt just the same if they hit you.

Which is why pedestrians should always stop, look, and listen before crossing a road, whether at a crossing or otherwise.

And drivers should give way at crossings when required to.

I agree Lockheart it's all well and good saying I have the moral high ground so I'll walk out without checking because they will have commited an offence if they hit me, but that's a bit of a stupid approach given that a car will do a lot more damage to you than you will the car.

What use is it lying in intensive care saying "but technically I had already placed my foot over the edge".

Stop, look and listen is a common sense way to cross the road.

Lockheart, I was replying to this:
Even on pedestrian crossings there is an expectation that you can just walk out, regardless of a vehicle that had no chance of stopping.

This implies that leaving sufficient stopping distance is something out of the driver's control. And you seemed to say the same thing when you talked about someone walking out when there is a vehicle going 20mph 2m away.

Ever heard of the risk hierarchy? The main thing in reducing risk is to stop it happening in the first place, not to expect people subject to that risk to manage it.

You've read my posts and that's what you think I'm saying Lola?

And how close do you drive to the side of the road if you'd hit someone with their foot a few cm onto it??

If you walk onto a crossing when an approaching vehicle is a few metres away, you are taking your life in your hands. I slow down, look out for pedestrians and so on but have still had real scares when someone veers onto a crossing having given no sign they are planning to cross. Scary even though I'd slowed right down. What you are doing by standing beside the crossing and looking to see if it is safe is not at all the behaviour I was describing. Some people don't even break stride.

And I'm pointing out that even in such a situation, the onus is still on you to stop. That's what the law says, no matter how stupid you think the pedestrian is.

Around here cars often slow to let pedestrians cross, which is super annoying as it confuses things - pedestrians now seem to expect vehicles to just stop for them at the drop of a hat.

I think there is a strong moral imperative to stop, regardless of the law! I'm not suggesting anyone should just keep going and plough over said pedestrian. But if the stopping distance would take the car past the crossing anyway, stopping hasn't solved the problem. Do you see a possible solution to this?

The solution is that drivers go at a speed where they can stop. If you see someone who might cross then assume that they will do. If you can't see very well because your vision is impaired by a van or whatever, you slow right down until you are sure no one is crossing. It really isn't difficult.

Or alternatively everyone could exercise a spot of common sense and more time deploying common sense and accounting for the world around them and potential risks rather than being wrapped up in who is technically right.

It might be technically right for me to go at a junction, but if another driver does their own thing then me choosing to go in spite of it because technically it's my way isn't much use if we have a car accident.

If I approach a crossing, technically the onus may be on them to stop, but I'm not going to stroll out on the grounds of "I've shown my intent so technically it's their fault". I'd rather avoid being hit.

Ugghh. You still haven't read what I have written. If you're driving a car do you want to avoid hitting people? That's what my reply to Gentleness was talking about.

Well obviously.
The whole foot at the edge showing intnet it being the car's fault, stepping out however is irrelevant.

As a pedestrian I don't know if that driver is on their phone, paying attention, good driver, bad driver, half on the road but half worrying about seeing their baby in the back, is going to sneeze, is a total Berk etc. So regardless of what I'd do as a driver, as a pedestrian im still going to value my own safety and apply common sense by not being on or at the edge of the road when I don't know a car is stopping. There's no point being injured but technically correct.

Waiting at a red man to cross you get someone who pushes to the front and starts crossing the road.

I was walking home from work shortly after 5pm and waiting to cross at the lights. It is a busy crossing so there were quite a few people waiting. Just as the lights were about to change there was the sound of a siren and blue flashing lights and, sure enough, an ambulance coming along the road and indicating that they would be turning in to the road I was waiting to cross.

The pedestrian light changed to green but everybody stayed on the pavement to let the ambulance go past. Everybody that is apart from the young woman who was (naturally!) on her phone with her headphones in. She started to stroll across the lights and the ambulance had to brake and came to rest a few feet from her. At which point she looked up in some shock to see the vehicle so close and all the other pedestrians glaring at her and shaking their heads.

You would like to think she learned from that, but....

You're very unlikely to be injured by putting your foot a few cm onto a crossing. I do it all the time and I've never even had a close call. But it stops the common argument that drivers use of "I don't have to stop until someone is on the crossing."

To a lesser extent (death is an unlikely outcome) it's no better on pavements. I use a mobility scooter and can't tell you how many times I have to stop because someone is walking towards me with their face in their mobile, oblivious to the world. It's only when I shout 'excuse me!' that they tear their eyes away and see they about to collide with my scooter. I sometimes watch them coming towards me, they don't even pause to cross the road. It's madness.

If you step out and get hit by a car, it really doesn't matter who was right or wrong, you're still in hospital or a coffin. Why wouldn't you try to avoid that happening by actually using some common sense and waiting until you're certain any traffic has seen you and stopped.

The problem is that putting the blame on pedestrians by saying they could have prevented the accident, is absolving drivers of their responsibility

No it isn't - it's helping them to stay alive and out of hospital!

Any other areas of life that you think victim blaming is appropriate?

Any other areas of life that you think victim blaming is appropriate?

It's not victim blaming, it's taking responsibility and precautions.

If you have no control over what other people do, then you need to take your own precautions to stop harm happening to you.

In a perfect world, cyclists and motorists would be perfect, but until then, I'll use common sense and protect myself, rather than relying on other people to do it.

And that's what people in general do. Blaming them for not reacting perfectly to the danger imposed on them by others is pretty much the definition of victim blaming.

Victim blaming is a bit emotive don't you think?

Technically I should be able to walk around town and not get mugged... But i still don't wander around flashing a new iPhone walking around with headphones in because much as technically it's my right to and other people shouldn't mug people, I've no desire to be beaten to a pulp claiming "but technically they shouldn't". I'm not responsible for their actions. I didn't cause their actions, but it's a bit stupid to pretend that everyone in the world is lovely just because it ought to be.

I'd love to think I could leave my house unlocked when I've lost the keys and am in a rush. It's against the law to break into a house after all so technically the thief is the one who has commited an offence. Then again, I think I'd rather be late and find my keys because saying "technically they broke the law so it's their fault" doesn't mean much if my house has been ransacked and I've lost special items.

I'd love to leave my drinks around on nights out and not have to do the awkward toilet trips. Only scum would spike a drink and it's an offence. But then again, maybe I'll not leave my drink unsupervised because I'd rather avoid being in hospital saying "but technically it's their fault and I should be able to..."

In all those situations I am in no ways shape or form responsible for someone else's actions. At all.
But i am responsible for my actions and I'm not all that interested in having a car accident, being mugged, having my house broken into, being drugged on a night out to the point where I'd abandon common sense because "technically I should be able to".
Just like I'm not going to do anything that risks being hit by a vehicle because technically they should do...

Anyone who can't see the difference between that and actual victim blaming is trying to create a deliberately emotive argument.