AIBU for not thanking drivers for stopping at crossings?

[PedestrianAbuse]

Just wondering if I'm the one who's behaving unusually here!

I have to cross a busy main road to get to/from my DD's nursery. There are a couple of zebra crossings on the road but a lot of drivers barrel through them without even considering stopping for pedestrians. There are also cycle lanes to cross and cyclists IME are even less likely to stop at crossings - so there's a bit going on when trying to get across this particular road, I'm always quite cautious doing it.

I've twice had drivers put their windows down and shout at me for not thanking them for stopping, and I just wondered if I'm the only person who doesn't actually think it's necessary to thank a driver for stopping for me at a zebra crossing? I mean, they are supposed to stop! I certainly don't expect it when I'm driving - I think not mowing down pedestrians is kind of a bare minimum requirement, I don't expect thanks for not breaking the law (and as a pedestrian I don't expect drivers to thank me for being sensible and not just leaping into the road at the last moment either!).

I would always thank someone who stopped to let me cross in front of them somewhere where there isn't a crossing point, but it has never occurred to me to think that someone who stops at a crossing or red light is somehow doing me a favour by letting me across the road. Is it just me who doesn't get why some drivers are so offended?

YABU - you should always thank drivers for stopping, even if they're supposed to do it
YANBU - it's just basic rules of the road that they should be following anyway, thanking them is excessive

Sometimes I do, have a horrible crossing on way to work, often people fail to stop, and in nearly got hit by a set of ladders flying off a work van as it screeched to a stop having just noticed me. We were all very shocked.

I think it relies on the fact that the majority of people are in fact courteous and abide by the HC. I suspect that if the law was changed, the people who don’t stop now would continue not stopping.

No, it's not.....unless already on the crossing.

There is a zebra crossing about 30 meters from where I live that I use daily a few times.
I tend to check the traffic flow before I look to cross.
The other day, I quickly looked behind me to see what was coming and carried on towards the zebra crossing.
I deliberately stayed back because there was a decent gap behind the one car that was coming.
They stopped anyway, I crossed and thanked them.
I asked the driver why they stopped, and they said they had noticed my quick glimpse behind and knew I wanted to cross. I said thank you and appreciated his thoughtful consideration for pedestrians.

OK peach.

How inconsiderate of you when he's doing what he's paid to do 😉. @PedestrianAbuse instead of getting irate at posters who say you are being unreasonable, why don't you take a course in etiquette. For you to still be analysing something that most people do without even thinking should be giving you food for thought. I won't hold my breath. One thing I have noticed, the minority that agree with you all have attitude problems. That says it all.

Shouting at you is obviously worse so it's ridiculous of them, just ignore. I do tend to put my hand up to say thanks or nod to head in acknowledgement because I think thoseare the normal social niceties that just make the world pleasanter. I'll also say thanks if you move out of my way when you're standing somewhere you shouldn't or after you've served me in a supermarket.

The Highway Code says they should stop which pretty much means they have to. Whilst it is must if a pedestrian is already on it pedestrians are also advised to wait until the cars have stopped. If drivers ignored the ‘should’ stop there would be no point in the crossing as no one would ever be able to use it.

But not compulsory, as you stated....otherwise it would say must stop.
In reality though, it has really changed nothing compared to what it was before.

Then you don't know the difference between must and should and there is a difference. The whole reason these crossings operate is because drivers show awareness and judge when there is a need to stop. With pedestrian crossings, there is a build up of time in which to slow down and stop and for the sequence of lights to take effect. Seeing pedestrians walk towards crossing doesn't mean you must stop. It means you should but can use your judgement.

I think you are probably right about that!

I'm not getting irate at anyone - in fact, another poster on this thread commented on how politely I was engaging with people who disagreed with me, some of whom were being pretty rude. Whereas multiple people on this thread have commented on your poor attitude. Which also says rather a lot, doesn't it?

This is a discussion board, there's a discussion going on which clearly some people are still interested in, so I'm participating in it. You are very welcome not to, you've said you wanted to hide the thread so why are you still here, other than to be rude to people?

15-odd pages of (occasionally slightly heated) debate on social requirements of crossing roads. We can be proud today.

🥹🇬🇧

That's what it truly means to be British. 😂

The wording in the highway code is like that for a reason. Basically, any time you read "should" in the highway code, it means "must unless it would be unsafe to do so"

So in the case of a zebra crossing. Yes, if someone steps up to the crossing, you "should" stop for them. But if they step up to the crossing when you're only a second away from it, then you'd have to slam on the brakes to stop, which would be unsafe, as you'd likely end up with the car behind you going into the back of you.

However, if there's someone already on the crossing, then you "must" stop for them. Because even if you notice them at the last second, it'll be far more unsafe for you to hit them than you slamming on the brakes and the car behind going into the back of you.

Whether they should or must or whatever, in reality mostly the consequences of them not doing so are almost always going to be minimal. So there's not much to stop a driver who's in a hurry or in a bad mood or whatever not letting you cross. And just... what is the possible downside of giving a small wave or a smile?

I always give a little wave to say thanks

Why did you even ask this in AIBU when you clearly think you are not?

I already said in one of my earlier posts, I was just interested in people's thoughts. I can be interested whilst disagreeing with some people.

I hope all of you saying drivers must stop, drive at 20 mph past schools.

Basically, any time you read "should" in the highway code, it means "must unless it would be unsafe to do so"

Rubbish.

What ‘should' and 'should not’ mean

These are advisory rules, rather than legal requirements, and while failure to comply with these types of rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability.

The words ‘should’ and ‘should not’ therefore indicate strong recommendations, not direct legal requirements. These rules describe what safe and responsible drivers are expected to do in normal circumstances. You won’t automatically break the law if you fail to follow them, but if you are involved in an accident, the courts or insurance companies can use your failure to follow these recommendations as evidence of careless or dangerous driving.

Rule 160 offers a good example - it says you should drive with both hands on the steering wheel where possible. This isn’t a law, but it’s good practice for maintaining control of the vehicle. Rule 131 advises that you should keep between lane dividers (the short, white lines used on wide carriageways to divide them into lanes), which obviously makes sense. Another example, Rule 179, explains that you should use your mirrors well before turning right, to make sure you know the movement and position of traffic behind you. Whilst probably hard to enforce and subsequently prove you didn’t do these, following this advice keeps traffic flowing safely, prevents congestion and should help to prevent an accident occurring.

In essence, ‘should’ and ‘should not’ are there to promote good habits.

I might nod or smile - but not always and not at pelcian crossing with lights which sometiem driver here drive through despite cameras.

What used to get me was drivers stopping holding up flow of traffic and waving me with young kids and pushchar to center of raod with no island - becuase yea I really want to stand between two rows of moving traffic with young kids. They'd often get very pissy - to point I'd have to move down the road away from them.

I would have thought road safety in an increasingly car dominant culture to be a very important topic

Isn't it the same in the end?

The law expects you to stop for the pedestrian. It's not a goodness of hearth, is compliance with high way code.
You wouldn't be prosecuted if you fail to do it, but it makes you a bad driver if you knowingly don't stop when it would be safe to do so.

"The law expects you to stop for the pedestrian."
Is essentially wrong - where law applies, the word MUST is used.