Pedestrians crossing at T juntions
Discussion
Some reflections after the Highway Code updates a year or two back.
I recently saw a 1960's driver education film targeting ignorance of drivers regarding allowing pedestrians already crossing a minor road junction priority before turning and entering the new road. So this problem is not a new one. The updates to the Highway Code, as I understand it, is that priority has extended from pedestrians already crossing, to those only waiting to cross.
My general experience is that pedestrians and motorists, and cyclists for that matter, are not consistant in their knowledge or approach. This leads to frequent conflicts and confusion. Some examples:
As a driver.
1, I have approached a major road from a minor road. At the junction pedestrians are waiting to cross from the right. I have stopped short of the junction and given them priority. The pedestrians, an elderly couple, after eye contact have stepped into the road and nearly been hit by a vehicle turning left from the major road at speed and continuing. The pedestrians got a fright and lept back onto the pavement. My attempt to follow the Highway Code, combined with another motorist ignoring the priority rules caused this near miss.
2, Approaching a left turn, pedestrians waiting to cross often are not expecting a vehicle to give them priority. This can lead to a stand off. Also, in this situation, I have had right turning vehicles just help themselves, turning into the minor road, giving no priority to the pedestrians anyway, so again, I have caused a potentially dangerous situation for pedestrians by allowing them priority.
3, Waiting to turn right, I have had oncoming traffic wave me across, but I have also wanted pedestrians waiting to cross to have priority. This has caused confusion as the oncoming traffic adjusts speed, expecting the right turner to nip across, only for me to be trying to eyeball the pedestrians waiting to cross. Then the oncoming either has to stop completely, or override their initial invitation, as it wasn't accepted. All the while the pedestrian is still unsure whether to cross, and still waits.
In all these situations stress levels rise, are not pleasant and do not allow smooth progress of anyone.
As a pedestrian.
On occasion I have begun to cross the minor road at the junction before a right or left turner from the major road has reached the junction, only for the motorist to use horn, or become agitated, sometimes stopping, sometimes pressing on and making me stop so they can continue. Again, inducing conflict, and raising stress levels during the mini-event.
I have come to the conclusion as a pedestrian, it's safer to wait and be invited to cross by motorists, rather than try to exert any priority given in the Highway Code, but staying safe/avoiding conflict seems like a retreat and only serves to reinforce false assumptions of who has priority (i.e. off the pavement, motor vehicles always have priority over pedestrians, this even extends to crossing pavements to access car parks, driveways or business entrances for some motorists).
So, as a driver, should I retreat from my attempts to allow pedestrians priority on the basis of keeping everyone safe, keeping traffic flowing and avoiding "courtesy causes confusion" scenarios? In other words, if you can't beat them, join them, and just press on as most pedestrians and other motorist expect?
As a pedestrian, should I act as most pedestrians do and wait, not crossing until either invited to do so (while also checking for other motorists entering from the opposite carriageway)? It does kind of irk me that as a pedestrian I have to forget this: "drivers must give way to you if you've started crossing or are waiting". It's a bit like, for example, if all drivers established on major roads, keep stopping before every minor entrance where emerging or turning traffic should give way, because most other road users think those turning from or into the minor road have the priority to turn or emerge (a bit like the French Prioritie a Droite), it will eventually reinforce the practice of who expects who to have priority.
I recently saw a 1960's driver education film targeting ignorance of drivers regarding allowing pedestrians already crossing a minor road junction priority before turning and entering the new road. So this problem is not a new one. The updates to the Highway Code, as I understand it, is that priority has extended from pedestrians already crossing, to those only waiting to cross.
My general experience is that pedestrians and motorists, and cyclists for that matter, are not consistant in their knowledge or approach. This leads to frequent conflicts and confusion. Some examples:
As a driver.
1, I have approached a major road from a minor road. At the junction pedestrians are waiting to cross from the right. I have stopped short of the junction and given them priority. The pedestrians, an elderly couple, after eye contact have stepped into the road and nearly been hit by a vehicle turning left from the major road at speed and continuing. The pedestrians got a fright and lept back onto the pavement. My attempt to follow the Highway Code, combined with another motorist ignoring the priority rules caused this near miss.
2, Approaching a left turn, pedestrians waiting to cross often are not expecting a vehicle to give them priority. This can lead to a stand off. Also, in this situation, I have had right turning vehicles just help themselves, turning into the minor road, giving no priority to the pedestrians anyway, so again, I have caused a potentially dangerous situation for pedestrians by allowing them priority.
3, Waiting to turn right, I have had oncoming traffic wave me across, but I have also wanted pedestrians waiting to cross to have priority. This has caused confusion as the oncoming traffic adjusts speed, expecting the right turner to nip across, only for me to be trying to eyeball the pedestrians waiting to cross. Then the oncoming either has to stop completely, or override their initial invitation, as it wasn't accepted. All the while the pedestrian is still unsure whether to cross, and still waits.
In all these situations stress levels rise, are not pleasant and do not allow smooth progress of anyone.
As a pedestrian.
On occasion I have begun to cross the minor road at the junction before a right or left turner from the major road has reached the junction, only for the motorist to use horn, or become agitated, sometimes stopping, sometimes pressing on and making me stop so they can continue. Again, inducing conflict, and raising stress levels during the mini-event.
I have come to the conclusion as a pedestrian, it's safer to wait and be invited to cross by motorists, rather than try to exert any priority given in the Highway Code, but staying safe/avoiding conflict seems like a retreat and only serves to reinforce false assumptions of who has priority (i.e. off the pavement, motor vehicles always have priority over pedestrians, this even extends to crossing pavements to access car parks, driveways or business entrances for some motorists).
So, as a driver, should I retreat from my attempts to allow pedestrians priority on the basis of keeping everyone safe, keeping traffic flowing and avoiding "courtesy causes confusion" scenarios? In other words, if you can't beat them, join them, and just press on as most pedestrians and other motorist expect?
As a pedestrian, should I act as most pedestrians do and wait, not crossing until either invited to do so (while also checking for other motorists entering from the opposite carriageway)? It does kind of irk me that as a pedestrian I have to forget this: "drivers must give way to you if you've started crossing or are waiting". It's a bit like, for example, if all drivers established on major roads, keep stopping before every minor entrance where emerging or turning traffic should give way, because most other road users think those turning from or into the minor road have the priority to turn or emerge (a bit like the French Prioritie a Droite), it will eventually reinforce the practice of who expects who to have priority.
It's not really that hard. The time it has taken to think about and write this OP, buys a year or two of two-second waits at a junction, either as a driver or pedestrian. Just be aware of what is behind you as a driver, and only go when clear, don't start to move and then stop, be obvious in what you are doing. If someone sounds their horn, just remember it's telling you of their presence, don't think off it as a rebuke
I agree that keeping to the rules causes confusion and potential conflict, as has been well-described by the OP. The cause is drivers who don't know the rules (or who don't want to keep to them).
It's the same without the pedestrians in the mix. So many drivers seem to think it's correct to stop on a main road and flash at a driver who is turning.
In both cases, caution is sensible. Some pedestrians are happy to wait.
But you still have to keep to the rules, allow the pedestrian to cross if they want to, but drive on if they don't want to. Think of the consequences of hitting a pedestrian in those circumstances. It can be a hard call for some.
As a pedestrian I hate being in that situation. Crossing at a junction is too difficult for me, so I ignore the traffic, don't make any obvious eye contact with drivers, and I walk into the side road for about 20 yards, and cross there. It's by far the safest option, with traffic in only 2 directions to watch for, instead of 3 or more.
It's the same without the pedestrians in the mix. So many drivers seem to think it's correct to stop on a main road and flash at a driver who is turning.
In both cases, caution is sensible. Some pedestrians are happy to wait.
But you still have to keep to the rules, allow the pedestrian to cross if they want to, but drive on if they don't want to. Think of the consequences of hitting a pedestrian in those circumstances. It can be a hard call for some.
As a pedestrian I hate being in that situation. Crossing at a junction is too difficult for me, so I ignore the traffic, don't make any obvious eye contact with drivers, and I walk into the side road for about 20 yards, and cross there. It's by far the safest option, with traffic in only 2 directions to watch for, instead of 3 or more.
An appalling badly written part of the Highway Code, that
Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it’s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it’s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
ashenfie said:
An appalling badly written part of the Highway Code, that
Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Ooh! All pedestrians have right of way (please understand the term) on any road - drivers have to be licensed to use the road. As for PRIORITY, the HCode now enshrines that 'right of way' into a hierarchy of vulnerable road users.Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Pica-Pica said:
ashenfie said:
An appalling badly written part of the Highway Code, that
Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Ooh! All pedestrians have right of way (please understand the term) on any road - drivers have to be licensed to use the road. As for PRIORITY, the HCode now enshrines that 'right of way' into a hierarchy of vulnerable road users.Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
The issue is that good law should reinforce (realistic and practical) expected behaviours, in order for the law to be accepted and respected by the majority of people.
This is a change in the law that has been introduced in an to attempt to force behavioural change that does not reflect majority behaviour in the real world, therefore it is not widely supported and makes little sense in real world situations, and actually increases risks in some scenarios, with those it is claiming to be protecting at the highest risk of negative outcomes should they attempt to assert their rights as written in law regardless of potential outcomes.
The prior/existing laws giving priority to those already crossing were accepted as 'just making sense' - they give pedestrians protection when crossing (regardless of whether they have misjudged an action and made a mistake) and allows users of the transport network the discretion to interact positively and increase pedestrian priority when it is safe and practical to do so.
The new laws subjugate drivers in an attempt to encourage a mindset of them being 'bottom of the pile' in a 'user hierarchy', regardless of whether to do so is realistic in a practical sense or in terms of wider safety considerations, and might look attractive from the top of an ivory tower in London, but do not meet the practical expectations and reality of everyday interactions of normal people.
One might also wonder whether it is a deliberate attempt to increase friction between users on the network, which our glorious overlords can then 'fix' with more regulation and harsher punishments for transgressions of the (unrealistic) laws they have created - because obviously it will be the end-users' fault and failure to comply, rather than the bad law that has been written...
[edit]
Blanket / widespread 20mph limits are another example of this - widely ignored by drivers as per DfT's own survey data because they do not reflect measured 85th percentile speeds, with vulnerable users increasing their risk by adapting behaviour to just cross the road without looking 'because cars should be doing 20', and rather than repeal the change, more speed enforcement is the 'solution'.
This is a change in the law that has been introduced in an to attempt to force behavioural change that does not reflect majority behaviour in the real world, therefore it is not widely supported and makes little sense in real world situations, and actually increases risks in some scenarios, with those it is claiming to be protecting at the highest risk of negative outcomes should they attempt to assert their rights as written in law regardless of potential outcomes.
The prior/existing laws giving priority to those already crossing were accepted as 'just making sense' - they give pedestrians protection when crossing (regardless of whether they have misjudged an action and made a mistake) and allows users of the transport network the discretion to interact positively and increase pedestrian priority when it is safe and practical to do so.
The new laws subjugate drivers in an attempt to encourage a mindset of them being 'bottom of the pile' in a 'user hierarchy', regardless of whether to do so is realistic in a practical sense or in terms of wider safety considerations, and might look attractive from the top of an ivory tower in London, but do not meet the practical expectations and reality of everyday interactions of normal people.
One might also wonder whether it is a deliberate attempt to increase friction between users on the network, which our glorious overlords can then 'fix' with more regulation and harsher punishments for transgressions of the (unrealistic) laws they have created - because obviously it will be the end-users' fault and failure to comply, rather than the bad law that has been written...
[edit]
Blanket / widespread 20mph limits are another example of this - widely ignored by drivers as per DfT's own survey data because they do not reflect measured 85th percentile speeds, with vulnerable users increasing their risk by adapting behaviour to just cross the road without looking 'because cars should be doing 20', and rather than repeal the change, more speed enforcement is the 'solution'.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 26th December 14:29
nismo48 said:
Pica-Pica said:
ashenfie said:
An appalling badly written part of the Highway Code, that
Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Ooh! All pedestrians have right of way (please understand the term) on any road - drivers have to be licensed to use the road. As for PRIORITY, the HCode now enshrines that 'right of way' into a hierarchy of vulnerable road users.Totally miss represented.
As a pedestrian you should not cross the road at a junction unless it s safe to do so, you have no right of way. The Highway code does not say what kind of junction its assumed a t or y junction. Further the driver should consider bikes and pedestrians not must. I would consider it unsafe when leaving a fast moving a road to give pedestrians priority. In town I would nearly always allow them to cross without causing them to run or
Hurry.
Gary C said:
RSTurboPaul said:
This is a change in the law
What law was changed ?courty said:
Just reading a bit closer, the Highway Code directs that motorists "should give way" to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross at junctions, and also waiting to cross at Zebra Crossings as they have priority. Motorists MUST give way to pedestrians on a Zebra Crossing. The highway code was updated to give pedestrians waiting to cross at junctions priority over vehicles approaching or turning into the junction when previously priority was given only to pedestrains already crossing. Whether motorists MUST or should give way, the Highway Code has widened in its designation of when pedestrians should be givien priority, i.e. to pedestrians waiting to cross, and it's this change that I am referring to, as to confusion/ignorance in the real world.
In the Highway Code, 'MUST' is backed by a Road Traffic Act section, SHOULD is not, except it could be considered under 'due consideration for other road users'.These ludicrous changes in the current Highway Code would not have produced the (presumably unintended) potential for pedestrian deaths and serious injury had they been properly publicised at the time they were introduced and again since.
The 'Public Information" TV films of yesteryear would be an obvious way to do this.
Why are the folk, who seek to control us, so inept?
The 'Public Information" TV films of yesteryear would be an obvious way to do this.
Why are the folk, who seek to control us, so inept?
From web sites about the HC:-
“At a junction you should give way to people crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from you are turning”.
... so the "from which" is new.
"The rule change to give pedestrians priority to waiting to cross the road applies at junctions (including roundabouts) and when crossing side roads."
... so the "including roundabouts" is new.
“At a junction you should give way to people crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from you are turning”.
... so the "from which" is new.
"The rule change to give pedestrians priority to waiting to cross the road applies at junctions (including roundabouts) and when crossing side roads."
... so the "including roundabouts" is new.
M4cruiser said:
From web sites about the HC:-
At a junction you should give way to people crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from you are turning .
... so the "from which" is new.
"The rule change to give pedestrians priority to waiting to cross the road applies at junctions (including roundabouts) and when crossing side roads."
... so the "including roundabouts" is new.
The HC does not include roundabouts in the amended advice on allowing pedestrians to cross at junctions. There is no reference to roundabouts. This is a misconception perpetuated by various website authors. The misconception is brought about by erroneously conflating junctions with roundabout exits.At a junction you should give way to people crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from you are turning .
... so the "from which" is new.
"The rule change to give pedestrians priority to waiting to cross the road applies at junctions (including roundabouts) and when crossing side roads."
... so the "including roundabouts" is new.
johnao said:
RSTurboPaul said:
This is a change in the law that has been introduced in an to attempt to force behavioural change
All the changes in the HC referred to here are advisory, as in should , not MUST
johnao said:
The HC does not include roundabouts in the amended advice on allowing pedestrians to cross at junctions. There is no reference to roundabouts. This is a misconception perpetuated by various website authors. The misconception is brought about by erroneously conflating junctions with roundabout exits.
But does the HC include roundabouts in "junctions" elsewhere.?To me it's a junction.
It used to say side roads, or something similar.
M4cruiser said:
johnao said:
The HC does not include roundabouts in the amended advice on allowing pedestrians to cross at junctions. There is no reference to roundabouts. This is a misconception perpetuated by various website authors. The misconception is brought about by erroneously conflating junctions with roundabout exits.
But does the HC include roundabouts in "junctions" elsewhere.?To me it's a junction.
It used to say side roads, or something similar.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff