one way streets

[swill453]

Slight misquote in last post, it shouldn't have mentioned Lootman.

Scott.

Moderator Message:
Fixed for you

[PitchPerfect]

Wow, that's a lot to think about! I have now started looking both ways though

[Lootman]

There was an attempt to convey the notion that a pedestrian somehow has a more fundamental right to use the road than a driver. I don't see it that way at all - it's simply that a driver needs a document to do so and a pedestrian does not. But with a license, both have that right.

The law very sensibly disagrees with you. (Almost) anywhere other than the motorway, pedestrians have precedence. Though less so in the UK than in those countries that have a basic principle that you take serious responsibility when in charge of a large and dangerous metal shell (and where drivers are thus very sensibly deemed responsible for accidents where no specific blame is established).

But does the law say that? And how do you define "precedence"?

Doesn't it usually come down to a case-by-case determination of fault? And isn't the behaviour of the pedestrian a significant factor in that determination?

The law says that, as a driver, I should try and avoid any collision in any event, whether it is with a pedestrian or another vehicle, and regardless of whether that other party had a right to be there or not. But that's just common sense - a driver does not have immunity just because the other party is doing something risky, stupid or illegal. One should always avoid impact if that is possible.

But it is a huge leap of logic from that to assume that a pedestrian has some kind of elevated entitlement to wander wherever he or she wants, regardless of rules, traffic and common sense. And if that were really the case then we would not need pedestrian crossings or pedestrian lights at all. People would just hold out a hand and walk straight out into the road anywhere, claiming their alleged "precedence".