one way streets

[PitchPerfect]

I saw a car turn the wrong way into a one way street this morning and it got me thinking.

I cross a number of one way streets on my way to and from work every day and, rightly or wrongly, only tend to check for traffic from the "correct" direction before I cross. If I were to step into the road without looking for traffic coming from the "wrong" direction and I was hit by a car, would I be at fault for not checking both ways?

[redsturgeon]

I'm not sure you would be at fault be you probably would be hurt!

John

[bungeejumper]

You have a right to be on the road. The car driver only has a permit. You might have been blind or deaf or disabled for all he knew. His responsibility is to take account of all that.

It's possible that his insurance company might try to wriggle, but it probably wouldn't get him far. I was once hit at slow speed by a van driver who was reversing (i.e. the wrong way) down a one way street. He wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if it had been a more serious incident. But then again, neither would I.

BJ

[Lootman]

You have a right to be on the road. The car driver only has a permit. You might have been blind or deaf or disabled for all he knew. His responsibility is to take account of all that.

It's possible that his insurance company might try to wriggle, but it probably wouldn't get him far. I was once hit at slow speed by a van driver who was reversing (i.e. the wrong way) down a one way street. He wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if it had been a more serious incident.

A driver has an obligation to avoid an impact regardless of the circumstances, it's true. But that is only to the extent that a driver can stop or swerve in time. If someone jumps out right in front of you then you would not normally be held liable, but would be if you were breaking a law at the time, like speeding, running through a red light, being drunk or, as in this case, going the wrong way down a one-way street.

That said, to what extent the other party is at fault (not looking, staring at their phone, crossing where it's not allowed, being drunk etc) would mitigate the damages that the victim could successfully claim because their negligence contributed to the accident.

[Slarti]

I saw a car turn the wrong way into a one way street this morning and it got me thinking.

I cross a number of one way streets on my way to and from work every day and, rightly or wrongly, only tend to check for traffic from the "correct" direction before I cross.

Having been pulled out of the way of a car going the wrong way in a 1 way street, as a kid and having had numerous incidents with bad cyclists I always look in all directions, as a pedestrian.

And since coming up to do a left at this junction https://goo.gl/maps/9gjWkB2UvEL2 at about 02:20 and only avoiding a head on collision with one of 2 cars racing side by side because of Mrs S shouting, I now always look both ways when driving and assume that they are out to get me.

Slarti

[swill453]

You have a right to be on the road. The car driver only has a permit.

Can you explain that, and/or provide a reference?

I'm interested to understand how a person loses rights by getting into a car.

Scott.

[Slarti]

You have a right to be on the road. The car driver only has a permit.

Can you explain that, and/or provide a reference?

I'm interested to understand how a person loses rights by getting into a car.

Scott.

Unless you have passed a test to gain a driving licence, you have no right to be driving on the public highway, whereas walking is free to anyone.

Slarti

[swill453]

Unless you have passed a test to gain a driving licence, you have no right to be driving on the public highway, whereas walking is free to anyone.

So you're saying if you have passed your test, you do have a right to drive on the highway. That's not what Bunjeejumper said.

Scott.

[Slarti]

Unless you have passed a test to gain a driving licence, you have no right to be driving on the public highway, whereas walking is free to anyone.

So you're saying if you have passed your test, you do have a right to drive on the highway. That's not what Bunjeejumper said.

Scott.

You have a a right to drive within certain proscribed limits and if you break those limits you will have that right removed for a shorter or longer period. Its a bit hard to remove the right to walk.

Slarti

[Lootman]

You have a a right to drive within certain proscribed limits and if you break those limits you will have that right removed for a shorter or longer period. Its a bit hard to remove the right to walk.

I have heard this "driving is a privilege not a right" line before, usually by bike or transit activists with an anti-car agenda. I think the distinction is very dubious.

You need a license to drive legally and that requires certain qualifications, based on age, vision and skills. However, if you qualify for a license and pass the tests, then you have a right to a license. You cannot be denied a license in that case, so it's a right.

It's the same with a marriage license. Again there are rules in terms of age and relationship to the person you want to marry. And you can't be married to more than one person at a time. But the campaign for same-sex marriage was based on the idea that everyone should have an equal right to marry, subject to the conditions.

The fact is that all road users have a duty of care to others and that includes pedestrians not looking before they cross as well as drivers driving the wrong way down a one-way street.

PS: The only non-parking ticket I ever got was for driving the wrong way or, as the ticket amusingly put it: "causing a vehicle to be propelled in a direction other than that specified by law". I hadn't seen the sign and it was a very short road with no other traffic, none of which are valid excuses under the law, but it was still different from deliberately doing it.

[bungeejumper]

You need a license to drive legally and that requires certain qualifications, based on age, vision and skills. However, if you qualify for a license and pass the tests, then you have a right to a license. You cannot be denied a license in that case, so it's a right.

Ah, but if you mess it up and break the law, that licence can be withdrawn. That's why it's a permit, not a right.

BJ

[swill453]

Ah, but if you mess it up and break the law, that licence can be withdrawn. That's why it's a permit, not a right.

But while the permit is valid, pedestrians' "rights" don't give them anything over and above the driver.

Scott.

[Slarti]

Ah, but if you mess it up and break the law, that licence can be withdrawn. That's why it's a permit, not a right.

But while the permit is valid, pedestrians' "rights" don't give them anything over and above the driver.

Scott.

Come into a collision with one and the law sees it somewhat differently.

Slarti

[swill453]

Come into a collision with one and the law sees it somewhat differently.

Well sure, but that comes down to the specific Acts, and the guidance as laid down in the Highway Code.

Nothing to do with whether one road user has a right, and another "only" a permit.

Scott.

[marronier]

A driving licence is a driving permit e.g. permis de conduire (French), permis de conducere (Romanian). These terms have the same meaning. Having a licence/permit does not clear one ,or confer the right, to drive the wrong way along a one-way street.

[Lootman]

A driving licence is a driving permit e.g. permis de conduire (French), permis de conducere (Romanian). These terms have the same meaning. Having a licence/permit does not clear one ,or confer the right, to drive the wrong way along a one-way street.

I don't think anyone was saying that the possession of a license entitles one to break the traffic laws. It merely means that as long as you obey all the traffic rules, then you have the right to use the road.

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.

In fact I'd argue that a car has more right to be on the road than a pedestrian, except at authorised crossings or junctions with light sequences, which signify a pedestrian right of way. Jaywalking isn't an offence in the UK but it is in some other countries, and the underlying idea is clear enough - that pedestrians should not just go wandering out onto the road willy nilly. Pedestrians have their own special and dedicated right of way - the pavement.

[swill453]

In fact I'd argue that a car has more right to be on the road than a pedestrian, except at authorised crossings or junctions with light sequences, which signify a pedestrian right of way. Jaywalking isn't an offence in the UK but it is in some other countries, and the underlying idea is clear enough - that pedestrians should not just go wandering out onto the road willy nilly. Pedestrians have their own special and dedicated right of way - the pavement.

That's not quite the whole story though.

For example, Highway Code Rule 170 says "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".

This is ignored by drivers everywhere. Unfortunately it's very difficult for pedestrians to assert this right, they tend to end up getting hurt.

The practical effect is that the vehicle may have to stop in the main road they are signalling to turn off, something the traffic behind won't necessarily (but should) be anticipating.

Scott.

[pochisoldi]

The practical effect is that the vehicle may have to stop in the main road they are signalling to turn off, something the traffic behind won't necessarily (but should) be anticipating.

Scott.

If the turning vehicle maintains a suitable speed (to avoid harsh braking) and signals at the correct point, it gets a lot easier to predict.

If you are following a BMW or Audi driver then you should be maintaining a larger than normal gap to cater for the fact that these marques tend to have indicator lights, but nothing to turn them on.

PochiSoldi

[UncleEbenezer]

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).

[swill453]

(Almost) anywhere other than the motorway, pedestrians have precedence.

Can you

- provide a reference to the law stating this

and/or

- explain how a pedestrian might put this precedence to practical effect on a typical stretch of road?

Scott.

Moderator Message:
Edited to correct quote - moderator-chas49