General consensus at traffic lights vs pedestrians

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › General consensus at traffic lights vs pedestrians

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1775319 4-May-2017 08:01

dickytim:
joker97:

Hi a long time ago, driving in NZ when you turn left at the traffic lights you always gave way to the pedestrians who had the green man light.

When I was in urban Australia, you never give way to pedestrians who had the green man light, you just go if there's a gap.

Back in NZ nowadays, pedestrians take up all the green traffic light time to cross, so that generally you can't turn unless you turn after the light is red (even then sometimes the pedestrians are STILL crossing!!!)

So - is it acceptable to just drive and turn left when pedestrians are still far away on the other side?

In that situation yes, some sets of lights have a red arrow that is lit when the green man is going for crossing, in which case no. And I agree with what happens in Aussie, basically so long as the pedestrians don't have to yield to you it seems Ok.

I have not however tested this in a court of law so this is all my opinion!

Sorry,you are incorrect. If a pedestrian is crossing on the green man you must not cross infront of them.
It is a controlled pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian crossing rules apply.
The red arrow has been introduced when the green man is on because too many people do what you are suggesting and illegally cross infront of pedestrians.

Matthew

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1775323 4-May-2017 08:16

mdooher: Sorry,you are incorrect. If a pedestrian is crossing on the green man you must not cross infront of them.
It is a controlled pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian crossing rules apply.
The red arrow has been introduced when the green man is on because too many people do what you are suggesting and illegally cross infront of pedestrians.

And if the driver can't see the green man? So I disagree... you can't be required to obey a signal you can't see.

So, if you have a green light (and don't have a red arrow), you can go. But turning traffic must give way to pedestrians.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1775330 4-May-2017 08:32

frankv:
mdooher: Sorry,you are incorrect. If a pedestrian is crossing on the green man you must not cross infront of them.
It is a controlled pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian crossing rules apply.
The red arrow has been introduced when the green man is on because too many people do what you are suggesting and illegally cross infront of pedestrians.

And if the driver can't see the green man? So I disagree... you can't be required to obey a signal you can't see.

So, if you have a green light (and don't have a red arrow), you can go. But turning traffic must give way to pedestrians.

If you can't see the green man and a pedestrian is crossing at a controlled crossing then you better assume the pedestrian is in the right

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. The law is clear.

Matthew

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1775348 4-May-2017 09:13

mdooher:
frankv:

mdooher: Sorry,you are incorrect. If a pedestrian is crossing on the green man you must not cross infront of them.
It is a controlled pedestrian crossing and the pedestrian crossing rules apply.
The red arrow has been introduced when the green man is on because too many people do what you are suggesting and illegally cross infront of pedestrians.

And if the driver can't see the green man? So I disagree... you can't be required to obey a signal you can't see.

So, if you have a green light (and don't have a red arrow), you can go. But turning traffic must give way to pedestrians.

If you can't see the green man and a pedestrian is crossing at a controlled crossing then you better assume the pedestrian is in the right

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not. The law is clear.

Which brings me back to the London/Pitt/George/George/Frederick st. Turning left from London St into Pitt St - don't see the green man until you see the pedestrians, esp if you were say 5th in the line of cars. In which case cars would stop when you see the peds. (of which I'm mainly the pedestrian)

When I'm the pedestrian crossing george st at this very intersection, I've had a few cars zooming past in front of me, one of the factors that made me ask.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1775416 4-May-2017 10:36

Geektastic:

Cars and pedestrians should NEVER be given the green light at the same time to occupy the same piece of road at the same time.

It's insane. Just asking for trouble.

Have to agree.

The "car at the front of the queue waiting to turn left scooting in front of the pedestrian starting to cross from the far side of the road" scenario is problematic, mostly because the second, third and fourth cars are most likely not paying close attention to the pedestrian's progress in crossing the road and will just blindly follow.

If there is a pedestrian on the road (or about to enter the road) with the right of way, don't enter it with your car until they're safely crossed. Pretty safe universal rule I reckon.

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1776225 5-May-2017 13:19

Forget turning, it's got so bad now on some Wellington intersections that drivers going straight through a green light have to break and wait for idiots that don't care just crossing in front of them. It's even worse with the hordes heading to the train station, some peoples sense of entitlement just amazes me. Then we have all the taxis and buses running red lights without caring. Stop on an intersection one day and watch.

Kirk

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776246 5-May-2017 13:41

kharris:

Forget turning, it's got so bad now on some Wellington intersections that drivers going straight through a green light have to break and wait for idiots that don't care just crossing in front of them. It's even worse with the hordes heading to the train station, some peoples sense of entitlement just amazes me. Then we have all the taxis and buses running red lights without caring. Stop on an intersection one day and watch.

Could be a good PhD for an evolutionary anthropologist.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776375 5-May-2017 15:21

When the pedestrian light is green, cars shouldn't be able to turn at all across the path of pedestrians, as the vehicle turn light should be red. It is illegal to turn if the turn light is red. It is only after the pedestrian light flashes red, that the turn light turns green, and then you can only go if the pedestrian path is clear. not unless you lights are faulty or they have changed the way they work?

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776381 5-May-2017 15:29

kharris:
Forget turning, it's got so bad now on some Wellington intersections that drivers going straight through a green light have to break and wait for idiots that don't care just crossing in front of them. It's even worse with the hordes heading to the train station, some peoples sense of entitlement just amazes me. Then we have all the taxis and buses running red lights without caring. Stop on an intersection one day and watch.

IMO that is a poor city planning, and I know the area you mean. It needs a lot of planning work, as pedestrians shouldn't be put in that that position. . Pedestrians and public transport should have preferential treatment over private motor vehicles in CBD. So whether that means overbridges etc. Especially in Wellington where the weather is often so crap. In some cases they do, but some places like the railway station are an accident waiting to happen, and it is solely bad design and planning.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1776383 5-May-2017 15:31

Dairyxox:

Wow some terrible attitudes towards pedestrians are showing here.

There should never be an excuse to hit or even scare a pedestrian.

When they walk across the road within 100mtr of a crossing if they get run down it's their fault ....

I don't have a problem with people using the crossings as they should be at traffic lighted intersections that means the little green/red man it's green I'll give way if it turned red while you were on the crossing I'll give way if you try to cross after it turned red I'll run you down (joke) but you will get an earful of abuse as you go past and a honking from my car horn just to make sure you heard the verbal

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776392 5-May-2017 15:51

mattwnz:
kharris:

Forget turning, it's got so bad now on some Wellington intersections that drivers going straight through a green light have to break and wait for idiots that don't care just crossing in front of them. It's even worse with the hordes heading to the train station, some peoples sense of entitlement just amazes me. Then we have all the taxis and buses running red lights without caring. Stop on an intersection one day and watch.

IMO that is a poor city planning, and I know the area you mean. It needs a lot of planning work, as pedestrians shouldn't be put in that that position. . Pedestrians and public transport should have preferential treatment over private motor vehicles in CBD. So whether that means overbridges etc. Especially in Wellington where the weather is often so crap. In some cases they do, but some places like the railway station are an accident waiting to happen, and it is solely bad design and planning.

In our cities, the planning looks at what have been wrong 10 years ago. If it's wrong for 1 year it's a 100 year event, she'll be right. If it's wrong today, "are you sure there is a problem"? Don't even think about what could go wrong tomorrow, let alone 10 years later.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776413 5-May-2017 16:13

joker97:

mattwnz:
kharris:

Forget turning, it's got so bad now on some Wellington intersections that drivers going straight through a green light have to break and wait for idiots that don't care just crossing in front of them. It's even worse with the hordes heading to the train station, some peoples sense of entitlement just amazes me. Then we have all the taxis and buses running red lights without caring. Stop on an intersection one day and watch.

IMO that is a poor city planning, and I know the area you mean. It needs a lot of planning work, as pedestrians shouldn't be put in that that position. . Pedestrians and public transport should have preferential treatment over private motor vehicles in CBD. So whether that means overbridges etc. Especially in Wellington where the weather is often so crap. In some cases they do, but some places like the railway station are an accident waiting to happen, and it is solely bad design and planning.

In our cities, the planning looks at what have been wrong 10 years ago. If it's wrong for 1 year it's a 100 year event, she'll be right. If it's wrong today, "are you sure there is a problem"? Don't even think about what could go wrong tomorrow, let alone 10 years later.

When they quote a 1 in 100 year event, I find that somewhat misleading. It is actually a 1% chance to occur in any given year. This means that it potentially can occur every few years. Using 1 in 100 years, means people think that it won't happen in their lifetime, as they think it won't occur for a hundred years. This is used a lot for flooding where 1 in 100 year floods are occurring quite regularly..

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1776472 5-May-2017 18:03

dejadeadnz:

Rikkitic:

Come on guys, if you are in a car and you hit a pedestrian, you will most likely really hurt that person. This will leave you feeling like utter crap, regardless of whose fault it is. Far better to be extra alert and, if necessary, go out of your way to avoid such collisions regardless of the road rules. I doubt either of you are the disturbed kind of person who takes pleasure in seeing someone else get ‘what they deserve’ when what they get may mean spending the rest of their life as a quadriplegic. People make mistakes. Or they are just dumb. Or they are arrogant jerks. So what? You don’t have to plough into them to make some kind of point.

You're exactly right but you're also wasting your time. The kind of people who hold the sort of views that you were replying to are clearly sociopaths whose regard for others' wellbeing is basically none. They don't care. And this is yet again another illustration why I'd most prefer to have the ability to ignore people like TimA on here because I consider it a form of visual pollution to actually have to read that kind of rubbish.

Sociopath, Thats a new one for me. Ill put it in the trophy cupboard!
Anyway, Great diagnosis from a few written words. Enjoy your weekend.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1776474 5-May-2017 18:08

Athlonite:

Dairyxox:

Wow some terrible attitudes towards pedestrians are showing here.

There should never be an excuse to hit or even scare a pedestrian.

When they walk across the road within 100mtr of a crossing if they get run down it's their fault ....

I don't have a problem with people using the crossings as they should be at traffic lighted intersections that means the little green/red man it's green I'll give way if it turned red while you were on the crossing I'll give way if you try to cross after it turned red I'll run you down (joke) but you will get an earful of abuse as you go past and a honking from my car horn just to make sure you heard the verbal

I think the law will see it differently. If you hit a pedestrian crossing the road, who isn't at any crossing because you didn't see them, I would have thought that it is usually the motorists fault. But hitting anyone with a car is likely to be lifechanging for both the driver and pedestrian, no matter who is at fault.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1776559 5-May-2017 20:05

mattwnz:

Athlonite:

Dairyxox:

Wow some terrible attitudes towards pedestrians are showing here.

There should never be an excuse to hit or even scare a pedestrian.

When they walk across the road within 100mtr of a crossing if they get run down it's their fault ....

I don't have a problem with people using the crossings as they should be at traffic lighted intersections that means the little green/red man it's green I'll give way if it turned red while you were on the crossing I'll give way if you try to cross after it turned red I'll run you down (joke) but you will get an earful of abuse as you go past and a honking from my car horn just to make sure you heard the verbal

I think the law will see it differently. If you hit a pedestrian crossing the road, who isn't at any crossing because you didn't see them, I would have thought that it is usually the motorists fault. But hitting anyone with a car is likely to be lifechanging for both the driver and pedestrian, no matter who is at fault.

Actually the law states that if you are withing 100 meters of a pedestrian crossing and you choose to not use it not only are you J walking but if you get run down by a motorist it's your fault automatically for failing to use the provided crossing but only within 100 meters of a crossing no further so 105 meters drivers at fault inside 100 meters pedestrians at fault

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6