|
|
|
Athlonite:
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
Actually, it doesn't.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/...
11.3 Using crossings, underpasses, or footbridges
(1)
A pedestrian or rider of a mobility device must not cross a roadway otherwise than on a pedestrian crossing or at a school crossing point, at an underpass, or on a footbridge when a pedestrian crossing or school crossing point, an underpass, or a footbridge is reasonably available to the pedestrian for that purpose within a distance of 20 m.
(2)
If pedestrian traffic on any part of any roadway is controlled by traffic signals, a pedestrian must not cross any other part of that roadway that is within 20 m of the part controlled by traffic signals.
(3)
This clause is subject to clause 11.4.
richms:
I always thought it was 30m from a crossing? Screw walking another 100-200m just to cross a road.
Also had some old coot try to tell me off once for not using a crossing when I was going to my car which was on the road. Never crossed the road. STFU old git.
what has age got to do with it?
Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.
MikeB4:
richms:
I always thought it was 30m from a crossing? Screw walking another 100-200m just to cross a road.
Also had some old coot try to tell me off once for not using a crossing when I was going to my car which was on the road. Never crossed the road. STFU old git.
what has age got to do with it?
They were old. That's what its got to do with it.
joker97:Oblivian:We going wayyy off track now.
But that necessity again comes back to only existing as people NOT doing what they are meant to (blocking intersections, running yellows/reds, Walking across pedestrians when their time has been and its now the time of the car flow, following too close or letting controlled side traffic in abruptly causing a constintina effect for 3Kms back)
It's impatience and bullet proof steel box vs using brain
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFd03gzcVROx9osaQYNPm_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RPkC9hoMfE
This thread has gone wayyyy off track yes.
My question was - do cars cross before the pedestrians get near, not whether people run them over!
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.
You may forget turning, but other drivers who want to turn hold up traffic.
There is an intersection in Dunedin CBD - St Andrews St/George St. Called this out because it's very busy with pedestrians. Unfortunately the road has 2 lanes: turn left/straight; turn right/straight. If the first cars each wants to turn left and turn right, nobody goes anywhere because of the green men on both sides. That's kinda right outside the city council office! (nearly) - you'd think they'd fix this by now ... but no. Just got to remember not to go there when it's busy ...
joker97:This thread has gone wayyyy off track yes.
My question was - do cars cross before the pedestrians get near, not whether people run them over!
RunningMan:
Athlonite:
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
Actually, it doesn't.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/...
11.3 Using crossings, underpasses, or footbridges
(1)
A pedestrian or rider of a mobility device must not cross a roadway otherwise than on a pedestrian crossing or at a school crossing point, at an underpass, or on a footbridge when a pedestrian crossing or school crossing point, an underpass, or a footbridge is reasonably available to the pedestrian for that purpose within a distance of 20 m.
(2)
If pedestrian traffic on any part of any roadway is controlled by traffic signals, a pedestrian must not cross any other part of that roadway that is within 20 m of the part controlled by traffic signals.
(3)
This clause is subject to clause 11.4.
Well just goes to show how much cops know about the law then doesn't it because that's where I got the 100 meters from out of the mouth of a cop
maybe he mis-said or you misheard 100 ft
Wow, I am so surprised and equally concerned at the number here who don't appear to know the basic road rules. I assume most here are drivers and you studied the road code..right?
OP's question was asked and answered back on page 1. And none of these rules being discussed have changed since the early 1990's.
Attitude can't be regulated but some drivers need to have a serious look in the mirror at themselves, I include myself in that camp on the odd occasion, normally when someone else has done something stupid but I could have taken a breath and reacted better.
Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation
What about we go with this rule "Cars are heavier and can kill, therefore I won't run over pedestrians"?
I am sure this would be beneficial.
Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies
Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.
scuwp:
Wow, I am so surprised and equally concerned at the number here who don't appear to know the basic road rules. I assume most here are drivers and you studied the road code..right?
OP's question was asked and answered back on page 1. And none of these rules being discussed have changed since the early 1990's.
Attitude can't be regulated but some drivers need to have a serious look in the mirror at themselves, I include myself in that camp on the odd occasion, normally when someone else has done something stupid but I could have taken a breath and reacted better.
I went back to page one and it wasn't answered whether a car can go or cannot go. Let me read on further ... not any other pages either (at least I don't think anyone linked any laws that says you cannot).
Hamlet unicorn: Treat pedestrians the same way you'd treat other drivers. If im able to complete the manoeuvre without impeding the pedestrians progress then I'll turn. If I impede the pedestrian in anyway then I have failed to give way.
Maybe. In many circumstances this is a ticket for dangerous driving. I'd prefer the average driver did not do this. Comes back to becoming a problem with increased traffic and pedestrian density.
freitasm:
What about we go with this rule "Cars are heavier and can kill, therefore I won't run over pedestrians"?
I am sure this would be beneficial.
I prefer "Cars are heavier and can kill, therefore I won't be so careless by stepping out in front of them assuming they've seen me".
That is just a silly argument. I don't want to be responsible for anyone's death, regardless of circumstances.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
|
|
|