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

RunningMan

9210 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4854

#1776842 6-May-2017 12:39

joker97:[snip]

I went back to page one and it wasn't answered whether a car can go or cannot go.

The car must give way to the pedestrian(s) who are crossing. The pedestrian(s) have the right of way.

The pedestrian(s) also have a time frame in which they may cross, indicated by the green / red / flashing red pedestrian signals.

Just because a pedestrian crosses outside their signalled time, this does not remove the obligation of the vehicle driver to give way to them (i.e. you can't mow them down just because they crossed on a red light).

Two wrongs don't make a right.

mattwnz

20523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1776849 6-May-2017 13:18

I am pretty sure that there used to be a sign at traffic lights that actually said, turning traffic must give way to pedestrians. Maybe they don't put it up anymore for cost savings?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41137

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1776853 6-May-2017 13:33

cadman:
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".

Victim blaming. Drivers have the obligation of looking where they are going, more than pedestrians.

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.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1776859 6-May-2017 13:56

cadman:

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 assumes all pedestrians are able bodied and of sound mind. [You could say the same of car drivers of course]

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41137

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1776911 6-May-2017 17:51

joker97:

cadman:

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 assumes all pedestrians are able bodied and of sound mind. [You could say the same of car drivers of course]

Correct. Drivers have to pass a test to get behind the wheel, their standards and responsibilities are higher.

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

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1776939 6-May-2017 19:35

RunningMan:

joker97:[snip]

I went back to page one and it wasn't answered whether a car can go or cannot go.

The car must give way to the pedestrian(s) who are crossing. The pedestrian(s) have the right of way.

The pedestrian(s) also have a time frame in which they may cross, indicated by the green / red / flashing red pedestrian signals.

Just because a pedestrian crosses outside their signalled time, this does not remove the obligation of the vehicle driver to give way to them (i.e. you can't mow them down just because they crossed on a red light).

Two wrongs don't make a right.

This^^ (again for those that missed it) thanks RunningMan for summarising your original answer from Page 1 that everyone seems to have missed. It's not complicated (or so I thought). You are driving a lethal weapon, you have a responsibility to use it wisely. If a pedestrian does something foolish then that may go towards mitigation, but does not excuse a driver from mowing them down if a "reasonable" driver should have seen them and could have "reasonably" done something to avoid or minimise a crash in the circumstances.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1777008 6-May-2017 22:45

RunningMan:

joker97:[snip]

I went back to page one and it wasn't answered whether a car can go or cannot go.

The car must give way to the pedestrian(s) who are crossing. The pedestrian(s) have the right of way.

The pedestrian(s) also have a time frame in which they may cross, indicated by the green / red / flashing red pedestrian signals.

Just because a pedestrian crosses outside their signalled time, this does not remove the obligation of the vehicle driver to give way to them

Drivers are obligated to give way only when pedestrians are crossing with the signals or in the case of a zebra crossing, when they've been obviously waiting (i.e. they don't just get to walk along the footpath, make a sudden 90° turn and step out onto the road and blame the driver). The obligation of drivers to give way is indeed removed when they are not crossing with the signal however there is a duty of care to both parties. They do not get to claim victim status when they're hit because they haven't followed the rule and taken reasonable care.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1777009 6-May-2017 22:47

freitasm:
cadman:

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".

Victim blaming. Drivers have the obligation of looking where they are going, more than pedestrians.

They're not victims if they choose to ignore common sense, except perhaps victims of their own stupidity.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777013 6-May-2017 23:16

cadman:

RunningMan:

joker97:[snip]

I went back to page one and it wasn't answered whether a car can go or cannot go.

The car must give way to the pedestrian(s) who are crossing. The pedestrian(s) have the right of way.

The pedestrian(s) also have a time frame in which they may cross, indicated by the green / red / flashing red pedestrian signals.

Just because a pedestrian crosses outside their signalled time, this does not remove the obligation of the vehicle driver to give way to them

Drivers are obligated to give way only when pedestrians are crossing with the signals or in the case of a zebra crossing, when they've been obviously waiting (i.e. they don't just get to walk along the footpath, make a sudden 90° turn and step out onto the road and blame the driver). The obligation of drivers to give way is indeed removed when they are not crossing with the signal however there is a duty of care to both parties. They do not get to claim victim status when they're hit because they haven't followed the rule and taken reasonable care.

At what point are they crossing? At the Kerb? Once their feet touches the road? Once both feet are on the road?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18777 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1777022 7-May-2017 07:23

Consensus does not need to be gained on this forum, the answer is here. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians/

Also from the NZTA site and really sums it up

"Giving way means that the road user you’re giving way to (whether they are a driver, cyclist, pedestrian or any other kind of road user ) doesn’t need to stop, brake or slow down, swerve or take any other evasive action to avoid you."

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1777041 7-May-2017 08:59

MikeB4: Consensus does not need to be gained on this forum, the answer is here. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians/

Also from the NZTA site and really sums it up

"Giving way means that the road user you’re giving way to (whether they are a driver, cyclist, pedestrian or any other kind of road user ) doesn’t need to stop, brake or slow down, swerve or take any other evasive action to avoid you."

Am I reading that the answer to the OP question is: the car may cross?

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.

gzt

18756 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7886

Lifetime subscriber

#1777052 7-May-2017 09:57

joker97:
MikeB4: Consensus does not need to be gained on this forum, the answer is here. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians/

Also from the NZTA site and really sums it up

"Giving way means that the road user you’re giving way to (whether they are a driver, cyclist, pedestrian or any other kind of road user ) doesn’t need to stop, brake or slow down, swerve or take any other evasive action to avoid you."

Am I reading that the answer to the OP question is: the car may cross?

The road code is not specific on the green light point. It says apply the give way rule.

The road code does say the rule should be interpreted for "pedestrian crossings" aka zebra crossings - "stop and give way to pedestrians on any part of the crossing".

We can all see the reasons for that. It is potentially dangerous to have cars proceeding if pedestrians are on the crossing.

It is entirely logical that the same rule applies to controlled intersections.

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1777750 8-May-2017 13:30

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.

Really? Poor city planning, I don't think so. Go have a look at any intersection on Featherston St and you will see people that just don't care walking out onto the road when they don't have a crossing signal. Do you suggest putting over-bridges on every intersection. Drivers going through red lights are just as bad. Peoples sense of entitlement these days is ridiculous. Some people seem to do what they want and just don't care about or consider other.

Here's a idea! How about all parties respect the controlled interaction. Wow... imagine that.

Kirk

mattwnz

20523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1777767 8-May-2017 13:56

kharris:

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.

Really? Poor city planning, I don't think so. Go have a look at any intersection on Featherston St and you will see people that just don't care walking out onto the road when they don't have a crossing signal. Do you suggest putting over-bridges on every intersection. Drivers going through red lights are just as bad. Peoples sense of entitlement these days is ridiculous. Some people seem to do what they want and just don't care about or consider other.

Here's a idea! How about all parties respect the controlled interaction. Wow... imagine that.

You are talking about a cities design from the 1800's, working for the 21st century. Also Wellingtons street shapes have been largely dictated by the earthquakes, as Featherston street used to be underwater near the shoreline. Ideally you wouldn't have cars along that road at all, and instead possibly trams and pedestrian zones. Cars and pedestrians don't mix, and pedestrians don't want to be breathing in petrol fumes as they walk home. Cities these days are about getting cars out the the CBDs, and making them more pedestrian friendly. That is what I like about London, you can walk everywhere, and they have undergrounds as well if you don't want to walk. They have removed cars from some areas around there, and made them bus only, but they need to do a lot more planning if they want more people to take the rail. Pedestrians having to stop at every single intersection, is an inconvenience, especially when it is often bad weather. I used to do that route for 5 years. It was an awful experience, breathing in all the car fumes, and even worse in bad weather. Instead I took the car, which was also cheaper. But that shouldn't be the case. I have also nearly been hit by cars ignoring the traffic lights as well, and turning on a green pedestrian cross signal. So it isn't just pedestrians that are ignoring the lights.

kharris

1209 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 327

ID Verified

Trusted

#1777820 8-May-2017 14:43

mattwnz:

kharris:

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.

Really? Poor city planning, I don't think so. Go have a look at any intersection on Featherston St and you will see people that just don't care walking out onto the road when they don't have a crossing signal. Do you suggest putting over-bridges on every intersection. Drivers going through red lights are just as bad. Peoples sense of entitlement these days is ridiculous. Some people seem to do what they want and just don't care about or consider other.

Here's a idea! How about all parties respect the controlled interaction. Wow... imagine that.

You are talking about a cities design from the 1800's, working for the 21st century. Also Wellingtons street shapes have been largely dictated by the earthquakes, as Featherston street used to be underwater near the shoreline. Ideally you wouldn't have cars along that road at all, and instead possibly trams and pedestrian zones. Cars and pedestrians don't mix, and pedestrians don't want to be breathing in petrol fumes as they walk home. Cities these days are about getting cars out the the CBDs, and making them more pedestrian friendly. That is what I like about London, you can walk everywhere, and they have undergrounds as well if you don't want to walk. They have removed cars from some areas around there, and made them bus only, but they need to do a lot more planning if they want more people to take the rail. Pedestrians having to stop at every single intersection, is an inconvenience, especially when it is often bad weather. I used to do that route for 5 years. It was an awful experience, breathing in all the car fumes, and even worse in bad weather. Instead I took the car, which was also cheaper. But that shouldn't be the case. I have also nearly been hit by cars ignoring the traffic lights as well, and turning on a green pedestrian cross signal. So it isn't just pedestrians that are ignoring the lights.

kharris:

....Drivers going through red lights are just as bad......

There are many cities the world that are designed in grid patterns. On the rest I will agree to disagree... "Pedestrians having to stop at every single intersection, is an inconvenience".... hmmm... I have to stop at every red light - and there are many. btw in crappy weather I will let people cross because they are getting wet, but when it is dry... I have to wait for my green light, and so should they. If Wellington went car-less I would suggest it would be the main shopping areas that did Lampton - Willis - Cuba (and side streets).... I would hazard a guess that Featherston Street would remain car friendly.

Kirk

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6