If you're driving a car and someone walks in front of the car you'll slam on the brakes.
This is independent of legality. I'd hope that it'd be the case even if laws were passed that explicitly punished braking in such a scenario.
Anyway, in the UK, it's illegal to walk down the side of a motorway. But basically anywhere else is free reign for pedestrians.
People don't generally walk out in front of (fast moving) cars because they're not suicidal.
In a place like London it's fun to watch (and take part in) the stand-off between cars and pedestrians though.
I womble through crossings all the time. The lights are advisory for pedestrians. They're designed that way; the green man exists for the elderly and children.
When I said "can", I meant by the rules, not the laws of physics. The car is morally obligated to try not to hit anyone no matter what, but that's not what I'm talking about.
And the picture I have in mind isn't someone suicidally leaping in front of a car, it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.
So what? People don't do this deliberately very often because there's always the risk that the driver doesn't stop. If you try edging into the road you'll get honked at.
The concept of jaywalking has never made any sense to me as a Brit; it's like that joke sign meme of "Danger of death and £20 fine".
If your response to "this works but is not ideal" is "people don't abuse it very often" then I think we agree. I'm not arguing for any particular change.
That's pressure not to jump in front of cars. You don't have to jump in front of a car to trigger this rule, you just have to put one foot into the road.
Are you picturing bored teenagers doing this as a joke or something? In practice this is incredibly rare.
Such 'feral children' will be causing way worse problems elsewhere anyway.
If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard.
Because you don't want to hit them.
But on a very basic level pedestrians have right of way in old world cities anyway.
There are junctions in Central London whereby cars often struggle to pass even when the light is green (Kings Cross station is a good one, taxi drivers like to "push" people out of the way by edging closer)
That's why I said I'm sure it's fine in practice in my first post.
>If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard.
>Because you don't want to hit them.
You don't want to hit them.
Entirely separately from that, if they force you to slam on your brakes, when you are not being reckless, they should be chastised.
> It's unclear to me what the problem is, here.
Giving someone right of way when they're going to cross the road is fine. But it should not be absolute and instant, forcing cars to brake at 100% power.
Someone on a footpath, giving no signs of wanting to enter the road, could do so in one second. It takes longer than that for a car to stop.
To solve the problem, give cars enough slack to stop at medium braking intensity before the right of way kicks in. That's all. Lack of right of way isn't permission to hit them. It just means they're wrong to be sprinting across the street.
> it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.
Rest assured, no car driver ever stops in this situation unless the pedestrian is at a zebra crossing.
