Pedestrians always had priority in my book. I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Likewise I've always done my best not to kill or maim cyclists, even if they're wearing Lycra.
If I see anyone rowing, on the other hand, they're fair game. Dr Bob, you have been warned.
Pedestrians had priority, of a sort, if they were already crossing then yes motorists had to stop; but that law was written in the days when pedestrians were not walking zombies with an attention span measured in milliseconds and said attention is diverted away from where they are and what they are doing and instead to a small handheld device held sometimes inches from thier face with something clearly so mesmerising that thier own personal welfare and safety is paid no heed.
That's the ******* problem now.
Oh and pedestrians aren't required to give signals as to their intention of travel.
If some braindead but otherwise still ambulatory tw*t steps directly in front of a moving vehicle doing even 20 miles an hour just scant yards away, without any check if it's clear, then frankly that's called "natural selection" because a smarter person would know better. Before you say the driver needs to be vigilant - how do you be vigilant driving down a main road with a pavement FULL of pedestrians who can and often WILL step out into the road at any moment, without slowing the entire road traffic to a crawl? Drive down Bristols Gloucester Road, a main traffic route into Bristol city centre, on any given day and you'll see what I mean; it's simply not possible yo pay heed to EVERY.SINGLE.PEDESTRIAN. who may step out in front of you without driving at 5 miles an hour.
And now the law has given them the right to not even LOOK, just step out, and often with headphones on so they cannot even HEAR that a vehicle is literally right next to them already making its own lawful manouvre.
I cannot see why so many people are against motorists who simply don't want lemmings walking out in front of them without any personal responsibility.
Yes the new change shows at junctions only etc, but do you think the pedestrians are going to stick to that particular requirment? The answer is a resounding NO, because, I've alreay seen an uptick in people walking out in front of traffic from the pavement, and now even between parked vehicles.
Next they will be saying we have to revert to the oldest motoring law - that of "you must have a man with a red flag walking in front of you, warning pedestrians of your passage and travel not faster than 5 miles an hour".
Many pedestrians now seem to beleive they "rule the road", now yes it's mostly the morons, snowflakes and militant lefties who think this way, but that's still far too many.
OOH here's a good question, are any of you who read this with young children still going to teach them the "green cross code"? Or just tell them they don't need it now and hand over thier personal safety be controlled by a complete stranger who may or may not be driving while: texting, face-timing, watching **** (seen that), doing thier work report last minute before a meeting, on drugs of varying types, flat out stoned (going by the stink of marijuana everywhere), drunk or otherwise intoxicated, doing thier makeup, brushing thier hair, arguing with the children / spouse / lover, reading a map (still happens), reading a book (seen that too), masturbating or receiving fellatio, driving an unfit vehicle who's wheel may fall off at any moment, or brakes fail, or accelerator get stuck or... o...r or... or any 1 of literally THOUSANDS of other ways for a person to be killed or severly injured by a vehicle.
For all of you who are bleating on about "it's all on the driver", answer the above question please, if you can, without sounding like a hypocrite.
I'm reminded recently of something that happened recently in the USA, I've just spent 6 weeks there and I was at a rather posh retreat in the Catskill mountains for a couple of days (Mohonk Mountain Resort for the curious, highly recommended), that has miles and miles of trekking; they had closed off almost all the routes for walkers because "there is some ice" and when I say "some" I really mean "almost none", but the highly litigious nature of the USA is such that rather than simply give an advisory and allow people to make thier own decisions on thier walking ability and expect them to have a few braincells to do this with, instead 90% of the trails, had been closed.
Being English however, my brother, his wife and I said "bollocks" and walked them anyway as we were paying guests and that's what we were there for; the trails were fine, even with a 4.5 year old child, no-one slipped, not even once.
"Personal responsibility" people, either we use and ENFORCE the concept or soon we won't be able to buy sharp implements "in case you cut yourself or someone else" and it's all dogsh*t and downhill for everyone from then on.
Here's a question (before this turns into a /rant (lol) - what's the concensus on car insurance premiums - will they go down now because "everybody's being more careful now" or will they hiked up even more to pay for all the spurious claims?
My money's on UP, way up.
PS - Now I understand why the USA has / had the "jaywalking" law - so pedestrians had to cross at designated places instead of "just anywhere" like we do, so motorists had a fighting chance of at least knowing WHERE the pedestrians would be crossing, instead of blindsided by a phone zombie stepping out from behind a parked van.
I'm getting myself a dashcam, I suggest others do the same.
