home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!netsys!ibmpcug!pipex!unipalm!uknet!lsl!snail
- From: snail@lsl.co.uk
- Newsgroups: uk.misc
- Subject: Re: Pavements (should that be footpaths?)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.130327.2658@lsl.co.uk>
- Date: 20 Nov 92 12:03:27 GMT
- References: <JC.92Nov19092339@mr-potter-t-crosser-i-dotter.fulcrum.co.uk>
- Distribution: uk
- Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <JC.92Nov19092339@mr-potter-t-crosser-i-dotter.fulcrum.co.uk>, jc@fulcrum.co.uk (John Callingham) writes:
- > Does anyone know the definition of a pavement (the legal one, not the
- > dictionary one). I ask because I was nearly run over this morning by a
- > car crossing the pavement from a drop kerb to enter a drive. I thought
- > I was still on the pavement, but the driver seemed to think that he
- > had priority because he was still on the road.
-
- This won't do you much good if you get hit by a car, but the highway code
- (which of course isn't law, but nearly is) states, quite rightly, that drivers
- of vehicles shouldn't run people over. I tend to read this as pedestrians have
- right of way on just about any road, except a motorway, since it's illegal
- to wander down the hard shoulder of a motorway, unless your vehicle is broken.
-
- Of course, just believing this isn't enough if someone runs you over. Mind
- you doesn't stop me standing in the middle of a busy road with traffic wizzing
- either side. People don't really want to end up having killed or injured
- anyone, regardless of what they believe.
-
- Summary. I think you were in the right.
-
- If you deliberately stepped off the footpath infront of a car (at close range)
- then you are in the wrong.
-
- Just one snail's opinion.
- --
- snail@lsl.co.uk
-
- "para-phrasing an American's .sig"....
- For the record, I did not vote for Bill Clinton
- :-)
-