[Closed] Why do people walk/jog against traffic ?

because they have read the highway code

One can only react to cars if one can see them coming - granted being on the inside of a blind bend is inadvisable and the direct consequence of the advice

EDIT: Actually a score draw

Rule 2
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.

It's in the highway code. So you can see cars coming and get out the way I guess.

The Highway Code, innit ?
So that the walkers can see traffic approaching them, instead of having motor vehicles passing them from behind without warning.

What junky said. Edit, and everyone else...

Following the advice rigidly, as opposed to applying a dollop of common sense, in your case.

I've always understood that it's so they can see as well as hear you coming and get out of the way ..as opposed to just hearing you

So you get to look them in the eye before you're mown down, rather than just rear ended.

A cyclist and a pedestrian using the highway at the same time. Inconceivable. I hope they didn't cause you to have to slow your motor vehicle at all.

Never understood why?

Then you should never have been allowed to pass your driving test.

I’ll hand my license in

Went round a blind bend today on a narrow road and had cyclists coming towards me on the other side and joggers coming at me on my side.

Which of course is absolutely fine, because you were driving round a blind bend slowly enough to react.

I’ll hand my license in

Because there is absolutely no where else they can go for a jog obviously. Inconsiderate aholes.

Yeh it's a piss take. They don't even pay ****ing road tax.

I always expect a cyclist or a walker on a blind bend and adjust my speed accordingly

Thank god the sun wasn't in your eyes!!!

davidtaylforth - Member
Yeh it's a piss take. They don't even pay **** road tax.

I jogged on the road today against traffic. Yesterday I paid £1200 in 'road tax'. Where does that leave me?

I’ll hand my license in

Thanks. Wish more people would too.

I’ll hand my license in

clearly this is in jest, but... then question is now, what kind of person are you:

A) the kind who goes "huh? I wonder what else I've forgotten/don't know" and goes off to re-read the HC to keep yourself up to date

or

B) the kind who carries on as before safe in the knowledge that you're a good driver so there's no need to revise occasionally to keep yourself fresh and up to date.

😉 Happy new year from the smug-fest of STW!

I had this discussion with someone at work a while back after a typical '2 abreast' rant and explaining that it's not only allowed but often safer and better for all to do so. I tried to politely point out that there might be other stuff in the HC that they'd forgotten and might be worth brushing up, naturally I got told to 'eff off.

I have a soon to be 17 year old who is revising for her theory test by doing practice tests, not actually reading the HC - "none of my friends read it they just practiced the test" 🙄

I actually hope she fails it, and the practical test, until she realises she's not as great a driver as she thinks she's going to be.

Never understood why?

Perhaps they don't trust your driving and want a chance to jump out of the was as you take a call, text or use your phone as a sat nav.

There's nowt as queer as folk, as they say.

In case you recognise the driver, so you can smile and waive as they mow you down. 😉

I jogged on the road today against traffic. Yesterday I paid £1200 in 'road tax'. Where does that leave me?

With an ability to read but very little capacity to understand. 🙂

Just look again at who posted it.

OP next time you have to make a decision, stop and think about it a bit longer, because you are not as intelligent as you think you are.

Happy new year

[quote=davidtaylforth ]Yeh it's a piss take.

😆 HNY dtf!

Yesterday I paid £1200 in 'road tax'. Where does that leave me?

In the minority of those who still pay the tax now there's no paper discs if the papers are to be believed

The last person who told me cyclist's don't pay road tax was driving a Prius. 😆

The last person who told me cyclist's don't pay road tax was driving a Prius.

Well he/she was right, bloody Pruis driving know-it-alls 😉

#nosuchthingasroadtax

😀

I have to admit I break the walking into traffic rule when walking down Cheddar Gorge as I walk down on the left as it has the best verge. But I do insist on crossing over before the blind bends to give us the best chance of not being taken out by some muppet on a car/motorbike/bicycle/driftscooter

I even ran on the road the other day when there was a pavement *right there*

It’s narrow, uneven, unlit and full of cars parked on the pavement and (usually on Sunday, or Monday, but not always...) wheels bins.

ticsmon - Member
Never understood why?

Went round a blind bend today on a narrow road and had cyclists coming towards me on the other side and joggers coming at me on my side.

You forgot the first rule of STW club.

If you post a driving comment that even slightly infers you might, might have done something wrong, or be negligent of a fact you WILL be called arrogant and told to get off the road by all the other drivers that have never, ever made a mistake on the road. Ever. That also know the HC to the letter and really are perfect drivers. In every way.

So in that spirit, can I ask if you drive a white BMW?

Someone else will be along to ask you if you live in a modest house and have out side lighting shortly. 😀

While I'll agree to a certain point, that it may well be people in glass houses throwing stones also consider it from the other side and the benefit it provides.

First off, driving is a privilege, not a right. The whole country, if not the world, could benefit from an attitude shift on that.

Secondly, after passing the L test, very few people actually bother to try and improve their driving skills, or even maintain the knowledge they had when they passed that L test. Watch cars turning right at a roundabout and you'll see 3 do the same manoeuvre but come off that roundabout with all 3 different indicator options.

Three, with changes in policing, most forces no longer have traffic specialists who have the power of discretion and could decide that a little road side chat might improve things out there. Without the sheffiffs, it's getting more and more like the wild west.

Four, short of don't text and drive and don't drink and drive, there's very little in the way of public information campaigns now to help keep peoples driving standards up.

What that all means, is that the STW specialist driving kangaroo court is about the only place I can think of, where driving behaviour is discussed. Given the effect poor driving can have on entire families in the blink of an eye, if hurting one persons feelings on a thread like this, causes one contributor, or forum lurker, to think a little more about how they behave on the road, then long may it continue.

Sorry/not sorry for the rant, but having worked in traffic management/road safety for a local authority for a number of years, as well as being a DSA instructor and an advanced instructor, it's a subject close to my heart.

Just for balance, I punish pass walkers who walk in the wrong side of the road in the countryside.

In my silent electric eco car (no road tax) they don’t hear you coming so you can clip them with the wing mirror. Teaches them a lesson

First off, driving is a privilege, not a right. The whole country, if not the world, could benefit from an attitude shift on that.

And that would be re-enforced by removing peoples licenses more readily. Even a bit of 'careless' driving resulting in a death will only have you off the road for a year or so.
But unfortunately because of this

Three, with changes in policing, most forces no longer have traffic specialists who have the power of discretion and could decide that a little road side chat might improve things out there.

It wouldn't make any difference anyway. As a teenager I was an irresponsible driver and I got stopped all the time because there were police around to stop me. The problem was I always got let off as I was polite, laughed at their 'okay Nigel Mansell' comments etc,. so my behaviour didn't change. Taking my license away for 6 months would have been the best thing.

Perhaps they don't trust your driving and want a chance to jump out of the was as you take a call, text [b]or use your phone as a sat nav[/b].

I use my phone as my satnav every day for my job, I had no idea that what I was doing was a crime!

There appears to be some confusion on what is defined as 'using a mobile phone'. Some people have been fined for using it as a sat nav.
The wording in the law isn't clear. There was a bit in one of the papers on Saturday.

@Onzadog +1 to that.

When I was learning to drive my parents and my driving instructor impressed upon me that passing the driving test was the minimum standard and that I should aim to improve after that. I probably have improved in some areas but not in others, hopefully I haven't regressed too far in anything. I'm definitely not perfect.

I'd like to see the excuse of "I need a driving licence for my job" being counted against drivers - if you need a licence for your job then you should be held to a higher standard not a lower one.

Maybe a mandatory eye test with results sent to DVLA for anyone getting points on their licence. Of course The Daily Hate would characterise that as a "war on drivers" when in fact it's a "campaign against bad drivers"

Sorry, you’ll have to explain the particular significance of that last bit,

No i don't.

Walking against the flow of traffic does help you to identify the oncoming blind drivers, the speeding arseholes, and the texting twits.

That gives you time to leap into the muddy ditch so you do not inconvenience them by holding them up with an accident enquiry, or almost as bad, force them to put a furious post up on dickheaddriverworld.com forum.

Simple good manners from the ambulatory lower orders.

What's everyone so angry about?

[quote=whitestone ]Of course The Daily Hate would characterise that as a "war on drivers" when in fact it's a "campaign against bad drivers"

Well to be fair, as far as their readership is concerned that would be accurate.

1. I wasn’t having a go at people walking against the traffic. It was a genuine question. Obviously didn’t remember that from the HC. I’ll probably give it another look at.

2. I think I’m a considerate driver especially towards walkers, cyclists and horses.

3. I’d slowed down enough before the bend so I didn’t come close to slamming on.

4. Drive the most boring car in the world (grey Passat). Someone asked.

5. Happy new year!!!

[quote=richmars ]There appears to be some confusion on what is defined as 'using a mobile phone'. Some people have been fined for using it as a sat nav.

Not if it's in a holder they haven't. If they're holding it in their hand then they deserve to be fined, whatever apps are running at the time.

Not if it's in a holder they haven't. If they're holding it in their hand then they deserve to be fined, whatever apps are running at the time.

I'm just repeating what the newspaper article said. The offence is using a mobile phone, not holding one, so it could be down to interpretation, according to someone from the Criminal Bar Association.

You can be prosecuted for having a conversation on total hands free if your deemed to be driving in an unsafe manor while doing so.

Family member got pulled over while having an arguement on the phone driving along. The policeman saw the animated arm movements and decided he was driving distracted.....rightly so imo.

Phone was in a holder on the windscreen with voice activated blue tooth. Made no odds

Best place for the phone when driving is out of the drivers reach.

[quote=richmars ]the offence is using a mobile phone, not holding one

The offence is using a [b]hand-held[/b] mobile phone or device - section 110 of the construction and use regs. Personally I'd rather rely on what the law actually says rather than the contents of a newspaper article (whether or not they're quoting a lawyer). The only scope for interpretation is over what is defined as use - whether a satnav counts appears to be a grey area (a standalone satnav which doesn't connect to the internet certainly wouldn't count), but it would still have to be hand-held for the law to apply.

Of course you can also be prosecuted if you're distracted or otherwise driving unsafely, but not specifically for the hand-held device offence.

Semantics really but don't let that stop you being right.

Distraction is distraction be it fixed to a window or in your hand.

It's a recommendation in the highway code, not necessarily law (not a 'must').

Problem I have is the whole point of it is to be able to see oncoming traffic and take action to protect yourself and not be in the way as much as it's possible, however frequently runners don't do anything at all to get out of the way. Continue running towards you and with oncoming traffic the other side it makes it hard to judge both your speed towards them and their speed towards you to safely stop in time. Walkers usually step to the side of the road and more often that's enough to simply pass or overtake. Makes perfect sense for walking and I walk against traffic if no pavement.

davidtaylforth - Member
Yeh it's a piss take. They don't even pay **** road tax.

[daily-mail-mode]No high-vis either! 👿 , and that's in the highway code [/dail-mail-mode] 😉

it makes it hard to judge both your speed towards them and their speed towards you to safely stop in time

Why? The maximum any runner is likely to be doing is around 20Kmh, most will be closer to 10Kmh, and you should know your own speed.

A basic driving skill - judging speed and distance - it allows you to proceed smoothly with little or no deceleration and acceleration.

Why should runners or walkers have to get out of the way?

Why don’t motorists pull over and allow those on foot to pass unimpeded?

I was always taught to face oncoming traffic to you can see the danger and avoid it if necessary by stepping or tucking into the hedge. Also gives a bit more confidence to the driver that you have been seen.

On a mobile phone related question and the holding of said device. I could have sworn there was a law where you couldn't fix a holder into the swept area of the windscreen? I regularly see holders in the middle of the windscreen, and also occasionally right in the drivers eyeline!! Was I mistaken about the swept rule

the peeps who I really don't understand are those who go running on busy touristy streets e.g. the South Bank in the height of summer. It looks totally unfun and unproductive.

I have a soon to be 17 year old who is revising for her theory test by doing practice tests, not actually reading the HC - "none of my friends read it they just practiced the test"

I did a speed awareness course a few years back. One young lad admitted that he didn't know any road signs bar the half dozen that were on the practical test.

What that all means, is that the STW specialist driving kangaroo court is about the only place I can think of, where driving behaviour is discussed. Given the effect poor driving can have on entire families in the blink of an eye, if hurting one persons feelings on a thread like this, causes one contributor, or forum lurker, to think a little more about how they behave on the road, then long may it continue.

Well said.

Yesterday I paid £1200 in 'road tax'

How big and ostentatious a car do you have to drive to pay that much?!? 😯

How big and ostentatious a car do you have to drive to pay that much?!?

Eight and a half Ford Fiestas. (-:

VED's changed recently, you pay a premium on the first year and then a flat rate of £140. That looks like the first year on a new car to me.

Using the road is a big and constant risk assessment activity for all who use the roads whether they be drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. Its all about giving yourself the best chance of survival. If I'm walking on the road there is a risk of a motorist (or cyclist for that matter) not seeing you for any reason, so I want to be able to see them coming and at least have the opportunity to jump or dive out of the way.

My dads best mate lost his then fiancee waling along a dark road one night in the same direction of the traffic. They were walking holding hands, a car came from behind and hit her and pulled her hand from his as she was run over. Not sure why the driver didn't see them..at the end fo the day for her it is irrelevant. At least if they were walking facing the car she might have stood half a chance of getting out of the way.

Accidents happen, that is a fact of life. You have to take responsibility of your own safety at the end of the day and assume that everyone else using the roads are imbeciles and will do something unexpected at some point. It's inevitable, so you have to be vigilant and ready for it. Nobody else is going to look after you, and its pointless what the rights and wrongs of any situation are and what the Highway Code says if you're dead.

No i don't.

trail_rat - Member
Semantics really but don't let that stop you being right.

Distraction is distraction be it fixed to a window or in your hand.

INRAT I assume you left yourself enough time to stop. Safer running against the traffic and I have had to make the off last minute dive into a hedge when running to avoid selfish drivers.

Three, with changes in policing

The word you're looking for is thirdly.

Secondly, after passing the L test, very few people actually bother to try and improve their driving skills,

Ironically it's the same with reading and writing skills.

t that all means, is that the STW specialist driving kangaroo court is about the only place I can think of, where driving behaviour is discussed. Given the effect poor driving can have on entire families in the blink of an eye, if hurting one persons feelings on a thread like this, causes one contributor, or forum lurker, to think a little more about how they behave on the road, then long may it continue.

This. Well put.

ticsmon - Member

Went round a blind bend today

Then you were travelling too fast.
Bends are only "blind" if you are going too fast for the distance that you can see.

Onzadog - Member

First off, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Actually it's neither, but if soundbites make you happy, crack on. 🙂

xxx
sbob
IAM SfL, RoSPA Gold (lapsed).

The arguement would be that either the passenger operates the sat nav if it needs used on the hoof or you pull over. Just like you should have done in the olden days with an atlas.

No need to be pawing at any gadget on the dash or on the windscreen.

As I said distraction is distraction .

The onus is on the user to ensure they use it safe. How ever the hand held law is to make it easier for police to prosecute for folk using their phones as it's plain to see at a quick glance and makes it easier to get a conviction to stick.

There is no denying it the safest place for a phone to be is out of reach of the driver. See guy changing the music while driving his truck....... No temptation if it's out of reach.

What that all means, is that the STW specialist driving kangaroo court is about the only place I can think of, where driving behaviour is discussed. Given the effect poor driving can have on entire families in the blink of an eye, if hurting one persons feelings on a thread like this, causes one contributor, or forum lurker, to think a little more about how they behave on the road, then long may it continue.

It's not well put. Respectful of your experience etc, but STW is not a place for driving to be 'discussed'. It's where people will seek to unearth any vulnerability in a comment and launch a not-even-passive aggressive attack, with an air of high-horseness that Salvador Dali would struggle to depict.

When was the last time you saw a driving thread where someone replied "Well yes, I can see why you think like that, but it's actually this..".

To have a 'discussion' needs some basic respect for the people you're taking to, and when it comes to this place there isn't any*

*God knows why that is, maybe it's just an internet forum thing.

It gives the walker /jogger time to see the car and bail into a hedge /ditch or over a wall.

If a cars a approaching from behind and not looking where they are going, you won't know whether you need to take evasive action.

That's my understanding, and it makes sense to me.

whitestone - Member
Why? The maximum any runner is likely to be doing is around 20Kmh, most will be closer to 10Kmh, and you should know your own speed.

A basic driving skill - judging speed and distance - it allows you to proceed smoothly with little or no deceleration and acceleration.

Relative speed, 10Kmh towards you + 48Kmh (30mph) towards the runner = 58Kmh (36mph). Faster than the speedometer is telling you.

In judging speed and distance, having a moving object coming towards you with no intention of stopping, is equivalent to you overtaking and judging speed and distance with an oncoming vehicle. That's fine when you're in control of the decision to overtake, but less so when you've got a runner heading towards you out of your control.

While I can stop in time, I just find it disconcerting when a runner continues to run towards me, whereas a walker is not a problem. Usually because they step out of the way, and even if I have to stop, they're not still walking towards me. They wait until it's safe to move on.

Walkers are curteous and clear out of your way Why don't runners don't you mean ?

deadkenny - Member
...While I can stop in time, I just find it disconcerting when a runner continues to run towards me, whereas a walker is not a problem...

Is the car driver's use of the road more important than the runner's?

A runner isn't going to be "out of control" they are going to be in more control than the nut holding the steering wheel.

Why is the relative speed of a car and a runner worse than that of two cars?

Sounds to me like you are making excuses to justify you not being inconvenienced.

Why don't cyclists pull over and get out my way when I come up behind them. The speed difference is so much I have difficulty gauging it so he should just get out my way.....

bensales

Yesterday I paid £1200 in 'road tax'

SaxonRider - Member

How big and ostentatious a car do you have to drive to pay that much?!?

First year on a new full size 4 door saloon. Just happens to have a big engine that kills baby robins whenever I drive it.

But for the Brexiteers I’m supporting British industry.

whitestone - Member
Why is the relative speed of a car and a runner worse than that of two cars?

It isn't. However, cars are not normally coming head on with no intention to stop or avoid collision.

Sounds to me like you are making excuses to justify you not being inconvenienced.

Not inconvenienced. I'm fine with stopping aside from the adjustment to stopping distance accounting for their speed towards me. Just trying to avoid hitting the oncoming runner, concerned for their safety, whilst also being concerned with other hazards on the road.

epicyclo - Member
But why should a runner have to stop?

If there's no requirement to stop or consider you own safety with regards to oncoming traffic, there's no point in being able to see oncoming traffic.

trail_rat - Member
Why don't cyclists pull over and get out my way when I come up behind them. The speed difference is so much I have difficulty gauging it so he should just get out my way.....

Nope, I'm slowing down and able to judge the difference in speed easily and not being concerned that they're still coming towards me once I'm at the same speed. The cyclist has every much right on the road as a car (they came before cars). So do pedestrians, but it is their responsibility to take caution, as much as everyone else. My point is, some runners don't take that caution. It "inconveniences" them to upset their rhythm 😉

I'm fine with stopping aside from the adjustment to stopping distance accounting for their speed towards me.

You don't answer the question of why a runner would seek a collision with a motor vehicle?

As the driver of a motor vehicle you are the most dangerous thing in this situation. (You being a generic "you" not you in person)

I don't appear to have a problem dealing with oncoming motor vehicles that have no intention to stop. In fact most drivers don't seem to have any such problem. Why then is a human being outside a motor vehicle such a problem for you?

Rule 2
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.

Unless there's another addendum that says jump into ditch and get out of way of on coming car.

whitestone - Member
You don't answer the question of why a runner would seek a collision with a motor vehicle?

I have no idea, but in my experience many do, and in particular referring to the Highway Code posted, "keep close to the side of the road" isn't what I observe.

I don't appear to have a problem dealing with oncoming motor vehicles that have no intention to stop. In fact most drivers don't seem to have any such problem. Why then is a human being outside a motor vehicle such a problem for you?

I have a big problem when there's a car overtaking heading towards me and I have to slam the brakes on while he dives in narrowly missing a deadly head on collision. I should think most drivers have the same problem.

The runner is far less of a problem. As I said in the beginning, it's just disconcerting compared to a walker who typically moves out of the way or keeps close to the side.

Just a comment really on where the reason for walking against traffic fails if the person is not prepared to use that advantage for their own safety. I'd prefer they run with traffic in which case, and walkers walk against.

[quote=trail_rat ]The arguement would be that either the passenger operates the sat nav if it needs used on the hoof or you pull over. Just like you should have done in the olden days with an atlas.
No need to be pawing at any gadget on the dash or on the windscreen.

I'm not sure anybody is suggesting fiddling with a satnav whilst driving. Perfectly legal to have a phone in a holder using it as a satnav though. If somebody has been prosecuted for using a phone as a satnav, it's either because they're holding it in their hand, or because they were clearly distracted by it in a way most people aren't.

Of course some people are distracted by their phones whilst driving, clearly you shouldn't text, select music, change settings on a satnav etc. whilst driving - but then people used to fiddle with their radio whilst driving.

driving in an unsafe manor

You've driven in Peckham then?

Saying using a satnav on a phone mounted on the screen is specifically illegal is just plain daft.

It may also be correct as there may be something in construction and use about mounting items higher than the dashboard on the screen. I do wonder how the modern Audis manage to get around this one with the screen that pops up from the dash.

[quote=Sandwich ]It may also be correct as there may be something in construction and use about mounting items higher than the dashboard on the screen. I do wonder how the modern Audis manage to get around this one with the screen that pops up from the dash.

Ah, meant to cover this one earlier - yes, according to the guidance issued by DfT a satnav is equivalent to a sticker, and anything larger than 40mm diameter (which is pretty much every satnav or satnav mount) can't be placed within the swept area of the windscreen. Construction and use regs section 30.

Hence almost all screen mount satnavs are breaking the law. The Audi thing may be positioned so that it's below the normal sightline of the bottom of the screen - though it would also seem to be covered by the exemption "Original vehicle design features and drivers aids, such as sun visors, are allowed".

Personally my phone mount is on the dash to the left of the steering wheel - at about the same height as the instruments, so checking it is as safe and convenient as glancing down at those.

deadkenny - Member
'But why should a runner have to stop?'
If there's no requirement to stop or consider you own safety with regards to oncoming traffic, there's no point in being able to see oncoming traffic.

Why does a driver think that the runner has to stop and get out of his way rather than the driver slow down (or stop) and give the rider a wide berth?

After all the driver is the one wielding the deadly weapon.

Or is there an implicit suggestion that the driver's journey is more important than the runner's safety?

I have no idea, but in my experience many do, and in particular referring to the Highway Code posted, "keep close to the side of the road" isn't what I observe.

It's not saying shuffle along with your back to the hedge to minimise the amount of space you take up. Most drivers aren't looking for pedestrians near the side of the road if there's no pavement.

I rarely run on roads but I think I'd prefer someone to risk a collision with oncoming traffic while I leap into the 2ft of safe space to my right.