What is 'pedestrian priority'

[jgurney]

A 'quietway' being created near me (actually a park road which has been used by cyclists for decades) is to have signs installed reading "Pedestrian priority'. However no-one seems to be able to explain quite what this means. Presumably it is defined somewhere. Motor traffic is not allowed on the route and there is an approximately parallel horse-riding track, so the priority pedestrians are to enjoy will be over specifically over cyclists.

Does anyone know:

- what additional obligations do cyclists have where 'pedestrian priority' applies, which they would not have anywhere else?

- what additional privileges do pedestrians possess where 'pedestrian priority' applies, which they would not have otherwise?

[kwackers]

It's just advisory. The sign gives them no more rights than they already have (they have priority anyway).
Chances are there have been complaints about other users and the signs are there as a reminder to them.

In essence pedestrians can wonder around the path at will and it's up to other users to pass them safely and stop if necessary.

[cotswolds]

The Highway Code uses the term priority quite a lot, generally as an opposite to 'give way' e.g. if you have to give way at junction, the other traffic is said to have priority (not 'right of way' which is term I don't think the Highway Code uses).

So if another road user has priority you have to give way to them. The meaning of this is obvious when paths cross, but less obvious if you are travelling in the same or opposite directions. Effectively it seems to mean very little until there is an accident in which case you will probably be found liable. Failure to follow the Highway Code is enough to establish liability, and if you hit somebody, you almost certainly haven't given them priority.

Incidentally, I had a quick look through the signs in the Highway Code for this sign and couldn't see it. I don't off hand know of any legislation under which this sign could be put up (but your area could have a by-law). The term 'Quietway' does not appear in the Highway code.

It might be that this is a sign put up to placate a pedestrian lobby that has no real meaning in practice. Good idea to avoid accidents with pedestrians, but that applies anywhere.

[gaz]

"Quiet Lanes" and "Home Zones" fall under the Transport Act 2000, s268.

"London Quietways" are a TfL/Sustrans scheme. The delivery of QW1 seems to have been well received, delivery of others seems as if they may be compromised. Some commentary here.

If it's some other "Quietway" then they're probably at risk of trademark infringement .

IMO +1 to kwackers comments above.

[drossall]

The Highway Code uses the term priority quite a lot, generally as an opposite to 'give way' e.g. if you have to give way at junction, the other traffic is said to have priority (not 'right of way' which is term I don't think the Highway Code uses).

That's because right of way is your legal entitlement to use a path, road or other route. It's not the same as priority, which is about who should go first in a given situation.

Give Way is therefore a bad term really. You're giving priority.

[thirdcrank]

I fancy there's some history to this.

The GIVE WAY traffic sign (and since I lost a lot of my reference links on an earlier hard drive crash I can no longer be bothered to quote the sign number) only requires that drivers, including cyclists, to give way to other vehicles. ie not to pedestrians. The only way priority can be given to pedestrians is with some sort of pedestrian crossing.

This point was made in something like the Sustrans guidelines although I've not been able to find it - another sign of flagging enthusiasm.

In the rush to create farcilities at the time of the Notional Cycling Strategy, some GIVE WAY markings were painted where cycle routes crossed pedestrian routes. A full-blown zebra crossing would be overkill. I think that initially, the blue cycle route signs with a plate saying "Cyclists give way to pedestrians" was some sort of response to that situation. However, once something like that is available, it tends to catch on. When Kirklees Kouncil konverted the pavement on the A62 from Cooper Bridge into a shabby shared-use, they installed those signs along its length and the signs have spread to Leeds.

I suspect they are seen as a palliative when pedestrians complain that they are forced to share space with cyclists and this is an extension of that thinking.

These people want to promote cycling in theory but not in practice.

[PRL]

This is a path

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/park-mana ... -proposals

that is very busy with both pedestrians and cyclists on a Sunny Sunday and reasonably quiet at other times. Lots of commuting cyclists and few pedestrians early and late. Royal Parks have a policy of not adding tarmac so are refusing to widen the path and the "pedestrian priority" amounts to a request to cyclists to be considerate.
I have asked them to look at improving the edge where it is currently eroding into a rut created by the use of heavier vehicles than bicycles.

[Cunobelin]

If you have a choice of running over a dog or a pedestrian.... prioritise the pedestrian

[MikeF]

If you have a choice of running over a dog or a pedestrian.... prioritise the pedestrian

Oh that's what it means.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Wish they would make their mind up

Along my usual route some signs being erected "Quite Lane" on a road which is a shortcut rat run and frequented by HGV to the a38.

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-225

Highway%20code%20quiet%20lane.jpg (59.93 KiB) Viewed 5177 times

Then they take the signs down...............now its -

Child Pedestrian....?

Never seen children and they definitely would never use it either it goes nowhere and NO $%£"&*^ pavement either

Next cycle path has shared use signs like this

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlhZCTzMnPAhVBPBQKHU2zAmIQjhwIBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaidstoneonbike.blogspot.com%2F&bvm=bv.135258522,d.ZGg&psig=AFQjCNE_KxltcVz5eCQFkJ3pwLqp1bW_bw&ust=1475960660690803

Then on a wooden staggered gate you get in faint "Give way to pedestrians"

[Gattonero]

I fancy there's some history to this.

The GIVE WAY traffic sign (and since I lost a lot of my reference links on an earlier hard drive crash I can no longer be bothered to quote the sign number) only requires that drivers, including cyclists, to give way to other vehicles. ie not to pedestrians. The only way priority can be given to pedestrians is with some sort of pedestrian crossing.
....

I think this is important.
Am I the only one thinking that pedestrians do not follow the Highway Code ?

Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time.

Hence the importance of a sign to give priority to pedestrians when it needs to.

[Annoying Twit]

I don't know what the legal definition of pedestrian priority is. However, in real cycling on shared paths, I always aim to get past without making the pedestrian change what they are doing, and will stay behind through narrow sections under bridges. However, I frequently find that pedestrians will get out of my way if they know that I am there.

I do think that faster and more manoeverable traffic should always give priority to slower and less manoeverable traffic.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

I don't know what the legal definition of pedestrian priority is. However, in real cycling on shared paths, I always aim to get past without making the pedestrian change what they are doing, and will stay behind through narrow sections under bridges. However, I frequently find that pedestrians will get out of my way if they know that I am there.

I do think that faster and more manoeverable traffic should always give priority to slower and less manoeverable traffic.

We all want and hopefully think to abide by that, then some people choose to completely ignore you / you are there.
This is an example of a more vulnerable group giving way to a lesser vulnerable group, the latter also includes group cyclists where I fell due to avoiding a collision, lone cyclist vs group cyclist, road or path.

[hufty]

I do think that faster and more manoeverable traffic should always give priority to slower and less manoeverable traffic.

A pedestrian is often (but not always) slower but more manoeuvrable, and surely it's the manoeuvrability that's the key thing rather than the speed? A sea kayak should get out of the way of a freighter not the other way round. On a shared path, as often all the pedestrian has to do is step to one side it might not be unreasonable for them to do this.

The real problem is that councils and Sustrans love putting up signs - it would be better if they just left it to those concerned to work it how to pass each other. Okay some people may be inconsiderate (on foot, bicycle, or horse) but I doubt a sign is going to change their behaviour.

[Annoying Twit]

I feel more manoeverable on a bike. I can swoop from one side of the path to another with the slightest movement of the handlebars, and can accellerate quickly.