Foot Soldiers

Is it just me or has the balance of power when attempting to cross a main road on a pedestrian crossing transferred to the oncoming motorists?

I am sure, from my own recollections over the last 50 years that this was not the case.

In fact the overriding impression of crossing the road in my childhood is based on the traffic flow coming to an immediate and courteous halt at the first hint, indication or even tentative motion of a pedestrian on the pavement towards the kerbside.

This is a long way from the process today where it is more a case of making eye contact with the road users and pleading for their permission to step out.

Theirs is, by all accounts, a discretionary power dependant upon
a)whether they like the look of you,
b) based on their judgement of your ability to  speedily negotiate the manoeuvre so as not to hold them up on their journey or even
c) simply whether they think they can get away with not stopping at all.

I am beginning to hate having to wave by way of thanks for the privilege of crossing the road and so much so that I am more likely to find an alternative place to do so. I  am putting myself in some peril as a consequence.

There is no denying that there is a political and cultural background to this basic requirement.

It is a very good example of the historical pattern in British motoring law of seeking to reconcile the competing aims of different interest groups and working within the constraints of what is acceptable to public opinion.

The reliance by successive governments on good sense and civic duty amongst all parties involved, from drivers to pedestrians has become eroded, and we are now at the situation where crossing the road is now a problematic and potentially devisive issue.

There may be other contributing factors of a socio and economic bent such as the power complex of being behind the wheel but fettered by the frustrations of motorists where average uk road speed is only 23.6mph and the "us and them" stand-off between car drivers and those on foot.

It was in the 1930's that the first pedestrian crossings were introduced as a response to concern over rising road deaths, particularly of those on foot, an inevitability with the increase of vehicle numbers.

In the opening decades of the emergence of cars into daily life public opinion was firmly with pedestrians but in the inter war period middle class car ownership and all of the aspirational things that went with it saw a shift in its favour.

It was not long before pedestrians began to be criticised for erratic behaviour.

Motorists as a social class in themselves became a powerful lobbying group but could not prevent the imposition of insurance obligations and the likelihood of disqualification for careless or reckless driving.

The Highway Code published in 1931 was an attempt at creating some understanding of the mutual responsibilities of all road users but only as a code appealing for good manners.

Not surprisingly it did not really work and road fatalities remained shockingly high.

In the ten years up to 1937 some 14,000 children were killed on the roads.

Imposition of a 30mph speed limit in built up areas saw a slight fall in pedestrian deaths.

A more formal designation of crossing points was also introduced but local authorities were not consistent across the country. There were examples of illuminated signs, electric traffic lights, kerbside post markers and "checkon" crossings made up of black and white squares.

The Transport Minister in the 1930's Lord Hore-Belisha gave his name to the amber coloured but unlit globe beacons on seven foot high poles that marked crossing points . In the first four months of their appearance on British streets 3000 of the 15000 in London were vandalised being regarded as legitimate targets for stones and other projectiles.

The crossings themselves only reignited the public controversy about the relationship between pedestrians and motorists as issues of legal rights of way remained vague and unclear.

In a high profile legal case Lord Montagu had been fined only 30 guineas for killing a woman with a 35mph impact which led to a prominent newspaper claiming that punishment for homicide depended upon the rank and status of the person killed.

Other cases saw legal opinion penalising pedestrians for stepping out on a crossing without giving due notification to the motorist.

These judgements did nothing to reduce the considerable ambiguity about the point at which the motorist could reasonably be expected to slow down and stop.

And so we are at the present day. Nothing much has really changed.