Zebra crossings

[Upphew]

Now here are the rules about the right of way. Only thing Yle failed to mention again is that almost all of these rules also apply to pedestrians on pedestrian (zebra) crossings.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/who_has_right_of_ ... st/7500884

Except pedestrian has always right of way on zebra.

[Honest]

http://yle.fi/uutiset/who_has_right_of_ ... st/7500884

Except pedestrian has always right of way on zebra.[/quote]


This is a bit tricky , they should be given way but they don't have an automatic priority on a straight road

[CH]

Except pedestrian has always right of way on zebra.

This is a bit tricky , they should be given way but they don't have an automatic priority on a straight road

Huh? Yes they do. The law was only changed for bicycles crossing on a bicycle lane over a straight road. "Should be given way" and "automatic priority" is the same thing, anyway. In other words... if a pedestrian looks like he or she might be about to cross a zebra crossing then you should stop.

[CH]

Had to check... so from http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1981/19810267 the pedestrian is indeed included in the turning clause

14 §

Väistämisvelvollisuus

[...]
Risteyksessä kääntyvän ajoneuvon kuljettajan on väistettävä risteävää tietä ylittävää polkupyöräilijää, mopoilijaa ja jalankulkijaa. Samoin on kuljettajan, joka muualla kuin risteyksessä, aikoo poistua ajoradalta tai muuten ylittää sen, väistettävä tien reunaa käyttävää polkupyöräilijää, mopoilijaa ja jalankulkijaa.

but also in the

32 §

Kuljettajan suojatiesäännöt

Suojatietä lähestyvän ajoneuvon kuljettajan on ajettava sellaisella nopeudella, että hän voi tarvittaessa pysäyttää ennen suojatietä. Kuljettajan on annettava esteetön kulku jalankulkijalle, joka on suojatiellä tai astumassa sille

.

So the first is about giving right of way when turning or getting of the road in some other way, and the second is about giving the right of way when a pedestrian is crossing or about to cross the road (and the "about to cross the road" is usually interpreted pretty broadly, you don't have to have one leg actually going for the road). But both are written as compelling, "on väistettävä" and "on annetava esteetön kulku", I don't see any difference.

Well, hmm... the turning clause actually doesn't contain anything about a zebra crossing, just "risteävää tietä ylittävää"... sooooo... you have to give way at an intersection if you are turnin even if there is no zebra crossing (which doesn't mean they are jaywalking... you can cross a road without a zebra crossing if there is no zebra crossing nearby*).

*Subject to interpretation by the police officer just about to write you a ticket, don't try this in a city.

[Honest]

"Should be given way" and "automatic priority" is the same thing.

It's not the same. Police can't give you a ticket for not giving way to pedestrians who have not stepped on a pedestrian crossing but want to cross it (again, on a straight road). But police can give you a ticket for dangerous driving if you don't give way to a car coming from the right on a crossroad with no priority.

[harryc]

But police can give you a ticket for dangerous driving if you don't give way to a car coming from the right on a crossroad with no priority.

Please clarify - it reads a bit like the car expecting to be given way to is coming from behind a 'yield' sign (no priority).

[Honest]

I mean on an equal crossing if you don't give way to a car coming from the right you can get a ticket

[CH]

Police can't give you a ticket for not giving way to pedestrians who have not stepped on a pedestrian crossing but want to cross it (again, on a straight road).

You got any reference for that? Because I got

Sakkomääräyksessä voidaan määrätä seuraamukseksi enintään 20 päiväsakon suuruinen sakkorangaistus ja menettämisseuraamus sille, joka rikkoo: (13.5.2011/467)

[...]

1) tieliikennelakia (267/1981) tai sen nojalla annettuja säännöksiä tai määräyksiä;

What I quoted in my previus post was from Tielikennelaki. The risk of getting a ticket is pretty small, but you can get a ticket. Example here: http://www.metro.fi/uutiset/a1387801618067

Suojatiesääntöjä rikkova voi saada poliisilta puhuttelun tai sakot. Räikeimmissä riketapauksissa kuljettajan kortti otetaan pois suoraan paikan päällä.

Edit: From Käsikirja seuraamusten määräämiseksi rangaistusvaatimus- ja rikesakkoasioissa (by Poliisihallitus)
For nr 72 "Esteettömän kulun antamatta jättäminen suojatiellä olevalle / suojatielle astumassa olevalle jalankulkijalle" rikesakko is 6-20e. Pretty cheap, but there you go. I would assume this is not an absolute maximum, but what is the normal range in "normal" cases where the police officer issues the ticket right there and then.

[riku2]

Now here are the rules about the right of way. Only thing Yle failed to mention again is that almost all of these rules also apply to pedestrians on pedestrian (zebra) crossings.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/who_has_right_of_ ... st/7500884

I think it also fails to mention that at some pedestrian crossings, cyclists are not allowed to cycle across but must theoretically walk their bikes over. Identifying which kind of crossing is which is almost impossible since both types might have the same kind of single thick white lines painted on the road. Only from 2017 will all cycleable crossings have to be like in the YLE photos with ones you can cycle across looking different to pedestrian only crossings. Many are converted already (to varying degrees of success).

No wonder people don't understand who has priority. Which genius thought of making the road markings for both kinds of crossing the same in the first place! From reading liikeneturva website only about 35% of people know the priority rules. Add in about 20% of drivers using the phone while driving and so unlikely to stop for anyone anywhere and it would be better to never set foot near a public road at all.

[Honest]

@CH: None of your references is supporting your argument. I don't say pedestrians never have the priority and you can never get a ticket for breaking laws related to zebra crossings. I say they don't have any priority on straight roads until they are already on the crossing or are just about to step on them.

You should go through the whole thread to see what is my point.

Of course you can get a sakko if you break a law regarding suojatie (zebra crossing). What I have said again and again is that if a person is not on a crossing or is not going to step on it, you have no legal requirement to stop and give him way (so obviously he doesn't have any priority until he is already on the crossing), even it's obvious that he is standing there to cross the road. I am talking about law not ethics or common sense.

I'll try to make it clear once more. According to law

1- While turning you must give way
2- On a straight road you are not legally bound to give way to a person who is standing near a zebra crossing and has not already started the process of crossing the road.

[CH]

You are really invested in being right about the "straight road" being different from when you turn, aren't you (the newspapers, native posters... all wrong, you are right). The "straight road" needs a zebra crossing, as far as I can see that is the only difference. But your argument seems to hinge on how to interpret "tai astumassa sille" and your interpretation seems to be

started the process of crossing the road.

and my point is... this is not how it is interpreted (or at least that's not how we have been taught it is interpreted). It is interpreted as "standing there wanting to cross the road". But yes, it's not a well written part of the law as it is up to interpretation. You need to slow down anyway, though, if it looks like they might be crossing the road due to "23 § Tilannenopeus".

Actually, the "14 § Väistämisvelvollisuus" only says that you have to give right of way to a pedestrian crossing the road, which is pretty "Duh!"... the "32 § Kuljettajan suojatiesäännöt" would already cover that, the special case in the law is really only relevant if there is no zebra crossing.

[Upphew]

Basically if pedestrian (btw, inline skater is pedestrian too! talk about fast walker...) can get to the crossing before the driver can, driver must give way.

[Honest]

My driving instructor was also a native Finn and surely he didn't interpret the law as you are interpreting.

Secondly if we interpret it as you are doing then law says you have to slow down to a speed that you are able to stop in case there appears a pedestrian or an inline skater for upphew, Law doesn't say that you should only show down if there are pedestrians standing and waiting to cross the road. Now do you slow down to a speed where you can stop in a distance of a couple of feet on all crossings of a 60 km/h road?

How I was taught was that Finnish law was different than many other counties for pedestrian crossings. There is some responsibility on pedestrians as well. There are so many zebra crossings in Finland even on 60km/h roads that it would become almost impossible to drive especially in darker times if pedestrians would always have undesputef priority. So law is made in a way that it gives them priority but not an all out right to jump on the road as they want.

[Upphew]

How I was taught was that Finnish law was different than many other counties for pedestrian crossings. There is some responsibility on pedestrians as well. There are so many zebra crossings in Finland even on 60km/h roads that it would become almost impossible to drive especially in darker times if pedestrians would always have undesputef priority. So law is made in a way that it gives them priority but not an all out right to jump on the road as they want.

Pedestrians _should_ wear reflectors and they should cross the road carefully and without delay. When cars don't slow down pedestrians don't dare to start the crossing and they start to dick around near the crossing and delaying the crossing. I would be more than happy to see pedestrians ticketed too.

Driving over me on zebra crossing would be coin toss in court, if I ambushed and jumped at the last second to the road. Kid, elderly or disabled doing the jumping and the car's driver would most likely get the conviction. But as I have said before, I loathe the loitering near the crossings and I have solved it by taking distance to the road and going determinedly towards the crossing when I'm about to cross. That will give the drivers a bit more time to see me coming.

[Y77]

Police cannnot give you a fine for not stopping and let people across,because they are the first that don't do it.....plenty of checks to see if you are driving while pissed,but never seen anyone being fined for talking over the phone or pedestrian crossing issues