Rechts vor links auch mit Fußgängern?
Ich komme an eine gleichrangige Kreuzung. Bei der folgenden Frage ist die Antwort “Kannst sie ja nicht überfahren” falsch. Es geht um Recht und nicht darum, ob man es beugt, um Schaden zu vermeiden. Und auch nicht um §1 und Freundlichkeit.
Von rechts kommen auf der Straße in 5 verschiedenen Situationen verschiedene Verkehrsteilnehmer und wollen allesamt weiter nach links, kreuzen also meinen Weg:
- Radfahrer unter 8 Jahren
- älterer Radfahrer, der sein Rad schiebt
- Fußgänger, der einen Bollerwagen zieht
- Eine Gruppe Fußgänger, die nebeneinander auf der Straße laufen und sich so besser unterhalten können
- ein Fußgänger der Gruppe läuft ganz rechts und benutzt den Fußweg
Gegenüber wem bin ich in der Wartepflicht und gegenüber wem nicht?
(1 votes)
Loading...
“street” encompasses the totality of all traffic routes, including both roadway and walking path.
“Wollen to the left” means for me a change of direction to the left.
Anyway, the two answers are correct. Only number 1 is the driver of the vehicle and therefore has access to the roadway. All others are pedestrians and therefore have to wait, whether on the road or on the walkway.
Thank you. “Come from the right and want to the left” means for me no change of perspective from my point of view suddenly to their point of view.
If
then road is all and it doesn’t need a question if the answer is the same?!
But maybe you can deal with the scooter. I understand this: if he switched on the E-drive, he is a driver and if the drive is off because it goes downhill, he is a pedestrian. How can I check this?
The question of whether you are running a vehicle or not (i.e. pedestrian is) can be asked in several variations. There are, however, verdicts which have already sufficiently resolved some questions.
So also the (downhill) rolling of a vehicle. The vehicle is guided, so you are not a pedestrian. Whether bicycle, e-roller or car.
Here are two links with further information: Link, Link
These links are worth gold and contradict the Kwallitehts statement in a substantial part. Now I have at least partial clarity and can ask the next delicate question.
Pedestrians have priority over bending vehicles at intersections and mouths. Your situation is not meaningful. Otherwise, the road will be looked at and it’s about VorFAHRT. Consider driving traffic. It doesn’t mean you can ignore mistakes from others.
The cyclist under 8 years. He’s the only driver. He has nothing to do with his age.
All others are pedestrians who also have to walk on the footpath. Since you can’t force anything, the concrete situation can prove that you still have to wait.
But pedestrians with bulky vehicles have to use the road?!
And why do I have to pay attention to the pedestrians who go parallel with me if I want to turn right and want to go on straight? They’d have to wait.
And the child has to go on the walk and have to be treated like a pedestrian.
Those who cut the traffic by turning (no matter whether road, cycle path or walking path) of the other road users have to wait.
And in the example given by you, the child who drives on the road by bicycle simply comes from the right. It’s not up to you to first consider how old the child is and whether it can even drive on the road before you think about the way. It comes from the right, so you have to give the way. Without if and but!
“That was a small child who was not allowed to drive on the road at all.” is about the dumbest thing to say before the transport court. There should be something for such a statement alone.
When pedestrians cross your road, they have to wait. Follow the roadway on its roadway you are, you cross through the bend, your way and have to wait, even if the pedestrians themselves cross the road into which you bend.
Whether it’s a child or not, doesn’t matter. It comes from the right. This is the only criterion that applies here. Even if it were a 5-year-old child, you would have to give the way.
Apart from the fact that children from 8 to 10 use the walkway DÜRFEN (do not have to).
https://www.adfc.de/artikel/legal regulations- bei-kindertransport-und-begleitung
From this: “Children from eight to ten years of age may use the walkway or drive on cycle paths or the roadway. From ten years they have to use cycle or road.”
It’s not that easy. And that’s because the pedestrian has nothing to report and then plays first violin again. Therefore, my question too. In both cases they leave the footpath and enter the road to cross it. But if they cross my straightway, they have to wait, cross my turn-off, I have to wait. It was said in the driving school that it doesn’t matter where I want to go, but only where I come from – which isn’t quite true when I left. – But it’s not that simple. Just take a road crossing that’s not at right angles. Let my route turn right by 45°! There’s another road left to make it a “Y”. Right next to me, there are some people on the road and want to cross them. Am I right-wing or straight-forward?
It’s not all that easy. And when it’s called “A pedestrian never has pre-FAHRT”, then everything ends in word splitting. And this is for normal mortals, many of which are no longer found by the blinker, simple too much.
As has already been said, it is not about the court, but about the law – which one can also stand out. But in a driving test it is not asked for rights assignment. You could blame both for accidents. The child would have had to go on the way and I should have waited.
It’s really easy. But many motorists do not understand that they have to wait for the pedestrians when they turn, whose way they cut through the bend.
Only the cyclist under 8 years
With this, anyone who rises from the wheel at the intersection would immediately surrender their priority right.
A pedestrian has no pre-FAHRT.
The passage is also not a right, but a duty to grant.
Yes
Right: The rolling, guideless car has no guide.
Also right: Dran you are still.
Not quite. The vehicle is driverless. The driver, who forgot the hand brake, is responsible. And of course, the car is in this case a vehicle, because it finally moves without external drive.
Before my megane, I had a scenic that automatically pulled the “hand brake” when I turned off the engine. The Megane hadn’t, that happened to me several times with the forgotten hand brake, fortunately without any damage. Now I’m going around with a Clio where the handling is different. Renault does not get it to set up a uniform handling for his fleet. What annoys me most now: I turn off the engine and the radio goes off. If the windows are still down and my wife opens the door, I have to start the engine again so I can close the windows. Really sick.
Follow the links of Link, Link
The drive doesn’t matter. It is important whether you have to be attentive, because of mass or speed, or the device can be brought out of danger by hand and within a step. If you didn’t wear the handbrake and the car’s off, you’re still a driver.
A vehicle is something that transfers the driving force to the road. This is the case with a bicycle. In the case of a roller, not because the driving force is transferred to the road with one leg. A high wheel is therefore a vehicle, but a impeller is not. Rollers, wheels… are therefore a “mobile” and not a vehicle.
The assessment becomes difficult if, for example, someone pushes his defective car to support the slipping motor. It happened to me a year ago when my megane broke down. The engine could be started, it had just enough power to achieve step speed with a lot of feeling on the clutch. It’s just that it went up to the Autofriedhof. So my wife sat at the wheel and I pushed the car. Together, the engine and I managed to climb. Was that a “driving” or a “running”? The police who observed it obviously didn’t care. They got what was going on and just drove behind us with blue light (without siren). We were definitely happy when we finally made it.
Just because one thing is a chain? Or are they the pedals? There were wheels without a chain. And before that was the wheel. Well, that there was no StVO at that time, so you’re relieved to answer. So I’ll always look closely at whether the pedals are still on the vehicle with a cyclist. Especially ladies often drive ladies’ bikes as a scooter in downtown! Stand on a pedal and sometimes sit in the ladies’ seat and sometimes they stand.
You can ask yourself who thinks that. There was a long time the regulation that a bicycle lamp should consume around 6 watts (?). Those who then opted for LED headlights with batteries drove StVZO for 10 years. And then the regulation has been changed, and bicycle drivers will be faded worse during the day than cars that have to adjust their lighting range. Certainly, a million-heavy study was necessary, which has secured some jobs. Now blinkers are prohibited so that you can brake with both hands and hold your hand out with the third in the curve and ring with the fourth (by the pedestrian on the road). Only species in this country. Everything is regulated until it is impediable, but the dishes can indicate what a 20-digit number has.
Road Transport Order (StVO)
Section 24 Special means of transport
(1) Sliding and gripping tyre wheelchairs, toboggan carriages, strollers, scooters, children’s bikes, inline skates, roller skates and similar non-motorised vehicles are not vehicles within the meaning of the Regulation. The rules for pedestrian traffic shall apply mutatis mutandis to those means of transport.
(2) With ambulance chairs or with wheelchairs other than those referred to in paragraph 1, where pedestrian traffic is permitted, it shall be permitted to operate only at a speed of step.
§ 8 StVO regulates the journey
(1) At crossroads and mouths there is the entrance, who comes from the right. That does not apply,
….
Here, there is NOT what limits the obligation to pre-travel in any way if a child drives inadmissibly on the road. Aside from the fact that 8-year-olds do not have to drive on foot (even if it were often appropriate).
Road Transport Order (StVO)
§ 9 Turning, turning and reversing
(1) Whoever wants to bend must announce this in time and clearly; the direction indicator must be used. If you want to turn right, your vehicle has as far as possible to the right, who wants to turn left, to the middle, to arrange on the roadways as far as possible to the left, in time. If you want to turn left, you can only arrange on longitudinally laid rails if no rail vehicle is disabled. Before placing and again before bending, attention should be paid to the following traffic; Before bending, it is not necessary if there is no danger of subsequent traffic.
(2) If you want to turn left by bike, you do not need to arrange if the road is to be crossed from the right edge of the road behind the intersection or opening. When crossing, the vehicle traffic must be taken into account from both directions. Whoever bends over a cycling tour must follow it in the intersection or opening area.
(3) If you want to turn off, you have to let go of vehicles arriving, rail vehicles, bicycles with auxiliary motor, bicycles and small electric vehicles, even if you drive on or next to the road in the same direction. This also applies to buses and other vehicles that use marked special lanes. On walking is special consideration; if necessary, wait.
(4) If you want to turn to the left, you have to drive vehicles that want to turn right. Vehicles which come opposite one another, which in each case want to bend to the left, must bend ahead of one another, unless the traffic position or the design of the intersection require bending only when the vehicles are moved past one another.
(5) Whoever carries a vehicle must behave during bending into a plot, during turning and backward driving in such a way that there is no danger to other road users; If necessary, you must be admitted.
(6) If a motor vehicle carries an admissible total mass of more than 3.5 tons of inner location, it is necessary to travel at the right-hand turn if a straight wheel traffic is to be expected on or next to the road, or in the immediate area of the turn-in pedestrian traffic crossing the road.
Or in focus: Whoever bends has to wait.
All I’ve already written in this thread is also learned in the driving school.
The thing with the scooter is clear: it is driven by a foot on the road, so it has no own drive.
Yes, but the problem is clear from you, because you like to know the basic rules of StVO, but not that of dialogue. You go to the other one! It’s a back and forth. And your statement was:
My answer:
You don’t want to explain it to me, and the driving school is to judge it. Ergo: You obviously don’t get to tell me the thing about the scooter. It may be mischievous for you, but there are situations from everyday life that I have mastered for 45 years without accident, with all vehicle classes by the way. You can keep your arrogance and replace it with solutions.
Obviously you have an understanding problem here. I’ve been driving my license for a few decades.
A real Kwallitehts response. Don’t expect “help” for it. It’s sad if you get the answers and you don’t know how to help. It’s nice that you’re referring to the driving school, because obviously you don’t get it.
I hope you have no driving license (not even for a moped). And when you visit the Fahschule, hopefully you will see that your horizon is widened enough. Everything else would be bad.
I accept it, but it exceeds my horizon. When I turn the legs circular, I have a vehicle; in half-circular movement or mountain-rollers not. But it’s good that I know now: whoever comes in there has to wait!
Exactly this outboard drive is the criterion that the car does not drive.
Right.
A cyclist has one, but one who drives the scooter doesn’t he? Because something else does not make a motorcyclist with motor damage. Or the car driver.
Only something with its own drive can FAHREN.
So someone who pushes his broken car would have the duty to grant. The car, though slow. Only the driver doesn’t sit inside because he plays outboard engine.