|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 11:23, NY wrote:
TMS320 wrote: On 31/08/18 13:13, NY wrote: As a pedestrian, I would never step off the pavement unless I could see that the road was clear: I would never *make* a car stop for me with the single exception of a zebra crossing. That's the observed behaviour of most pedestrians in the UK, which drivers have come to take advantage of. It requires agility and a plan B to assert your rights. And we don't have presumed liability as a backup. I would say that the one place where pedestrians should NEVER cross unless the road is clear is at a junction, because drivers cannot see round the corner until they get very close, and they are then concentrating on other vehicles to whom they may have to give way or who should give way to them. When you're walking along the main carriageway you are in clear sight of drivers approaching the junction and there is no need for them to look round the corner. That is why I would never assume that car is going to stop for me: Yes, it's not a good idea to blunder out assuming a driver will stop but there is no harm in trying to intimidate a driver into doing the right thing. it has always bewildered me that road traffic laws were ever made in that way. Making a vehicle stop half-way round a junction is a Bad Idea, because it blocks traffic behind them that is *not* turning. Pedestrians are the same as vehicle users - people making a journey from one place to another. Why should the journey of a person using a vehicle be more important? And my question still stands: how far along the road that the pedestrians are crossing do "zebra crossing" rules apply? How about when the pavement you are following runs alongside the carriageway and the crossing continues in a straight line parallel to the give way line? Take something like this: https://goo.gl/maps/Xs8YB2BZDE22 When walking left/right, the pavement ough to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. If a pedestrian is standing at the kerb, waiting to cross (ie not yet in the road), I am not normally required to stop for him, except if there is a zebra crossing or if it is at a junction - but how far from that junction does the obligation stop? I'd say roughly the line of the buildings on the road that I am about to join. A good approximation. Here I would suggest the pavement width, ie, from the give way line to a line connecting the fences. Some countries would mark this out. None of this negates the common sense rule that if a pedestrian is already in the road all other vehicles (and yes, that includes bicycles!) should do their level best to stop for them, irrespective of who has precedence over whom. Yes, but many drivers do not realise this basic obligation and get shirty. But not running you over is not the same as giving way. When I use a zebra crossing, I never step blindly into the road. I assert my intention to cross by standing there, usually establish eye contact with the driver and wait until the car is stopped (or is clearly going to have stopped before it reaches the zebra markings) and only then step of the kerb. The fact that legally a car travelling at any speed *must* stop for a pedestrian waiting at a zebra crossing is not something I want to rely on... Obviously it's not good to get scraped off the road knowing you were in the right. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote:
When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. Obviously it's not good to get scraped off the road knowing you were in the right. Exactly. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 21:30, NY wrote:
On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote: When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. The "implied give way" is for drivers crossing the pavement. Obviously it's not good to get scraped off the road knowing you were in the right. Exactly. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 17:02, Bret Cahill wrote:
As a pedestrian, I would never step off the pavement unless I could see that the road was clear: I would never *make* a car stop for me with the single exception of a zebra crossing. That's the observed behaviour of most pedestrians in the UK, which drivers have come to take advantage of. It requires agility and a plan B to assert your rights. And we don't have presumed liability as a backup. I would say that the one place where pedestrians should NEVER cross unless the road is clear is at a junction, because drivers cannot see round the corner until they get very close, Transponder receivers are so cheap they should be mandatory in every vehicle. The transponders are even cheaper and could be worn by cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists who want to stay alive. The problem with transponders is that it is only possible to know that something of interest is nearby. It is impossible to know whether an absence of signal means there is nothing of interest or something of interest is not communicating. When 10's or 100's of these things are in range how would a human sort them out? Once you have your "cheap" transponders and receiver, the information needs to be processed and the important results presented to the human in an easy to digest visual, not audible, fashion. Probably a HUD with markers trying to direct the eyes to look at the actual target. Is it still cheap? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
As a pedestrian, I would never step off the pavement unless I
could see that the road was clear: I would never *make* a car stop for me with the single exception of a zebra crossing. That's the observed behaviour of most pedestrians in the UK, which drivers have come to take advantage of. It requires agility and a plan B to assert your rights. And we don't have presumed liability as a backup. I would say that the one place where pedestrians should NEVER cross unless the road is clear is at a junction, because drivers cannot see round the corner until they get very close, Transponder receivers are so cheap they should be mandatory in every vehicle. The transponders are even cheaper and could be worn by cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists who want to stay alive. The problem with transponders is that it is only possible to know that something of interest is nearby. With several frequencies each set for a distance, 15m, 30m and 45m. you'd have a good idea of how nearby. It is impossible to know whether an absence of signal means there is nothing of interest or something of interest is not communicating. How is that different than visible bike lights at night? When 10's or 100's of these things are in range You should be slowing down if there are a lot of pedestrians and cyclists around the corner or curve. how would a human sort them out? After all, you only want to run over a select few! Once you have your "cheap" transponders and receiver, the information needs to be processed and the important results presented to the human in an easy to digest visual, not audible, fashion. 92 kV electrodes in the drivers seat should do the trick. Probably a HUD with markers trying to direct the eyes to look at the actual target. Wouldn't it be better PR for motorists if you quit calling pedestrians and cyclists "targets?" Is it still cheap? Nothing is cheaper, not even neon paint. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 21:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/09/18 21:30, NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote: When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. The "implied give way" is for drivers crossing the pavement. I wonder if it would help in enforcing the driver-gives-way-to-pedestrians anomaly if the pavement was continued across the side road at the same level, and cars had to drive over a speed hump consisting of that pavement, as a reminder that they have to give way in this special case. Having continuous tarmac for the road, and a kerb down from the pavement onto the road, tends to give the message that (as in all other cases except zebra crossings) cars have priority over pedestrians. I still think it is a stupid rule, and that drivers *should* have priority over pedestrians as they are turning into or out of a side road, but if our Lords and Masters want to do it the other way round for some weird reason, then we need to make it clear by means of road markings who has priority. Putting it in the Highway Code is no substitute for proper road markings, as you get at zebra crossings. Next we need to tackle those really idiotic cycle lanes along the side of the road. They are eminently sensible - except coming up to a junction when IMHO they should be discontinued so a left-turning vehicle can position itself in the correct location (close to the kerb) and vehicles that want to go straight on either have to wait behind it or (if there is space) overtake it on the right. Marked cycle lanes require a left-turning vehicle to position itself further from the kerb than a cyclist that wants to go straight on, and (in theory) to give way to that cyclist. I would make it a capital offence (!) to overtake any vehicle on the side that it is indicating - with specific reference to cyclists doing it. When I'm cycling, I obey the same rules as if I was driving: if something ahead is blocking me, I wait (patiently or impatiently) behind it or else I overtake on the opposite side to the way it is indicating if it is safe to do so; I *always* obey zebra crossings and traffic lights. I think I'm very much in the minority with this. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
NY wrote:
On 04/09/18 21:37, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/18 21:30, NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote: When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. The "implied give way" is for drivers crossing the pavement. I wonder if it would help in enforcing the driver-gives-way-to-pedestrians anomaly if the pavement was continued across the side road at the same level, and cars had to drive over a speed hump consisting of that pavement, as a reminder that they have to give way in this special case. What is needed is a complete inversion of the current system, whereby the minority imposes its will on the majority by sheer threat of blunt force trauma. That needs to change. Pedestrians should be given free reign over the entirety of the public space, and car drivers should have to press a button to get permission to pass. The pedestrians then stop for a short period, the car passes and the space then becomes 100% pedestrianised after that. When I'm cycling, I obey the same rules as if I was driving: if something ahead is blocking me, I wait (patiently or impatiently) behind it or else I overtake on the opposite side to the way it is indicating if it is safe to do so; I *always* obey zebra crossings and traffic lights. I think I'm very much in the minority with this. You think wrong. -- john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons) 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster' (Greg LeMond (1961 - )) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 05/09/18 10:36, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:37, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/18 21:30, NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote: When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. The "implied give way" is for drivers crossing the pavement. I wonder if it would help in enforcing the driver-gives-way-to-pedestrians anomaly if the pavement was continued across the side road at the same level, and cars had to drive over a speed hump consisting of that pavement, as a reminder that they have to give way in this special case. What is needed is a complete inversion of the current system, whereby the minority imposes its will on the majority by sheer threat of blunt force trauma. That needs to change. Pedestrians should be given free reign over the entirety of the public space, and car drivers should have to press a button to get permission to pass. The pedestrians then stop for a short period, the car passes and the space then becomes 100% pedestrianised after that. What you need is a system that requires the least technology and the least planning-ahead, and causes the least disruption and queuing to all the road users (pedestrians, drivers, cyclists). I think the system we have is the least-worst one. If cars had to request permission to pass pedestrians, you'd need to confine pedestrians to cross only at designated places where they could be temporarily be prohibited while cars (temporarily) have priority. And you'd need to enforce that. My perception is that pedestrians are much less willing to obey rules that car drivers don't think twice about (eg travelling only on one side of the road (pavement), people emerging from a shop doorway giving way to people passing on the pavement). If people drove with the same ill-discipline that they walked on a pavement, there would be crashes every few seconds. Whatever system you have, it needs to conform to one overriding rule: at any instant or any place, only *one* road user (or series of road users) has absolute priority, with this being clearly understood by everyone. That's why shared-road-usage schemes are a nightmare to drive in, because you never know who has to give way to whom. I don't mind having to wait my turn, but I want to know that when it *is* my turn, I shouldn't have to expect anyone to get in my way. Road junctions such as roundabouts and major/minor junctions convey priority by position (give way to traffic from the right, minor road always gives way to major road); traffic lights do it by time (all roads have exclusive priority, at different times). When I'm cycling, I obey the same rules as if I was driving: if something ahead is blocking me, I wait (patiently or impatiently) behind it or else I overtake on the opposite side to the way it is indicating if it is safe to do so; I *always* obey zebra crossings and traffic lights. I think I'm very much in the minority with this. You think wrong. Maybe I only notice the cyclists who fail to conform to the rules, and ignore the (small? large?) proportion who obey and are therefore less noticeable. But I do notice, both as a driver and a cyclist, that I'm more aware of cyclists who break the rules, as opposed to drivers. For example at traffic lights, cars etc may sometimes go through lights just as they turn red or just before they turn green - it is rare to see a car go through lights which have been red for some time, when there is actually conflicting traffic going across the junction. In contrast, there is a section of the cycling community which goes through lights, no matter if they have been red for some time, as if they feel that a red light doesn't apply to them and that other drivers will (and must?) give way to them. The only two very serious near-misses that I've seen on zebra crossings involved cyclists. On one occasion I was a pedestrian walking near the zebra and in the other case I was a cyclist who was approaching a zebra. In the first case, a woman was pushing a pushchair across a zebra. All the cars in one direction had stopped (because the crossing was divided by an island, traffic in the other direction was still moving until she reached the island). A cyclist came whizzing past all the stationary traffic, swerved between the lead car and a traffic island, lost control as he tried to swerve around the woman and pushchair and ended up sliding across the road towards the wheels of an oncoming lorry. When he picked himself up, he went to attack the woman for "daring" to cross on a zebra crossing and "causing" him to injure himself. Fortunately a large burly man restrained the cyclist and "persuaded" him to calm down, and held him until the police arrived. I never heard the end of that story, but I hope the police threw the book at him. In the second case, I was approaching a crossing. There was a large group of tourists which had started to cross, so I slowed down gently, intending to stop and wait for them to pass. Suddenly I heard a shout of "out of my f-ing way" as another cyclist overtook me (his rucksack jogged my shoulder, so he passed very close to me) and rode full-tilt at the group of pedestrians, scattering them left and right, and leaving them very shocked. I happened to see a policeman a hundred yards further on, so I asked how I reported the incident officially, but he wasn't at all interested. If only cyclists were required to display number plates, that would have made it easy to trace him and would probably discourage "bad cycling". As a cyclist myself, I'd be glad to do this because I know that I have nothing to hide. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
NY wrote:
On 05/09/18 10:36, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote: NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:37, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/18 21:30, NY wrote: On 04/09/18 21:24, TMS320 wrote: When walking left/right, the pavement ought to be be treated as continuous just as the carriageway is continuous for vehicles going left/right. It is continuous except for the implied give way "line" at every kerb edge, including the point at which the pedestrian crosses the side road and then continues along the main road. The "implied give way" is for drivers crossing the pavement. I wonder if it would help in enforcing the driver-gives-way-to-pedestrians anomaly if the pavement was continued across the side road at the same level, and cars had to drive over a speed hump consisting of that pavement, as a reminder that they have to give way in this special case. What is needed is a complete inversion of the current system, whereby the minority imposes its will on the majority by sheer threat of blunt force trauma. That needs to change. Pedestrians should be given free reign over the entirety of the public space, and car drivers should have to press a button to get permission to pass. The pedestrians then stop for a short period, the car passes and the space then becomes 100% pedestrianised after that. What you need is a system that requires the least technology and the least planning-ahead, and causes the least disruption and queuing to all the road users (pedestrians, drivers, cyclists). The myth of 'equality'. All road users are not equal. Those subjected to the greatest curbs on their movements should be those who cause the most harm. That the UK currently has the exact opposite of this is due to the ideological war on cycling being prosecuted by the right-wing media. I think the system we have is the least-worst one. If cars had to request permission to pass pedestrians, Cars don't 'request' anything. Please don't assign agency to inanimate objects. It's precisely this that allows car drivers to get away with assault, intimidation and on several occasions, murder. When I'm cycling, I obey the same rules as if I was driving: if something ahead is blocking me, I wait (patiently or impatiently) behind it or else I overtake on the opposite side to the way it is indicating if it is safe to do so; I *always* obey zebra crossings and traffic lights. I think I'm very much in the minority with this. You think wrong. Maybe I only notice the cyclists who fail to conform to the rules, and ignore the (small? large?) proportion who obey and are therefore less noticeable. But I do notice, both as a driver and a cyclist, that I'm more aware of cyclists who break the rules, as opposed to drivers. For example at traffic lights, cars etc may sometimes go through lights just as they turn red or just before they turn green - it is rare to see a car go through lights which have been red for some time, when there is actually conflicting traffic going across the junction. In contrast, there is a section of the cycling community which goes through lights, no matter if they have been red for some time, as if they feel that a red light doesn't apply to them and that other drivers will (and must?) give way to them. Official statistics demonstrate that the reverse is true. It is certainly true that a car driver stuck behind another car driver who is stopped, cannot go through the red because there's a car in his way. But it has been shown that car drivers nonetheless break the law in this respect, far more frequently than do cyclists. It's just that people in general hate cyclists due to the aforementioned hate campaign. -- john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons) 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster' (Greg LeMond (1961 - )) |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 05/09/18 14:02, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
NY wrote: I think the system we have is the least-worst one. If cars had to request permission to pass pedestrians, Cars don't 'request' anything. Please don't assign agency to inanimate objects. It's precisely this that allows car drivers to get away with assault, intimidation and on several occasions, murder. OK, I admit that I was using "cars had to request" as shorthand for "cars' drivers had to request". However I can imagine a mechanism that was built into a car which automatically triggered the lights to change in their favour (subject to whatever time delays may be deemed appropriate) without the driver having to takes his eyes of the important job of controlling his car to press a button. Alternatively there could be a Doppler car-detector (of the sort used to trigger traffic lights on a road which has very little road traffic) - that would require no modification other than that the default state is changed from green for cars to green for pedestrians. When I'm cycling, I obey the same rules as if I was driving: if something ahead is blocking me, I wait (patiently or impatiently) behind it or else I overtake on the opposite side to the way it is indicating if it is safe to do so; I *always* obey zebra crossings and traffic lights. I think I'm very much in the minority with this. You think wrong. Maybe I only notice the cyclists who fail to conform to the rules, and ignore the (small? large?) proportion who obey and are therefore less noticeable. But I do notice, both as a driver and a cyclist, that I'm more aware of cyclists who break the rules, as opposed to drivers. For example at traffic lights, cars etc may sometimes go through lights just as they turn red or just before they turn green - it is rare to see a car go through lights which have been red for some time, when there is actually conflicting traffic going across the junction. In contrast, there is a section of the cycling community which goes through lights, no matter if they have been red for some time, as if they feel that a red light doesn't apply to them and that other drivers will (and must?) give way to them. Official statistics demonstrate that the reverse is true. It is certainly true that a car driver stuck behind another car driver who is stopped, cannot go through the red because there's a car in his way. But it has been shown that car drivers nonetheless break the law in this respect, far more frequently than do cyclists. It's just that people in general hate cyclists due to the aforementioned hate campaign. I don't doubt that cars *do* go through red lights, and I'm prepared to believe that because there are more cars than bikes on the road in many places, more cars than bikes go through lights. The difference is *when* they do it. I cannot remember the last time I went through a green light which had been green for some time (ie it hadn't just changed) and I encountered a car/lorry/bus crossing my path because it has gone through its red light. I think the last one was a police car with blue lights on (but *no siren*) at a junction that had buildings right up to the junction, during daylight (so I had no chance to see the blue light reflected off buildings to warn me of his approach). But fairly frequently (maybe once every month or so, which seems quite frequent) I either encounter a bike crossing my path or else I see a bike overtaking a queue of stationary traffic and going straight through a red light - again, in the middle of its phase, not a few seconds before it turns green or a few seconds after it turns red. So bikes disobeying red lights may be rarer, but when they do it, they do so in more dangerous conditions because traffic is moving at the normal speed limit. I don't hate cyclists. There are a minority who ride arrogantly, flagrantly disregarding rules which would cause a car-driver to get points on his licence if he was caught, or who ride in a mass, more than two abreast and in a long "peleton" which makes it almost impossible to overtake them all. They give the rest of cyclists a bad name - unfairly. I live in North Yorkshire and quite a lot of roads that I use have been part of one route or another of the Tour de Yorkshire. We're used to the inconvenience of roads being closed for many hours on the day of the race, and having to plan to leave the house before the closure if we want to go out. But much worse is that the roads are then on every cycling club's itinerary, and they ride inconsiderately, making it almost impossible to get past for long periods of time. When I cycle I try to anticipate that other vehicles (even tractors!) will be going faster than me and will want to overtake, so if I hear a vehicle behind I try to put on a spurt of speed till I get to the next point where I can pull off the road, if it's a single-track road where otherwise a larger vehicle will *never* get past - ie it's not just a case of them having to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic. In a town, where traffic is moving slowly, I will occupy the whole car width while I'm stopped in a queue, so I'm clearly visible to the car behind and (via its rear-view mirror) the car ahead. If it looks like a long delay, I may resort to dismounting and walking along the pavement, and then rejoin the road on the far side of the junction that's delaying everyone. Once the traffic gets going faster than I can keep up with, I move back over to the left to make it as easy for people to overtake me without actually risking going down drainholes or hitting my pedals on the kerb. I have the same awareness that I have the potential to delay people as I imagine drivers towing caravans have, and I try my best to hit the happy medium between my own interests and those of other road users. As a car driver, I have sympathy with cyclists who are struggling up a hill or who are making me slow down until I can safely overtake them. I may find it frustrating, but I hope I never let that show in my driving, and I hope I give them at least as much of a gap as I would any other vehicle. That's evidently not enough for a minority of cyclists who seem to want a lot *more* of a gap, so you still need to go completely onto the wrong side of the road as you would if overtaking a bus. I allow "wobble-room", especially when the cyclist is going uphill and is weaving from side to side with each stroke of the pedals, but I don't do it to excess. Having said that, if I can see that the road is clear for a long way ahead, I will give the cyclist as much room as possible, especially if I'm passing him at high speed. I hate drivers who try to scare me when I'm cycling, so I try not to do the same when I'm driving. All I ask from cyclists is that they obey all the same road traffic laws as I do: I always cycle as if I was a human-powered car, with a traceable numberplate by which any offences can be traced. Maybe part of teh "hate campaign against cyclists is resentment that they can break the law with apparent impunity, whereas motor vehicle drivers are more likely to be traced prosecuted because their number plate will show up on a traffic light camera. I cycle more for enjoyment and to keep fit, to prevent me putting on weight or becoming lethargic after suffering a heart attack 8 years ago. I've started doing the same route several days a week, timing my performance on Strava. It's soul-destroying to see that my personal best on a section, which I may gradually have reduced by a few seconds, is still several minutes longer than a racing cyclist has done it, but I know my limits and I'm competing with myself. I'm pleased that a route which took me 50 minutes the first time I did it in July has gradually got quicker, and today I did it in 38 mins. Not bad when you think that my chances of surviving the heart attack and cardiac arrest, without suffering either death or brain damage, were rated as minimal in the first few days. It's ironic that my wife had difficulty keeping up with me when I first started cycling again afterwards to keep fit, and has had to buy an electrically-assisted bike (*) to keep up with me ;-) In her case she is limited by puffing and panting and burning chest, a legacy of pneumonia when she was younger, whereas for me it's burning legs or jelly legs which limit my speed. (*) Nicknamed Panther, because she said "it's not a cheater". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Very interesting article | colwyn[_2_] | UK | 0 | April 8th 15 11:02 AM |
Interesting article | Doki | UK | 6 | May 7th 08 06:48 PM |
Good article in the NY Times to day about bikes & cars sharing the road | Anthony A. | General | 2 | June 5th 07 10:14 PM |
AN interesting article | Colorado Bicycler | General | 9 | November 27th 05 07:28 PM |
Road design - interesting article | Huw | Australia | 2 | December 24th 04 04:15 AM |