|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 05/09/18 09:31, 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. Giving way to traffic when turning is not a special case. You get a nice clear line on the entry to side turnings. All that's missing is an advance line and/or zebra stripes for vehicles exiting the side turning. This is the kind of thing that can be found in the US: https://goo.gl/maps/Vx8MQrRvh7H2 Parts of mainland Europe have variations on it, often using texture, but here is an example of the use of paint in France: https://goo.gl/maps/6syM2izgrCC2 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. Pedestrians and drivers are all people travelling from place to place. A person should not have priority just because they are using a car. You want rules based on an arms race. 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. In free flow a cycle lane makes no difference because if a cyclist runs into a left turning vehicle, the driver must have overtaken too close to the junction and cannot claim the cyclist was never in clear sight. If the driver is in a queue that is slower than cyclists, the driver wanting to turn has plenty of time to look around. Precedence for cycle lanes exist anywhere a line is painted along a road. Bus lanes work exactly like cycle lanes except the unobservant left turner will suffer more damage. On motorways & dual carriageways isn't it proper to check space behind before crossing the line? Would you apply your magic lane disappearance act to bus lanes? 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. Would you apply this offence to bus drivers in bus lanes? There are circumstances where there is nothing wrong for a cyclist to overtake on the left, even when left indicators are on. 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. I follow the rules. But when I overtake, left or right, it is not on the basis of indicators but on whether the vehicle in front has space in front of it to move. So when overtaking a slow moving queue, I am always watching the vehicles ahead of the one I am behind before deciding whether to wait or go. It must be safe to go past a vehicle that can't physically move. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 04/09/18 23:59, 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. With several frequencies each set for a distance, 15m, 30m and 45m. you'd have a good idea of how nearby. I suspect they use round trip time. 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? Bikes without lights are visible at night. Drivers only complain because they are breaking the law. 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. They might all be round a turn you are not taking. You might be going down a residential road and these things are echoing back from inside the houses. 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. Some drivers need it without being linked to transponders. Though I suspect the surprise element might be counter productive. 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?" I am not sure of a suitable word to describe something that needs to be pointed out in order to be avoided. Is it still cheap? Nothing is cheaper, not even neon paint. Your idea might need a bit more thought before you can bring it to market. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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. I suspect they use round trip time. It would cost more but maybe it could be made much more precise. 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? Bikes without lights are visible at night. Drivers only complain because they are breaking the law. 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. They might all be round a turn you are not taking. That's true for sirens on emergency vehicles. It takes a lot of false positives that are of near zero inconvenience to outweigh the cost of a single life. You might be going down a residential road and these things are echoing back from inside the houses. Even the cat is smart enough to eventually figure out the motion detector light is often gets set off by wind in the tree, not a bird. Motorists on routine trips will eventually figure it out as well. 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. Some drivers need it without being linked to transponders. Though I suspect the surprise element might be counter productive. 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?" I am not sure of a suitable word to describe something that needs to be pointed out in order to be avoided. Is it still cheap? Nothing is cheaper, not even neon paint. Your idea might need a bit more thought before you can bring it to market. I'm putting a tiger on it: the auto insurance industry. Bret Cahill |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 05/09/18 22:03, Bret Cahill wrote:
You might be going down a residential road and these things are echoing back from inside the houses. Even the cat is smart enough to eventually figure out the motion detector light is often gets set off by wind in the tree, not a bird. Cats have vastly better spacial awareness than motorists. Motorists on routine trips will eventually figure it out as well. They also don't cope well when burdened with lots of unimportant information. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On 05/09/18 13:01, NY wrote:
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. I observe cyclists only from the perspective of pedestrian or peer user. In the former case it could matter because of my potential safety, in the latter case it is a matter of interest. From a car, not only is the view from behind a windscreen heavily distorted but what does it matter to you should you see a cyclist "breaking the rules"? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
TMS320 wrote:
On 05/09/18 22:03, Bret Cahill wrote: You might be going down a residential road and these things are echoing back from inside the houses. Even the cat is smart enough to eventually figure out the motion detector light is often gets set off by wind in the tree, not a bird. Cats have vastly better spacial awareness than motorists. What I shat out from my arse this morning has 'vastly better spacial awareness than' most motorists. -- john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons) 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster' (Greg LeMond (1961 - )) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:23:38 AM UTC+1, NY wrote:
"Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee" wrote in message ... 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. So treat the pedestrian as a vehicle. As you say, when you approach a situation where you are required to give way to another vehicle you slow down and make sure your way is clear. How is giving way do pedestrians any different? That is why I would never assume that car is going to stop for me: 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. You have been brainwashed in to thinking convenience of motorists is the most important thing in the world. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:23:38 AM UTC+1, NY wrote: That is why I would never assume that car is going to stop for me: 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. You have been brainwashed in to thinking convenience of motorists is the most important thing in the world. 'At some point you’ll almost certainly have seen someone walking across a road and then breaking into a little theatrical gallop when a car approaches. Is this the act of someone running for their lives? No. If it was, they’d suddenly sprint. It’s the act of someone who’s been conditioned to believe that motor vehicles and the people within them must be allowed to proceed with minimal disruption. To disrupt this is, at the very least, discourteous. The gallop is the gesture that acknowledges this...' https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/we-do-not-negotiate-with-terrorists/ -- john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons) 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster' (Greg LeMond (1961 - )) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 19:44:07 +0100
TMS320 wrote: On 31/08/18 15:26, wrote: Which IMO is a good thing. Not all drivers stop for people on crossings so you can guarantee they wouldn't stop if they had a green light. You might want to rephrase it that there is no guarantee they will stop if they have a green light. But I disagree. Without a separate pedestrian phase, everything moves more quickly; less frustration amongst drivers, less incentive for pedestrians to get bored and cross on red. And as I said, I think a separate pedestrian phase suppresses a culture of giving way. Having been in france only last week where they also have this system I can safely say I rarely felt safe crossing the road at these crossings when a significant percentage of drivers only spot you at the last second and have to slam on the brakes. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:13:14 GMT, "NY" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... The drivers and riders of motor vehicles - and cyclists - are obliged to give way to pedestrians crossing any road into which they are turning in both the UK and the USA. Being obliged to give way to pedestrians who are actually crossing (ie they're already in the road) makes a lot of sense, on a best-endeavours basis if not a legal obligation, just as you would do you best to avoid someone crossing anywhere else. But does UK and US law actually require you to stop for someone who is waiting on the pavement to cross: is there a portion of every road junction which has *implicit* zebra-crossing rules? 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. Welcome "! are you sure that you aren't Judith? -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
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 08:28 PM |
Road design - interesting article | Huw | Australia | 2 | December 24th 04 05:15 AM |