A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interesting Article On How Cars Took Over the Road



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 5th 18, 08:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.transport
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old September 5th 18, 09:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old September 5th 18, 10:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 875
Default 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  
Old September 6th 18, 12:01 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old September 6th 18, 12:22 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.transport
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old September 6th 18, 07:51 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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  
Old September 6th 18, 06:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default 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  
Old September 6th 18, 06:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 129
Default 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 - ))
  #60  
Old September 10th 18, 06:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.transport
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.