|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |