|
|
Post by willien on Aug 21, 2024 21:15:19 GMT
Ever thought of putting in a written complaint about the sarcy B who wrote that and or writing to the Beeb/Scotsman/ Evening news (assuming its in Edinburgh). I appreciate that if you work for the said cooncil this might not be viable. Still looking forward to enlightenment re drivers with lights on their heids.
It was worded in such a way that it would not cause great offence, and I suspect was standard wording. The polis said they were aware of a worse crossing near a school which had the same letter. If you want enlightenment you could try strapping a cyclist's helmet lamp to your head. Or rereading what I wrote.  And look like a complete prick... Edit - plus - I had already read it twice not giving it a third try.
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Aug 21, 2024 21:17:51 GMT
It was worded in such a way that it would not cause great offence, and I suspect was standard wording. The polis said they were aware of a worse crossing near a school which had the same letter. If you want enlightenment you could try strapping a cyclist's helmet lamp to your head. Or rereading what I wrote. Which bit? Wearing the cycle helmet or rereading what he wrote? |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Aug 21, 2024 21:19:17 GMT
And look like a complete prick... Which bit? Wearing the cycle helmet or rereading what he wrote? Let me get back to you... |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Aug 21, 2024 21:27:39 GMT
I find it interesting that most people know the rule that, if you are on a pedestrian crossing, approaching vehicles must stop. Few appear to know the associated rule that you must stop at the crossing until any traffic has stopped before crossing. When I was working I was expected to attend regular training before my company permit was renewed. Being an airside driver there were additional rules over and above the Highway Code. That's a highway code bit of nonsense which is not in the relevant legislation as I recall. For zebra crossings the law on precedence is thus: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/madeInteresting but it would be foolish in the extreme to simply step out in front of a vehicle without first being confident that one had been seen and that said vehicle was going to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Aug 21, 2024 21:32:35 GMT
Interesting but it would be foolish in the extreme to simply step out in front of a vehicle without first being confident that one had been seen and that said vehicle was going to stop. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Aug 21, 2024 21:38:00 GMT
Too narrow, lack of visibility and often too much traffic. Cycling should be enjoyable but in these circumstances it becomes stressful. All factors affected by a lack of consideration by other road users. Not when the road is barely wide enough for a car, the only way both cyclist and car can pass is if the cyclist dismounts and climbs up the bank or into a ditch. I prefer to avoid that. Visibility is often reduced by the failure of councils to maintain hedges etc. In any case, it is my opinion that some roads are unsuitable for sharing, I'd like to see some of them closed to cars and others improved to provide separation for cyclists. I'll not mention the A4 from Hounslow West to Brentford an absolutely diabolical mess for all but suicidal cyclists, and it's been that way for 50 years. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Aug 21, 2024 21:44:38 GMT
I did 120 miles today on a mixture of A roads, B roads, dual carriageway, motorway, rural lanes, and urban roads. It's fair to say the only moronic psychopaths I encountered were in cars and with the heightened awareness of just completed a driving safety course, whilst they were in the minority in the technical sense, it was still a significant number. I don't think there's a day goes by that I don't see someone driving and using a mobile phone. Today was the first day in a while that there wasn't a car or van parked on the white zig zag lines at a crossing I often use. Had to walk in the road to get round a parked van today though. It may be a minority but there's definitely a significant number. In terms of cyclists behaviour Edinburgh seems like a different world to Penicuik and the cops do give out £50 FPNs to those they catch running red lights but there are not enough cops. Heck, if there were enough cops anywhere I'd be riding around on a legal ebike and not getting dangerously close passed by what seems like the vast majority of drivers on a section of the A701. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 21, 2024 22:48:18 GMT
If everyone stuck to the rules then there'd be fewer problems and more people would be happier...but of course...
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Aug 21, 2024 22:48:52 GMT
If only The Highway Code were law...
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Aug 21, 2024 23:11:11 GMT
If only The Highway Code were law... I Dredd to think about that. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Aug 22, 2024 6:07:27 GMT
If only The Highway Code were law... Much of it is but law is relatively crude, as Zou’s example clearly demonstrates, needing a common sense explanation to make it usable. In aviation we have legislation and AMCs (acceptable means of compliance). Alternative means of compliance might be approved by an airworthiness authority as long as they meet the requirements of the legislation. I regard the Highway Code as the AMC to the various pieces of legislation. Unfortunately few pieces of legislation are written with regard to the laws of physics. As an example, up the hill from where I live the speed limit changes from 50 to 30. Just after the sign for the 30 limit is a lay-by in which the police used to position a mobile speed camera vehicle. Clearly it is perfectly legal to travel at a speed greater than 30 until reaching the sign. I often wondered how many of those caught speeding were actually in the 50 limit. I doubt those operating the vehicle were familiar with Heisenberg. The speed limit now changes further up the hill so it is academic but a court challenge would have been interesting. The legislation on pedestrian crossings equally ignores the physics, a 1,500 kg vehicle travelling at 20mph takes some distance to stop but the law doesn’t take this into account. Once on the crossing the pedestrian has priority, even is stopping a vehicle is physically impossible. It is said that the law is an ass, in reality it is a relatively crude instrument that, in the UK, requires case law to refine its application. Making the Highway Code law would probably be counterproductive, if only because it would then require an act of parliament to change it. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Aug 22, 2024 6:34:58 GMT
If only The Highway Code were law... Much of it is but law is relatively crude, as Zou’s example clearly demonstrates, needing a common sense explanation to make it usable. In aviation we have legislation and AMCs (acceptable means of compliance). Alternative means of compliance might be approved by an airworthiness authority as long as they meet the requirements of the legislation. I regard the Highway Code as the AMC to the various pieces of legislation. Unfortunately few pieces of legislation are written with regard to the laws of physics. As an example, up the hill from where I live the speed limit changes from 50 to 30. Just after the sign for the 30 limit is a lay-by in which the police used to position a mobile speed camera vehicle. Clearly it is perfectly legal to travel at a speed greater than 30 until reaching the sign. I often wondered how many of those caught speeding were actually in the 50 limit. I doubt those operating the vehicle were familiar with Heisenberg. The speed limit now changes further up the hill so it is academic but a court challenge would have been interesting. The legislation on pedestrian crossings equally ignores the physics, a 1,500 kg vehicle travelling at 20mph takes some distance to stop but the law doesn’t take this into account. Once on the crossing the pedestrian has priority, even is stopping a vehicle is physically impossible. It is said that the law is an ass, in reality it is a relatively crude instrument that, in the UK, requires case law to refine its application. Making the Highway Code law would probably be counterproductive, if only because it would then require an act of parliament to change it. On pedestrian crossings it is incumbent on the designers to ensure the control zone is longer than the stopping distance at that road's speed limit. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 22, 2024 7:31:38 GMT
Driving to the next village yesterday, I approached three female cyclists riding three abreast along a narrow 'b' road. There wasn't enough room to pass them let alone give a wide berth.
I was very patient, stayed well back and didn't sound the horn. They tootled on a slow pace apparently oblivious to me and the queue now forming behind me. Eventually they twigged and assumed single file and I safely passed. The point of the story though is that the queue behind me also passed and as they did the safety margin got narrower and narrower (this is all in my mirror of course).
I'm sure that those ladies will have had some story about inconsiderate motorists and they might well have has a point - but it wouldn't have happened had they been more considerate in the first place.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Aug 22, 2024 7:40:30 GMT
Interesting but it would be foolish in the extreme to simply step out in front of a vehicle without first being confident that one had been seen and that said vehicle was going to stop. I certainly wouldn't walk in front of a vehicle that is not clearly committed to stopping. This goes for Pelican crossings as well as ordinary marked crossings. I've seen a near fatality on a dual carriage way Pelican crossing - the lights had gone red, the beeper was sounding, a bus had stopped in the near lane and folk were crossing when a van went past on the outside lane. A jogger was one stride away from being hit. If he hadn't waited for the bus to completely stop the van would have hit him. I've noticed an increase in the number of drivers "believing" indicators and pulling out of minor roads in front of cars indicating to turn without waiting to see if the oncoming driver is truly committed to the manoeuvre. As I turn left into our estate I must say to myself "I wouldn't have done that" to one car in three that takes my signal as a firm intention to turn and pulls out across my path. Excessive curtesy - drivers who have the right of way stopping to let a car out of a junction - has also increased. This really annoys me. In heavy and continuous traffic letting someone out of a side-road is a kind act but in light and fast traffic it is tantamount to increasing the probability of a road traffic collision. It's usually so that the driver turning right into the side road can cut the corner as the car leaving makes its right turn. On the estate especially, the number of drivers turning left from a minor road without pausing at the "give way" has also increased greatly. There is only a "look right" to see if cars are coming but no "look left" for pedestrians or any traffic approaching. This is rife at the local shops where on-road parking also makes for very poor visibility. This is the most dangerous situation for cyclists, car approaching from side road on the left and driver looking too their far right, but not seeing what is straight ahead whilst intending to join the major road without stopping. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Aug 22, 2024 7:59:57 GMT
Interesting but it would be foolish in the extreme to simply step out in front of a vehicle without first being confident that one had been seen and that said vehicle was going to stop. I certainly wouldn't walk in front of a vehicle that is not clearly committed to stopping. This goes for Pelican crossings as well as ordinary marked crossings. I've seen a near fatality on a dual carriage way Pelican crossing - the lights had gone red, the beeper was sounding, a bus had stopped in the near lane and folk were crossing when a van went past on the outside lane. A jogger was one stride away from being hit. If he hadn't waited for the bus to completely stop the van would have hit him. I've noticed an increase in the number of drivers "believing" indicators and pulling out of minor roads in front of cars indicating to turn without waiting to see if the oncoming driver is truly committed to the manoeuvre. As I turn left into our estate I must say to myself "I wouldn't have done that" to one car in three that takes my signal as a firm intention to turn and pulls out across my path. Excessive curtesy - drivers who have the right of way stopping to let a car out of a junction - has also increased. This really annoys me. In heavy and continuous traffic letting someone out of a side-road is a kind act but in light and fast traffic it is tantamount to increasing the probability of a road traffic collision. It's usually so that the driver turning right into the side road can cut the corner as the car leaving makes its right turn. On the estate especially, the number of drivers turning left from a minor road without pausing at the "give way" has also increased greatly. There is only a "look right" to see if cars are coming but no "look left" for pedestrians or any traffic approaching. This is rife at the local shops where on-road parking also makes for very poor visibility. This is the most dangerous situation for cyclists, car approaching from side road on the left and driver looking too their far right, but not seeing what is straight ahead whilst intending to join the major road without stopping. More years ago than I care to admit I was in court (as a witness) and heard the following story. A driver approaches a pedestrian crossing when, in utterly filthy weather, in the dark, a woman, head down, umbrella up, runs onto the crossing and he hits her. Happily no serious injury but that's not really relevant.
I wasn't a witness for that case but I remebered the day because the rain was memorably heavy. I tended to believe the driver but he was still 'done' because he hit a pedestrian on a crossing. I guess that, given the conditions he should have been driving even slower - or even have stopped.
Mick
|
|
