I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 earlier this week & he had various people discussing this. The order now is that the pedestrian is king & trumps all others. Wtf.
I can see a few rear end shunts happening when a car goes to turn into a side road from a main road & then slams on the breaks at the junction as they see someone standing on the corner & dont know if they are about to cross or not.
And don't get me started on people standing around a zebra crossing having a jolly old chin wag with their mate & car driver not knowing if they are crossing the road. Or people sauntering across the road, headphones in & not paying attention.
I think it would be easier if pedestrians use the road & car drivers use the pavements. Solves all problems.
all of it (not the charging bit) i do anyway. Now like car drivers there is some really responsible cyclists but at the same time there is some right block heads who do as they please. I seem to meet quite a few of the latter on the roads.
the bit i don't quite get is the cyclists having to stay in the middle of the road so everyone knows they are there. all very well but it doesn't explain when they should move to the side to let a faster mode of transport through.
This morning I was driving along a road with islands that enable pedestrians to cross. A car two in front of me stopped to let a pedestrian who was waiting on the island, cross the road. I don't think it was the intention of the new law that a vehicle should stop every time they see a pedestrian.
The rule that you should allow a pedestrian who is already crossing the road to continue, when turning into a side road has always been existence, so allowing someone who is waiting to cross isn't so different.
The new laws also make clear that cyclists should not be riding on the pavement, unless it is a designated cycle path. On the short journey I made this morning, I saw 3 cyclists riding on a pavement.
I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 earlier this week & he had various people discussing this. The order now is that the pedestrian is king & trumps all others. Wtf.
I can see a few rear end shunts happening when a car goes to turn into a side road from a main road & then slams on the breaks at the junction as they see someone standing on the corner & dont know if they are about to cross or not.
And don't get me started on people standing around a zebra crossing having a jolly old chin wag with their mate & car driver not knowing if they are crossing the road. Or people sauntering across the road, headphones in & not paying attention.
I think it would be easier if pedestrians use the road & car drivers use the pavements. Solves all problems.
This happens all the time where I live. Once a kid dressed in black walked out casually from between two parked cars at night when I was only about ten feet away on a 50km/H road. I breaked, put down the window and told him to use his eyes. I then told my children how that is a good example of what not to do. My instructions to them are not to trust anyone driving a car with your life. You don't know who they are, or what else may be running through their head on any given day. Assume that there attention is not on you, and if it's dark or foggy imagine that you are invisible.
All pedestrians should give way to traffic except on designated crossings, and all cars should respect pavements in return.
I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 earlier this week & he had various people discussing this. The order now is that the pedestrian is king & trumps all others. Wtf.
I can see a few rear end shunts happening when a car goes to turn into a side road from a main road & then slams on the breaks at the junction as they see someone standing on the corner & dont know if they are about to cross or not.
And don't get me started on people standing around a zebra crossing having a jolly old chin wag with their mate & car driver not knowing if they are crossing the road. Or people sauntering across the road, headphones in & not paying attention.
I think it would be easier if pedestrians use the road & car drivers use the pavements. Solves all problems.
This happens all the time where I live. Once a kid dressed in black walked out casually from between two parked cars at night when I was only about ten feet away on a 50km/H road. I breaked, put down the window and told him to use his eyes. I then told my children how that is a good example of what not to do. My instructions to them are not to trust anyone driving a car with your life. You don't know who they are, or what else may be running through their head on any given day. Assume that there attention is not on you, and if it's dark or foggy imagine that you are invisible.
All pedestrians should give way to traffic except on designated crossings, and all cars should respect pavements in return.
I agree that pedestrians should always assume that vehicles will not stop for them, but your last sentence conflicts with the new rules which are:
The updated code clarifies that:
when people are crossing or waiting to cross at a junction, other traffic should give way
if people have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, the people crossing have priority and the traffic should give way
Pedestrians ought to be those with primary right of way. If that leads to rear ended shunts it is because drivers don’t keep to their stopping distances.
Pedestrians ought to be those with primary right of way. If that leads to rear ended shunts it is because drivers don’t keep to their stopping distances.
In theory you are correct Seth…..but if all traffic (particularly in London) did that, queues would go back to the South Coast! Bit of an exaggeration there…..but you get my drift.
Before my eyes I see youths with hoodies up listening on their headphones thoughts and not a care in the world without looking to see if cars are turning left behind them. Happens all the time.
Pedestrians ought to be those with primary right of way. If that leads to rear ended shunts it is because drivers don’t keep to their stopping distances.
In theory you are correct Seth…..but if all traffic (particularly in London) did that, queues would go back to the South Coast!
Well I suppose there are rules and regulations, and alternatively there is chaos, or what any individual decides is ‘common sense’. I am familiar with the right turn from Verdant Lane onto the South Circular. My guesstimate is that 50% of waiting drivers there behave dangerously. Check out Cycling Mickey online at Gandalf Corner, the bloke might be an attention seeking prick, but he is also right.
Pedestrians ought to be those with primary right of way. If that leads to rear ended shunts it is because drivers don’t keep to their stopping distances.
In theory you are correct Seth…..but if all traffic (particularly in London) did that, queues would go back to the South Coast!
Well I suppose there are rules and regulations, and alternatively there is chaos, or what any individual decides is ‘common sense’. I am familiar with the right turn from Verdant Lane onto the South Circular. My guesstimate is that 50% of waiting drivers there behave dangerously. Check out Cycling Mickey online at Gandalf Corner, the bloke might be an attention seeking prick, but he is also right.
A £ for every time I have driven through there…..from all directions I may add.
When I'm walking with my kids 9/10 drivers turning into a corner let us go anyway. England is really good for that. In Hong Kong nobody would ever think of letting you out.
As an (ex) cyclist i don't get 2 and 4. Cyclists riding two abreast are just asking for trouble. It's not hard to drop back when something is coming up behind you.
Just what the absolute fuck in terms of points four and five???
Whats the point of installing cycle lanes in the first place if they dont have to be used?
As for having a bike either side of a car
Do they want to have a bloody death wish?
Unfortunately a lot of cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose.
Then get ride of them.
The new Highway Code might be ok if pedestrians & cyclists actually read it.
Might as well get rid of most of them. They very much seem an afterthought in most cases, a box ticking exercise. Helps local councils/those in charge say they're encouraging more people out of their car when in actual fact they are doing nothing of the sort.
Let's be honest, I think a lot of people could do with re-reading it. Whatever way you choose to travel you encounter people who seemingly have never read it or think they are above it.
When I first went to Beijing every bicycle had a small number plate. Not sure if that’s the case now, but if it happened in the UK there would be a situation where all cyclists could be obliged to have liability insurance. As things stand a cyclist can do anything and get away with it. Personally I think cyclists ought to pass a test, including a theory test, and ought to be insured. Not hugely practical, but it might restrain the sense of omnipotence many cyclists seem to have. I am a pedestrian, sometimes cyclist, sometimes car driver, and previously motorcyclist. In my experience in terms of per person dickheadness cyclists win.
When I first went to Beijing every bicycle had a small number plate. Not sure if that’s the case now, but if it happened in the UK there would be a situation where all cyclists could be obliged to have liability insurance. As things stand a cyclist can do anything and get away with it. Personally I think cyclists ought to pass a test, including a theory test, and ought to be insured. Not hugely practical, but it might restrain the sense of omnipotence many cyclists seem to have. I am a pedestrian, sometimes cyclist, sometimes car driver, and previously motorcyclist. In my experience in terms of per person dickheadness cyclists win.
When I first went to Beijing every bicycle had a small number plate. Not sure if that’s the case now, but if it happened in the UK there would be a situation where all cyclists could be obliged to have liability insurance. As things stand a cyclist can do anything and get away with it. Personally I think cyclists ought to pass a test, including a theory test, and ought to be insured. Not hugely practical, but it might restrain the sense of omnipotence many cyclists seem to have. I am a pedestrian, sometimes cyclist, sometimes car driver, and previously motorcyclist. In my experience in terms of per person dickheadness cyclists win.
My ebike can get up to 70km/h and has a number plate.
When I first went to Beijing every bicycle had a small number plate. Not sure if that’s the case now, but if it happened in the UK there would be a situation where all cyclists could be obliged to have liability insurance. As things stand a cyclist can do anything and get away with it. Personally I think cyclists ought to pass a test, including a theory test, and ought to be insured. Not hugely practical, but it might restrain the sense of omnipotence many cyclists seem to have. I am a pedestrian, sometimes cyclist, sometimes car driver, and previously motorcyclist. In my experience in terms of per person dickheadness cyclists win.
How does point 5 work safely with HGVs? They already have many blind spots. There are signs on the back asking cyclist not to undertake on the inside as they could easily get squashed.
Now apparently the HGV driver has grown eyes on sticks and can see perfectly down the side of the wagon.
How does point 5 work safely with HGVs? They already have many blind spots. There are signs on the back asking cyclist not to undertake on the inside as they could easily get squashed.
Now apparently the HGV driver has grown eyes on sticks and can see perfectly down the side of the wagon.
Bloody shambles, and outright dangerous.
They should drive professionally. Many do and use their mirrors before undertaking takes place and act accordingly. It’s the careless ones who cause the problems. And kill people.
I cycle pretty much every day in London and never go up the inside of big vehicles because of the careless way some drive.
The changes are largely about promoting the idea of a pyramid of responsibility. The vehicles that potentially cause the most damage to people having to show the greatest responsibility. Seems fair enough to me.
I was witness to a 32t fixed bed muck-away lorry go over a
cyclist on the Goldhawk Road a few years ago. They were both at the lights with
the woman on the bike holding onto the railings and the lorry indicating to
turn left. As the lights turned green, they both took off and the cyclist ended
up under the lorry.
There was no legal case to answer as, I presume, the
witnesses gave the same account as what I did, re’ the lorry indicating to turn
left, but I was contacted shortly after moving to France by an ambulance chasing
law firm who said the lady had suffered “life changing injuries” and they were starting
a civil case against the company that owned the lorry (Sure it was Tarmac).
My view is that it was completely the cyclist at fault, and
it should be down to her to look for the signs that the bigger vehicle might be
turning across her path. As I understand it now though, the lorry driver would need
to give way to any cyclists who are on his inside (in his blind spot)? If that
is the case, I think its going to lead to a lot more accidents with people
getting injured and killed.
I’ve always tried to let pedestrians cross if I’m turning
into a road, but only if the road I’m on allows it
Comments
I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 earlier this week & he had various people discussing this. The order now is that the pedestrian is king & trumps all others. Wtf.
I can see a few rear end shunts happening when a car goes to turn into a side road from a main road & then slams on the breaks at the junction as they see someone standing on the corner & dont know if they are about to cross or not.
And don't get me started on people standing around a zebra crossing having a jolly old chin wag with their mate & car driver not knowing if they are crossing the road. Or people sauntering across the road, headphones in & not paying attention.
I think it would be easier if pedestrians use the road & car drivers use the pavements. Solves all problems.
all of it (not the charging bit) i do anyway.
Now like car drivers there is some really responsible cyclists but at the same time there is some right block heads who do as they please. I seem to meet quite a few of the latter on the roads.
the bit i don't quite get is the cyclists having to stay in the middle of the road so everyone knows they are there. all very well but it doesn't explain when they should move to the side to let a faster mode of transport through.
The rule that you should allow a pedestrian who is already crossing the road to continue, when turning into a side road has always been existence, so allowing someone who is waiting to cross isn't so different.
The new laws also make clear that cyclists should not be riding on the pavement, unless it is a designated cycle path. On the short journey I made this morning, I saw 3 cyclists riding on a pavement.
I breaked, put down the window and told him to use his eyes.
I then told my children how that is a good example of what not to do. My instructions to them are not to trust anyone driving a car with your life. You don't know who they are, or what else may be running through their head on any given day. Assume that there attention is not on you, and if it's dark or foggy imagine that you are invisible.
All pedestrians should give way to traffic except on designated crossings, and all cars should respect pavements in return.
The updated code clarifies that:
Bit of an exaggeration there…..but you get my drift.
Whats the point of installing cycle lanes in the first place if they dont have to be used?
As for having a bike either side of a car
Do they want to have a bloody death wish?
Happens all the time.
I am familiar with the right turn from Verdant Lane onto the South Circular.
My guesstimate is that 50% of waiting drivers there behave dangerously.
Check out Cycling Mickey online at Gandalf Corner, the bloke might be an attention seeking prick, but he is also right.
I took it to mean the car is turning left but the cyclist is going straight on.
The new Highway Code might be ok if pedestrians & cyclists actually read it.
Let's be honest, I think a lot of people could do with re-reading it. Whatever way you choose to travel you encounter people who seemingly have never read it or think they are above it.
Personally I think cyclists ought to pass a test, including a theory test, and ought to be insured.
Not hugely practical, but it might restrain the sense of omnipotence many cyclists seem to have.
I am a pedestrian, sometimes cyclist, sometimes car driver, and previously motorcyclist. In my experience in terms of per person dickheadness cyclists win.
Bet that's suprised you.
No license or insurance needed though. mental.
I was witness to a 32t fixed bed muck-away lorry go over a cyclist on the Goldhawk Road a few years ago. They were both at the lights with the woman on the bike holding onto the railings and the lorry indicating to turn left. As the lights turned green, they both took off and the cyclist ended up under the lorry.
There was no legal case to answer as, I presume, the witnesses gave the same account as what I did, re’ the lorry indicating to turn left, but I was contacted shortly after moving to France by an ambulance chasing law firm who said the lady had suffered “life changing injuries” and they were starting a civil case against the company that owned the lorry (Sure it was Tarmac).
My view is that it was completely the cyclist at fault, and it should be down to her to look for the signs that the bigger vehicle might be turning across her path. As I understand it now though, the lorry driver would need to give way to any cyclists who are on his inside (in his blind spot)? If that is the case, I think its going to lead to a lot more accidents with people getting injured and killed.
I’ve always tried to let pedestrians cross if I’m turning into a road, but only if the road I’m on allows it