PDA

View Full Version : Pedestrians – help to reduce pollution and traffic congestion


Buster11
10th Apr 2018, 12:00
Are we pedestrians losing all traffic sense? Are we no longer able to assess a road situation and decide whether or not it’s safe to cross the road? Do we imagine that pressing a pedestrian crossing button makes it safer to cross the road than crossing it when there isn’t any traffic in sight?

One accepts that for the elderly, parents with children, or people with limited mobility pressing a button and waiting for the lights to go red may be the only way to get to the other side of the road. In some traffic conditions even the able-bodied may need to use the pelican lights to create a break in a steady stream of vehicles.

However, are people becoming so self-absorbed that they are incapable of understanding that pressing the button just before the final car in a stream has passed them doesn’t only waste that driver’s time? It also wastes their own, as that car will have to slow down and stop before they cross, taking longer to do that than simply to pass at the speed it was doing in the first place. That causes unnecessary pollution, too, as the car that stopped must then accelerate again, using more fuel and producing more exhaust emissions than it would at constant speed.

Just have a look next time you pass a pelican crossing; time and again you’ll see perfectly able-bodied people walk up to the button, press it and only then look to see if there’s any traffic coming. Then one of two things will happen. One is that they wait there till the beeper goes, after which they cross the road when the light turns red, thus needlessly stopping traffic that wasn’t in sight when they pressed the button, and wasting their own time meanwhile. The other slightly brighter spark spots that the road is clear, crosses safely and wanders off as the light goes red behind them and cars have to stop, building up a bit more congestion and adding to pollution while nobody crosses the empty crossing in front of them.

What is the actual aim of these people? Is their intention mindlessly to stop traffic at random or is it to cross the road safely? The safest time to do that is not when a traffic signal beeps, it’s when there’s no traffic coming. Whatever is happening to peoples’ situational awareness? Are they so incapable of making rational decisions based on what is happening around them that they need beepers to beep and little green men to illuminate before they’ll cross a road? What is even more worrying is that some of them may drive cars as well and they’re all allowed to vote!

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Apr 2018, 12:13
Zebra crossings too. Instead of just walking across, so that they'd be clear long before you got there, people will walk up to them, and stop, and wait for a car to come along and stop before starting to cross.

charliegolf
10th Apr 2018, 12:17
Zebra crossings too. Instead of just walking across, so that they'd be clear long before you got there, people will walk up to them, and stop, and wait for a car to come along and stop before starting to cross.

Waiting for the car to stop before stepping out buffers you from the dimwit on his phone who woulda clouted you.

CG

sitigeltfel
10th Apr 2018, 12:26
Many a time I have had to brake or swerve to avoid a zombie with their face buried into some social media page on their phone.
The earphones further render them oblivious to danger.

That is one of the reasons my vehicles are fitted with dashcams.

Krystal n chips
10th Apr 2018, 13:01
Are we pedestrians losing all traffic sense? Are we no longer able to assess a road situation and decide whether or not it’s safe to cross the road? Do we imagine that pressing a pedestrian crossing button makes it safer to cross the road than crossing it when there isn’t any traffic in sight?

One accepts that for the elderly, parents with children, or people with limited mobility pressing a button and waiting for the lights to go red may be the only way to get to the other side of the road. In some traffic conditions even the able-bodied may need to use the pelican lights to create a break in a steady stream of vehicles.

However, are people becoming so self-absorbed that they are incapable of understanding that pressing the button just before the final car in a stream has passed them doesn’t only waste that driver’s time? It also wastes their own, as that car will have to slow down and stop before they cross, taking longer to do that than simply to pass at the speed it was doing in the first place. That causes unnecessary pollution, too, as the car that stopped must then accelerate again, using more fuel and producing more exhaust emissions than it would at constant speed.

Just have a look next time you pass a pelican crossing; time and again you’ll see perfectly able-bodied people walk up to the button, press it and only then look to see if there’s any traffic coming. Then one of two things will happen. One is that they wait there till the beeper goes, after which they cross the road when the light turns red, thus needlessly stopping traffic that wasn’t in sight when they pressed the button, and wasting their own time meanwhile. The other slightly brighter spark spots that the road is clear, crosses safely and wanders off as the light goes red behind them and cars have to stop, building up a bit more congestion and adding to pollution while nobody crosses the empty crossing in front of them.

What is the actual aim of these people? Is their intention mindlessly to stop traffic at random or is it to cross the road safely? The safest time to do that is not when a traffic signal beeps, it’s when there’s no traffic coming. Whatever is happening to peoples’ situational awareness? Are they so incapable of making rational decisions based on what is happening around them that they need beepers to beep and little green men to illuminate before they’ll cross a road? What is even more worrying is that some of them may drive cars as well and they’re all allowed to vote!

That's a relatively new JB rant then.....any particular reason for its generation ?

However, a couple of points here.

First, its not really a good idea to walk across the road with a stream of traffic flowing and with the expectation the traffic will stop to allow you to cross which is why, much to your chagrin it seems, crossings were developed. It can get a bit messy if they don't stop after all.

However, I know of a hamlet where this was considered the norm and even the local police and ambulance services were amazed that the were no accidents or fatalities given the average age was about 194.

Secondly, why should a pedestrian not press the button to stop the traffic before the last car has passed and let's be fair here, some crossings are almost immediate when pressing the button before the lights go to red, others take considerably longer. How would people be expected to know ?

And as for crossing when the road is, ostensibly, clear, how about for example outside Stafford station crossing from the park to the station. The road bends and you can't see traffic coming from the right until it's on the mini roundabout.

Pedestrians who blithely cross a road without looking behind them first, or who walk out from the opposite side when you are clearly indicating and have commenced turning into a road are clearly a danger to themselves...and anybody unfortunate enough to encounter them.

Laarbruch72
10th Apr 2018, 14:04
If what you're really concerned about is the actual pollution and traffic congestion bit (as your title alludes to), then the answer to that is to get more of those car drivers to switch to being the ones using the pedestrian crossing. I know way too may people who are prepared to do journeys of less than a mile and at the same time complain that it took them 25 minutes because of the "ridiculous" congestion. "You can't move round here at school chucking out time!" Quite. My neighbour across the road is a teaching assistant, she drives her car to and from school every day. Distance via road, 700 metres, and approx 10 minutes in the school rush hour. Distance on foot 300 metres via a foot path, or 4-5 mins walk. Another guy I see drives his lazy wife less than 300 metres to the train station, then drives home again. Waaay too many of these lazy slobs around these days, it's those that are causing congestion... not pedestrians using crossings.

But I suspect that the real crux of your rant is that some pedestrians have the temerity to impede your progress for a few seconds with thoughts selfishly slanted towards their safety rather than towards your convenience.

ATNotts
10th Apr 2018, 14:07
Are we pedestrians losing all traffic sense? Are we no longer able to assess a road situation and decide whether or not it’s safe to cross the road? Do we imagine that pressing a pedestrian crossing button makes it safer to cross the road than crossing it when there isn’t any traffic in sight?

One accepts that for the elderly, parents with children, or people with limited mobility pressing a button and waiting for the lights to go red may be the only way to get to the other side of the road. In some traffic conditions even the able-bodied may need to use the pelican lights to create a break in a steady stream of vehicles.

However, are people becoming so self-absorbed that they are incapable of understanding that pressing the button just before the final car in a stream has passed them doesn’t only waste that driver’s time? It also wastes their own, as that car will have to slow down and stop before they cross, taking longer to do that than simply to pass at the speed it was doing in the first place. That causes unnecessary pollution, too, as the car that stopped must then accelerate again, using more fuel and producing more exhaust emissions than it would at constant speed.

Just have a look next time you pass a pelican crossing; time and again you’ll see perfectly able-bodied people walk up to the button, press it and only then look to see if there’s any traffic coming. Then one of two things will happen. One is that they wait there till the beeper goes, after which they cross the road when the light turns red, thus needlessly stopping traffic that wasn’t in sight when they pressed the button, and wasting their own time meanwhile. The other slightly brighter spark spots that the road is clear, crosses safely and wanders off as the light goes red behind them and cars have to stop, building up a bit more congestion and adding to pollution while nobody crosses the empty crossing in front of them.

What is the actual aim of these people? Is their intention mindlessly to stop traffic at random or is it to cross the road safely? The safest time to do that is not when a traffic signal beeps, it’s when there’s no traffic coming. Whatever is happening to peoples’ situational awareness? Are they so incapable of making rational decisions based on what is happening around them that they need beepers to beep and little green men to illuminate before they’ll cross a road? What is even more worrying is that some of them may drive cars as well and they’re all allowed to vote!

This is probably my biggest bugbear when driving around towns in UK. There are far too many sets of pedestrian lights in our urban areas - to give an example there are 3 sets within 300m in the centre of a small town near me - Long Eaton, Derbyshire. Whatever happened to zebra crossings? They are becoming extinct probably at a faster rate than the animal after which it is named!

Pedestrians, as a consequence appear to have had bred out of them any notion of how to cross a road using what we older posters were taught as "kerb drill". The norm these days as a pedestrian is to walk up to a light controlled crossing, hit the button, then as the road is clear walk straight out. Obviously the crossing isn't intelligent and can't see that there is nobody waiting and goes red anyway, and as the OP said, this results in traffic stopping unnecessarily, creating additional pollution from vehicles. Why in heaven's name can't they stop at the crossing, assess the traffic flow, then either wait for a break in (often) light traffic then cross when it's clear OR press the button and WAIT.

I do practice what I preach, and rarely press the buttons, instead using my kerb drill and being patient, usually for no more than 30 seconds before crossing. When traffic is very busy, I press and wait for the green light.

I appreciate there is no point in making jay walking an offence, since there is neither the will nor the resources to enforce the laws we already have, let alone making new laws but perhaps a public campaign to encourage more considerate use of crossings by pedestrians wouldn't go amiss. by the same token, drivers need to understand that stopping at zebra crossings isn't somehow optional. If both these things were done then perhaps some of the needless sets of lights could be removed, and replaced by good old fashioned zebra crossings.

One other thing; when I was younger, and travelling abroad was less common there was an urban myth that only in Britain did we use zebra crossing properly, and those pesky foreigners across the channel didn't stop to let pedestrians over. Today the opposite is true; in most north European countries drivers fall over themselves to stop if there's a sniff of a pedestrian approaching, so clearly if the UK wasn't so risk averse a move back to zebras would be perfectly possible, and by and large safe.

Saintsman
10th Apr 2018, 14:25
Slight thread drift, but as pollution was mentioned, I wonder how much additional CO2 will be created with the forthcoming London Marathon?

All that huffing and puffing by the runners will produce lots of the stuff.

Maybe they should be taxed?

Laarbruch72
10th Apr 2018, 14:40
Slight thread drift, but as pollution was mentioned, I wonder how much additional CO2 will be created with the forthcoming London Marathon?

All that huffing and puffing by the runners will produce lots of the stuff.

Maybe they should be taxed?

Jesus wept.

ATNotts
10th Apr 2018, 14:41
Slight thread drift, but as pollution was mentioned, I wonder how much additional CO2 will be created with the forthcoming London Marathon?

All that huffing and puffing by the runners will produce lots of the stuff.

Maybe they should be taxed?

Depends how many beans they've eaten before setting off. Methane emissions could rise to dangerous levels!!:D

Fareastdriver
10th Apr 2018, 14:44
I read somewhere that four cyclists produce more Co2 than a small car would transporting them.

Laarbruch72
10th Apr 2018, 14:58
I read somewhere that four cyclists produce more Co2 than a small car would transporting them.

"I read somewhere" is an all too typical JB preamble. It's sad that these things are trotted out too, because it's not even hard hard to research these things if you're unsure.
With everything taken into account, most reports agree that cycling is responsible for CO2 emissions of somewhere around 21g per km. An average car produces somewhere in the region of 271g.

So no, you'd need 13 cyclists deciding to jump in a single car to equal the CO2 effect. I know pedestrians and cyclists are the enemy of the car loving jetblast crowd, but come on... those seeking to get off their arses and use the car a bit less are not the bad guys here.

ShyTorque
10th Apr 2018, 17:13
"I read somewhere" is an all too typical JB preamble. It's sad that these things are trotted out too, because it's not even hard hard to research these things if you're unsure.
With everything taken into account, most reports agree that cycling is responsible for CO2 emissions of somewhere around 21g per km. An average car produces somewhere in the region of 271g.No, it's not hard to research these things. I checked the UK government figures and they show that your calculations are well adrift!

The highest rate of vehicle tax is band M, at £535 per year, for vehicles producing over 255 g/km. The lowest taxable band i.e. Band B is £20, for vehicles producing 101-110 g/km.

Bearing in mind there are 13 bands in total, including band A for vehicles producing up to 100 g/km, I reckon the average, using government figures is probably band G, which is for vehicles producing 151-165 g/km.

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2018, 18:16
No, it's not hard to research these things. I checked the UK government figures and they show that your calculations are well adrift!

The highest rate of vehicle tax is band M, at £535 per year, for vehicles producing over 255 g/km. The lowest taxable band i.e. Band B is £20, for vehicles producing 101-110 g/km.

Bearing in mind there are 13 bands in total, including band A for vehicles producing up to 100 g/km, I reckon the average, using government figures is probably band G, which is for vehicles producing 151-165 g/km.

The CO2 for which vehicles (and bikes, come to that) are responsible include the emissions produced during their manufacture as well as those while they are being driven.

For vehicles, each is typically about 50% of the overall total, so the Government figures are around half the true cost.

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Apr 2018, 18:33
The CO2 for which vehicles (and bikes, come to that) are responsible include the emissions produced during their manufacture as well as those while they are being driven.
What about the emissions when the pedestrians are being manufactured?

(Can't believe I got in first with that one :D)

Fareastdriver
10th Apr 2018, 18:50
You could always reduce Co2 by introducing Rent-a-Bike. I wonder how much Co2 was used to manufacture these.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/25/chinas-bike-share-graveyard-a-monument-to-industrys-arrogance

ShyTorque
10th Apr 2018, 18:51
The CO2 for which vehicles (and bikes, come to that) are responsible include the emissions produced during their manufacture as well as those while they are being driven.

For vehicles, each is typically about 50% of the overall total, so the Government figures are around half the true cost.

Overall total of what? :confused:

MG23
10th Apr 2018, 19:09
I read somewhere that four cyclists produce more Co2 than a small car would transporting them.

That's because they block the road cycling side-by-side and have a dozen cars crawling along behind them at 10mph as they try to find a safe place to pass.

glad rag
10th Apr 2018, 19:29
Has anyone said it's all the fault of Brexit yet?

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2018, 19:45
Overall total of what? :confused:

Total of CO2 produced during manufacture + CO2 produced during use.

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2018, 19:51
That's because they block the road cycling side-by-side and have a dozen cars crawling along behind them at 10mph as they try to find a safe place to pass.

There is always room to overtake side-by side cyclists safely, provided you can see there's nothing coming the other way.

And if you can't see whether there is something coming the other way, there probably isn't room to overtake even a single cyclist safely (though that doesn't stop some drivers from trying). :ugh:

Fareastdriver
10th Apr 2018, 19:59
Talking to a bus driver in Aberdeen crawling along behind a single cyclist in the bus lane he was under the impression that they ride slowly, deliberately.

davews
10th Apr 2018, 20:30
There is one pelican crossing I regularly use. If traffic is light I wait for a gap and cross. If there is a steady stream of traffic in one direction or both I press the button and wait. Often there is somebody else wanting to cross at the same time. Pelican crossings serve a useful function provided they are used sensibly.

Outside our Tesco there is a zebra crossing (no lights). Visibility of pedestrians coming out of the shop is a bit restricted so drivers can't see you until you are virtually at the crossing. Despite it being a 20mph zone and parked cars on one side many seem to want to speed through the crossing, if you don't wait until you see the drivers slowing you risk being hit. Would be better as a pelican but it would be unpopular with drivers.

We should not criticise these crossings, in our area they are only put in place where there is an accident issue or places with lots of pedestrians.

wiggy
10th Apr 2018, 20:53
Talking to a bus driver in Aberdeen crawling along behind a single cyclist in the bus lane he was under the impression that they ride slowly, deliberately.

Umm...so out of interest what sort of speed would have satisfied the driver? A pro probably can sustain 50 km/h (30 mph) on the flat but for most of us old gits....

ShyTorque
10th Apr 2018, 20:57
There is always room to overtake side-by side cyclists safely, provided you can see there's nothing coming the other way.

And if you can't see whether there is something coming the other way, there probably isn't room to overtake even a single cyclist safely (though that doesn't stop some drivers from trying). :ugh:

May be so in the towns but round here many roads are narrow, or single track. If I'm cycling I pull in to let cars safely by, but many cyclists don't and continue to ride two abreast, almost in defiance of a car driver trying to safely pass them.

Road manners should be a "two way street" (see what I did there?). Cyclists can't expect to receive good road manners from others if they don't give them.

DaveReidUK
10th Apr 2018, 21:08
May be so in the towns but round here many roads are narrow, or single track. If I'm cycling I pull in to let cars safely by

Fair enough.

Most roads in this part of the world are wide enough to allow two cars to pass each other, and since two side-by-side cyclists are still narrower than a car then it should be possible to overtake them, too. If it isn't then most cyclists, in my experience, are sensible enough to single off.

Cyclists can't expect to receive good road manners from others if they don't give them.

No argument there.

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Apr 2018, 21:35
That's because they block the road cycling side-by-side and have a dozen cars crawling along behind them at 10mph as they try to find a safe place to pass.
I'm sure you do know really that if a bunch of cyclists fill the lane rather than stringing themselves out in single file it's quicker and easier for motor vehicles to get past.

redsnail
10th Apr 2018, 22:05
I'm sure you do know really that if a bunch of cyclists fill the lane rather than stringing themselves out in single file it's quicker and easier for motor vehicles to get past.
Let's face it, if some drivers get annoyed with a pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing and daring to use the stop traffic button, then the above will be beyond them. After all, it's all about the car...

Laarbruch72
10th Apr 2018, 22:40
No, it's not hard to research these things. I checked the UK government figures and they show that your calculations are well adrift!.

Yes, the same government calculations which don't take all the factors into account. I see DaveReid has already addressed that so I won't labour the point.

As I said before, anyone looking to blame cyclists or pedestrians for pollution has the wrong target in their sights.

Hydromet
10th Apr 2018, 22:48
That's because they block the road cycling side-by-side and have a dozen cars crawling along behind them at 10mph as they try to find a safe place to pass.
In all my years of driving and cycling, I've never seen a traffic jam caused by cyclists, but I've seen plenty caused by cars. Ban the things, I say (tongue firmly in cheek).

WingNut60
10th Apr 2018, 22:59
Are we pedestrians losing all traffic sense? Are we no longer able to assess a road situation and decide whether or not it’s safe to cross the road? Do we imagine that pressing a pedestrian crossing button makes it safer to cross the road than crossing it when there isn’t any traffic in sight?



Seems like a great idea.
In fact, you could apply the same logic to cars at an intersection controlled by traffic lights. After all, a pedestrian crossing is really just an intersection with pedestrian traffic in one direction, activated by a button instead of a loop.
Nothing within range? Just head straight across.

Might be worth a note to the highways department suggesting just that.

(Much the way it works in Indonesia)

Gertrude the Wombat
10th Apr 2018, 23:03
In all my years of driving and cycling, I've never seen a traffic jam caused by cyclists, but I've seen plenty caused by cars. Ban the things, I say (tongue firmly in cheek).

I get held up by cars whilst cycling more often than I get held up by cyclists whilst driving - about "nearly every trip" vs "hardly ever".

jolihokistix
11th Apr 2018, 03:26
Now I’ve forgotten what this thread was about. Had to go back and look.

Ah, yes, in the country where I am at present no-one will stop for you even if you dared to put a foot on the zebra crossing. Drivers from many countries outside the EU have increased in the UK, so blind faith in the law and your pedestrian rights on a road crossing could sadly get you killed.

MG23
11th Apr 2018, 04:45
In all my years of driving and cycling, I've never seen a traffic jam caused by cyclists, but I've seen plenty caused by cars.

Can't be looking very hard, then. I used to see them (or be stuck in them) regularly when I lived in the UK.

One road in particular had free-flowing traffic if there were no cyclists and was pretty much impossible to pass on if they decided to ride two-abreast, because of the constant traffic coming the other way. Oh, yeah, there was a bike lane on the pavement for them, which took space away from pedestrians, but they were too Special Snowflake to use it.

DaveReidUK
11th Apr 2018, 07:43
One road in particular had free-flowing traffic if there were no cyclists and was pretty much impossible to pass on if they decided to ride two-abreast, because of the constant traffic coming the other way.

It sounds like you're saying that you would happily overtake a single cyclist while within the confines of your lane, regardless of whether that's leaving them a safe amount of space.

It might help if you start thinking of those two-abreast cyclists as helping you to avoid committing to an unsafe manoeuvre. :O

TangoAlphad
11th Apr 2018, 08:17
Waiting for the car to stop before stepping out buffers you from the dimwit on his phone who woulda clouted you.

CG

I agree. I don't trust a driver will stop until I see them react to me. Far too many drivers are completely oblivious to what is more than 2inches ahead of their bumper.


The pedestrians pressing the button then crossing leaving it to go red without checking if necessary really irks me.

ShyTorque
11th Apr 2018, 09:12
Total of CO2 produced during manufacture + CO2 produced during use.

CO2 is also produced during the manufacture of bicycles and all the other paraphernalia cyclists like to have, such as specialist clothing. Most cyclists also have a car and only use their bicycles for recreational purposes, so those bicycles and everything that goes with them are a luxury.

muppetofthenorth
11th Apr 2018, 09:28
I read somewhere that four cyclists produce more Co2 than a small car would transporting them.

But that assumes that those four adults wouldn't exhale once when in the car.

Even for JB and an anti-cycling rant, that's especially stupid.

DaveReidUK
11th Apr 2018, 10:15
CO2 is also produced during the manufacture of bicycles and all the other paraphernalia cyclists like to have, such as specialist clothing.

The corresponding figures for cycles are about 16g/km when in use, and their manufacture accounts for about 5g/km on average, making the previously quoted total of 21g/km.

I don't know whether that allows for the fact that cyclists usually breathe even when they're not on their bikes. :O

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the rest of your post.

Laarbruch72
11th Apr 2018, 10:17
CO2 is also produced during the manufacture of bicycles and all the other paraphernalia cyclists like to have, such as specialist clothing.

In your rabid anti-cycling ranting you're overlooking the fact that the "specialist clothing" that cyclists like to have is pretty much just clothing. It's just optimised for sitting on a saddle and riding a bike, that's all. I'm pretty sure it takes the same amount of CO2 to produce as street clothes do.

Do you drive around naked or something? Or do you also like to have "specialist driving paraphernalia" like, you know, shirts, and pants and stuff?

Most cyclists also have a car and only use their bicycles for recreational purposes, so those bicycles and everything that goes with them are a luxury.

Where are you getting this crap from? Are you seriously suggesting that hardly anyone commutes to work on bikes? Nobody uses them as their main form of transport? Sheesh.

You need to stop being jealous of people who are walking, riding a bike or anything else similar, they're not some kind of demented pervert just because they're not in a car.

ShotOne
11th Apr 2018, 10:35
The OP’s suggestion that pedestrians wait until all cars have passed to press the button to cross seems particularly unreasonable. I suggest it’s he, not the pedestrians who are “self-absorbed”.

The anti-cycling zealots on this thread seem even more idiotic than usual; it’s not even about cycling!

G-CPTN
11th Apr 2018, 10:51
'Behaviour' at pedestrian crossing depends on the frequency of traffic.
Sometimes traffic is light enough to cross without the help of the lights - but at other times the stream of traffic is either endless or spasmodic making finding a safe gap impossible.

The circumstances necessary for installing a pedestrian crossing are quite strict, so anywhere that has a pedestrian crossing will have had to satisfy these - so use it when necessary.

WingNut60
11th Apr 2018, 11:00
Not sure what sort of road rules you have in your little corner of the earth, but on my home turf crossing a road against a traffic signal is called jay-walking and can incur a $50 penalty if observed by the enforcers of law.

Pressing the button is not considered to be optional.

cattletruck
11th Apr 2018, 11:05
When we were kids and our parents would visit a cousin who lived on a main road, we used to watch his kid run out and press the button on the pedestrian crossing then run back inside and watch the cars wait - super powers for an 8 year old.

Today in town I was at a major intersection watching an approaching fire engine with lights and sirens blaring coming rapidly down the road. As it approached the intersection people were still blindly walking in front of it. Even with lights, sirens and truck horn in full engagement I witnessed two idiots in suits literally walk in front of the firetruck when it was only a few meters in front of them. They had no iPhone that I could see, they were just raised as plain dumb @rses that could at least manage to put on a suit.

Yesterday a fast moving jogger came out from behind a shop and scared me as I entered a zebra crossing. Fortunately I had only just beat him to the crossing by a smidgeon and forced him to stop, otherwise I probably would have run all over him and his exuberance.

This is probably my biggest bugbear when driving around towns in UK. There are far too many sets of pedestrian lights in our urban areas
I was left with the same impression too in my one and only drive around central London, there was just never any opportunity to unfoul the spark plugs.

ShyTorque
11th Apr 2018, 11:39
In your rabid anti-cycling ranting you're overlooking the fact that the "specialist clothing" that cyclists like to have is pretty much just clothing. It's just optimised for sitting on a saddle and riding a bike, that's all. I'm pretty sure it takes the same amount of CO2 to produce as street clothes do.

Do you drive around naked or something? Or do you also like to have "specialist driving paraphernalia" like, you know, shirts, and pants and stuff?

Where are you getting this crap from? Are you seriously suggesting that hardly anyone commutes to work on bikes? Nobody uses them as their main form of transport? Sheesh.

You need to stop being jealous of people who are walking, riding a bike or anything else similar, they're not some kind of demented pervert just because they're not in a car.

Rabid? If you want to find someone "rabid", you need to re-read this thread and then look in the mirror, chum. I never used the words "hardly" or "nobody"

I've absolutely no reason to be jealous. As I wrote earlier, I'm a cyclist (and I used to commute on mine but I'm quite prepared to pull over to let motorists get past on narrow lanes, if necessary - unlike some).

I'm also very often a pedestrian.
I've even been known to ride a horse.
But I do also need to drive a car and therefore understand all sides of the discussion.

TangoAlphad
11th Apr 2018, 11:54
Not sure what sort of road rules you have in your little corner of the earth, but on my home turf crossing a road against a traffic signal is called jay-walking and can incur a $50 penalty if observed by the enforcers of law.

Pressing the button is not considered to be optional.

I appreciate it isn't applicable to everywhere. Germany I believe has strong feelings on pedestrian crossings but in the rest of Europe and the UK it isn't a concern and certainly nothing on par with the states.

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Apr 2018, 12:24
Most cyclists also have a car and only use their bicycles for recreational purposes
Other way round for many - the bike is for commuting (it would be insane to try to get a car through the congestion) and the car is for social stuff at weekends.

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Apr 2018, 12:25
Not sure what sort of road rules you have in your little corner of the earth, but on my home turf crossing a road against a traffic signal is called jay-walking and can incur a $50 penalty if observed by the enforcers of law.
In our rules pedestrians have the right to walk everywhere except on a few designated roads (motorways).

Saintsman
11th Apr 2018, 12:36
A local road has seen it's fair share of cycling accidents, so much so, the town council campaigned for a number of years for a cycle path. New cycle path eventually built but we still get cyclist on the main road causing queues. No only that, we have an awful number of lorries using that road. You would have thought that the cyclists would value their lives just a little bit.

oldchina
11th Apr 2018, 12:50
Cities in my corner of euroland have recently clarified the rules: when more than 50m from a marked crossing any pedestrians starting to cross have priority as long as their intent is clear.

ShotOne
11th Apr 2018, 13:01
By “cycling accidents” I take it you mean cyclists being hit by cars??

occasional
11th Apr 2018, 13:06
Maybe, if the pelican crossings were marked " Delay xx seconds" some people would learn to coordinate their button pressing with the passing traffic.

ShyTorque
11th Apr 2018, 14:23
Other way round for many - the bike is for commuting (it would be insane to try to get a car through the congestion) and the car is for social stuff at weekends.

Undoubtedly so in larger cities such as London, your own Cambridge etc.
But not for the many folk who don't live or work in such places.

Carry0nLuggage
11th Apr 2018, 15:49
Pelican crossings mainly seem to come in two variants:

1, Red for road vehicles and green for pedestrians only when there isn't a vehicle in sight

2, Crossings linked to road junctions where the button does nothing except give the pedestrian something to do while waiting. And waiting. And waiting....

Very occasionally you come across one where pressing the button immediately starts the crossing sequence. Presumably programmed by a new starter in the highways office, before the coffee-less interview.

G-CPTN
11th Apr 2018, 19:50
Pelican crossings mainly seem to come in two variants:
Very occasionally you come across one where pressing the button immediately starts the crossing sequence.

The one that I use regularly in the nearby town responds to two presses - seems to work every time . . .

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Apr 2018, 21:15
A local road has seen it's fair share of cycling accidents, so much so, the town council campaigned for a number of years for a cycle path. New cycle path eventually built but we still get cyclist on the main road causing queues. No only that, we have an awful number of lorries using that road. You would have thought that the cyclists would value their lives just a little bit.
Depends how crap the cycle paths are. If the cycle paths:

- have priority over side roads and driveways
- are wide enough for cyclist running at a decent cruising speed (say 16mph) to overtake one that isn't
- aren't cluttered up with pedestrians, dogs, etc
- aren't cluttered up with trees, bollards and all sorts of poles for road signs
- don't keep disappearing whenever it was a bit difficult to make them continuous

then people will use them. If they're not only just as good as the road, but even better than the road, eg

- they by-pass traffic lights

then even more people will use them. But if you can get where you're going faster on the road then that's what people will do. And this is known, or should be, to designers of cycle infrastructure.

G-CPTN
12th Apr 2018, 12:43
Where we lived in Denmark, there was a network of dedicated cycleways that permitted us to ride with our 5 and 6 year-olds well away from traffic and travel between towns.
It helped that the area was very flat (and very rural between towns).
Sometimes the cycleways went directly over land with a much shorter route than the roads.
Even in the city the cycleways were generally separated from the main roads, and had priority over vehicles at junctions - though cyclists had to give way to pedestrians at bus stops and junctions.
We soon got used to 'reverse might is right' as it seemed to make sense.

ZOOKER
13th Apr 2018, 12:37
Y'all need to do a liaison visit to Poynton.

ShotOne
13th Apr 2018, 22:59
That needs explanation zooker. Poynton has a “shared space” give way to all road/footpath layout where there’s no precise definition of where the divide is. Fine in theory, not convinced in practice: it’s especially confusing for small children who often can’t recognise where the road is.

+1 to the comments on “proper” cycle paths. Many U.K. ones are simply idiotic: ten metre stretch followed by “cyclists dismount!” Seriously..then what?

N707ZS
13th Apr 2018, 23:17
Our local crossing has two detectors on each side, one detects if there's a person waiting to cross and the other detects cars approaching the crossing. At present it doesn't work instantly it often waits until there is little or no traffic flow then sets the red light for vehicles. Totally useless if your in a rush.

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Apr 2018, 23:43
I've never yet seen traffic lights that idle with green lights for pedestrians.

WingNut60
13th Apr 2018, 23:52
In our rules pedestrians have the right to walk everywhere except on a few designated roads (motorways).

Thanks Gertie, I just realised what you had said; it must be old age.

So, in the UK there is no obligation on the part of a pedestrian to observe the suggestion of a red, "do not cross" light at a pelican / puffin crossing or even a red light at an intersection controlled by traffic lights because there is no legal concept of jay-walking?

Consequently, you won't be fined if you cross against the red, but what does that do to liability in the case that you are then struck by a vehicle while crossing?
You have a red light and he has a green light but you still have right-of-way?
The green light for the vehicle driver is only "advisory" and he still needs to stop for you?

And if you can ignore the directions of a red light, how about the directions of a policeman or school crossing guard? Different offence, or not not an offence?

In Australia, pedestrians generally have right-of-way also, but must observe all traffic signals and the directions of authorised persons.

TangoAlphad
13th Apr 2018, 23:59
Thanks Gertie, I just realised what you had said; it must be old age.

So, in the UK there is no obligation on the part of a pedestrian to observe the suggestion of a red, "do not cross" light at a pelican / puffin crossing or even a red light at an intersection controlled by traffic lights because there is no legal concept of jay-walking?

Consequently, you won't be fined if you cross against the red, but what does that do to liability in the case that you are then struck by a vehicle while crossing?
You have a red light and he has a green light but you still have right-of-way?
The green light for the vehicle driver is only "advisory" and he still needs to stop for you?

And if you can ignore the directions of a red light, how about the directions of a policeman or school crossing guard? Different offence, or not not an offence?

In Australia, pedestrians generally have right-of-way also, but must observe all traffic signals and the directions of authorised persons.

Basically you haven't broken any rules for ignoring the red man / don't cross and you can cross wherever you like however if you get hit by a car you won't have a leg to stand on. The car driver may or may not be charged depending how far away you were and if they should of been able to react and stop but if you step out in front of a car when the car had a green light they won't be charged but neither will you. The car had right of way but you as a pedestrian didn't break the law.

We just assume self preservation over here plays a fairly decent part in decision making.

WingNut60
14th Apr 2018, 00:29
In Indonesia, impatient pedestrians (let's say ALL pedestrians) simply hold an upraised palm at arms-length towards the traffic.
Commonly referred to as "deploying the force field".

Has about the same effectiveness and legal weight as your pelican crossings.

TangoAlphad
14th Apr 2018, 00:31
In Indonesia, impatient pedestrians (let's say ALL pedestrians) simply hold an upraised palm at arms-length towards the traffic.
Commonly referred to as "deploying the force field".

Has about the same effectiveness and legal weight as your pelican crossings.

Having spent some time in your part of the world 'We just assume self preservation over here plays a fairly decent part in decision making.' Seems to factor way heavier here than your home location!

FullOppositeRudder
14th Apr 2018, 04:39
Being a pedestrian down under (well in south Australia anyway) can be quite complicated in theory:



Under s 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/ROAD%20TRAFFIC%20ACT%201961.aspx) (SA) it is an offence to walk without reasonable regard for other road users.
Under the rules 230 and 234 of the Australian Road Rules (http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Australian%20Road%20Rules.aspx) it is an offence for a pedestrian to cross a road diagonally, unless at an intersection where this is allowed.
It is an offence under regulation 23A of the Road Traffic (Road Rules -- Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1999 (SA) (and rule 234 of the Australian Road Rules) to cross to or from an area of road within 20 metres of a tram stop other than at a pedestrian crossing.
It is an offence to cross a road within 20 metres of a pedestrian crossing at a place other than the pedestrian crossing (rule 234 of the Australian Road Rules).
Rule 230 states that a pedestrian must cross a road by the shortest safest route and under rule 232 they can only cross when the pedestrian lights are green.

In practice the general public pretty well does what they want. However if one is blazen enough to flaunt one's ignorance of the statute in sight of a police officer, they can expect an interview and quite possibly a demand for a contribution to general revenue.

Just in case anyone should be so seriously lost as to one day find themselves in South Oz ...

FOR

Krystal n chips
14th Apr 2018, 05:14
Some pedestrians in the UK have their own interpretation of why obstacles are no barrier when it comes to impeding their progress to their destination.....

BTP | Adults risk toddler's life on railway in shocking CCTV footage (http://media.btp.police.uk/r/13677/adults_risk_toddler_s_life_on_railway_in_shocking)

True, it's not a pedestrian crossing, but, the same principle applies....in theory.

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Apr 2018, 09:24
So, in the UK there is no obligation on the part of a pedestrian to observe the suggestion of a red, "do not cross" light at a pelican / puffin crossing or even a red light at an intersection controlled by traffic lights because there is no legal concept of jay-walking?

I believe that to be correct, it's a suggestion.
Consequently, you won't be fined if you cross against the red, but what does that do to liability in the case that you are then struck by a vehicle while crossing?
You have a red light and he has a green light but you still have right-of-way?
The green light for the vehicle driver is only "advisory" and he still needs to stop for you?
It'll depend on the circumstances but the fact that you chose to disobey the red light and walk somewhere that the motorist was reasonably expecting you not to be will be taken into account. If I did it I would expect to be found liable in most circumstances. The green light for the motorist is always only "advisory" however in the sense that it doesn't absolve him of the responsibility to avoid hitting anything, pedestrian or vehicle, that might, rightly or wrongly, be in the way.
And if you can ignore the directions of a red light, how about the directions of a policeman or school crossing guard? Different offence, or not not an offence?
For a policeman it's an offence. If we had any school crossing wardens left I'm not sure whether it's an offence or not.