Safe Speed Forums

There is a vast interwoven tapestry of factors, so vast it is near impossible to tell which begats the other. I believe we are becoming less social creatures as we can use our money to remove our reliance on our neighbours and others in the community around us. As a result, out ability to interact with complete strangers in particular is becoming compromised.



People have a choice whether to engage in cyber communication or not; nobody forces us to. Furthermore, one person often finds themself arguing against several, and words get distorted or 'misunderstood' so its little wonder that tempers get frayed from time to time

Yet - we are still social and sociable creatures from our evolved civility. Maybe we are returning to pre-civilised bestial qualities as we rely on machines before our humanness.


Am medic.. I keep my touchy/feely side with "strangers" - I suppose.


Money does not really bring happiness .. despite all our progress.. we are still humans and still require social patter, contact and friendship or companionship. This social intercourse keeps us sane.



It is difficult. You hit the post button and do wonder if the person will see the funny side intended. You hope someone will not read hostility. Wildy .. she types as she sounds. She never has been able to spell a couple of silly words .. she types as she says them. Professionally - she uses spell checks and has a personal proof reader. On these sites - she does tend to relax as she thinks her spell-checked version comes across as "empty and stilted"

But yes- Jeff - easy to fixate on one word and all hell gets loose. Trolls tend to do this most of all. Single focussed - to extent they do not read beyond what they twist things to mean. Slightest disagreement.. and they descend into a temper tantrum which make our prickly foster look like the most angelic cherub of choir boys!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Road safety is, perhaps, unique in the field of modern human activity. In no other circumstance is the average bod required to comply with rules and laws in such a prescribed manner. It is my estimate that road safety policy is losing ground against the increasing resistance ordinary people are demonstrating towards the demands of such authority - speed cameras or no speed cameras.



Depressingly, I am of the opnion that this is an optimistic view Paul I don't believe that people change that dramatically when they get in their cars.



Its not helping, I'd agree with that 100%

As you know - been in the Police since leaving Uni. Followed tradition in my own family... Grandad and my own Dad.

When I first donned my uniform and went out on the beat... I would note that people seemed to hold me in some respect. Case of "Oh- OH - he has the power of arrest!"


I used to be a little nervous of the policeman on patrol when I was a lad as well. If I was ticked off at school or by this policeman for anything - I'd get a further telling off from my Dad. Thus- you just did not cheek the policeman!


These days? People seem to confuse assertiveness and sticking up for their rights with a lack of respect for any authority or rule - usually descending into uttering profanities and abuse. This has been developing under the surface for a while and manifesting perhaps in aggression on a bike.. in a car ..and a rather slovenly culture

Long working hours and a more isolate society of TV and computer games , and automation and remote law enforcement is also perhaps causing us to lose those social and community skills which we developed as we built our civilised communities.


Back to topic of registering the bikes. Seems a good idea on the surface. But open to abuse from over-reliance on automation.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Couple of quick examples - NSL 60 suddenly reduced to a 30 for no proper reason other than PC? Traffic lights appearing where there is no need and creating congestion?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Maybe because more and more people have lost their respect for the law because of it's inappropriate use?

Maybe the majority of people can see and realise that trying to dumb down the skill of driving by constantly trying to slow drivers down, and trying to make driving a misery by implementing laws where there are no safety reaons for doing so, is ridiculous and thus the law gradually, but surely, loses it's respect?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You appear to be confusing the fundamentals of the law - which is what I've been talking about all along - with decisions to impose restrictions where you happen to think they are unecessary.



Or perhaps this has something to do with...



Or, perhaps its a bit of both. I'll meet you half way

Dammit.

My misunderstanding

The road law as it stands is fine - it is the inappropriate/unnecessary use.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

'Rules compliance' isn't the major road safty problem, by any means. Most crashes are the result of hazard perception or assessment failures. And you can't write rules to govern that.

Concentration and attention failures are right up there too, and although You can make rules that determine 'fault' in the case of inattention, that's never going to prevent it from happening. Continuous attention is a sort of self-discipline, I suppose. Again, no application of rules will ensure continuous attention.



That's silly. When we drive we have attitudes and skills that are unique to driving. That's where we need to work.

It's true that shifting social attitudes (selfishness?) might make it a bit harder, but if policy concentrates on driver quality we can definitely improve matters.



Well, if bad policy can make it worse, good policy can make it better. QED.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Whatever, the rules create a good starting point. Casual ignorance or disregard of the rules promotes more of the same - call it 'micrometric influence' if you like; the datum changes, swinging incrementally towards 'less safe'.



I'd say social attitudes, in a climate where most people take little if any interest in the standard of tehir own driving, makes this more that a bit harder.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. If road safety values are represented by a balloon defelating because it has eight holes in it, good policy might be able to patch four of them. If social attitudes mean the balloon still has four holes in it, it still deflates albeit more slowly.

Cyclists are traffic but there are different types of traffic. And there are different fundamental rules for cycles and cars. Cycles have certain "rights" that cars don't (apart from just using cycle paths). In my car, I don't force my way to the front of a queue of traffic. On a bicycle I do, and have the right to. When I'm in my car I don't object if a cyclist does that. I would object if another car driver did.

Of course you then get the situation of how the cyclists makes their way to the front of the traffic where there isn't a specific lane for them to do so - either in the wrong side of the carriageway going the wrong way round a chicane if necessary, or using the pavement. Very few cyclists would wait in the traffic. One of the reasons we choose push-bike as our mode of transport is so that we won't get caught in traffic jams. True they do slow us down but ask anyone why a bicycle would be a good method of transport (other than fitness or running cost) and they would say that a cycle can get through traffic jams.


I think there should be some anti jay-walking laws here and should be applied too, but it should only apply if you actually hold up traffic, not simply crossing on a red man when there is no traffic.

A cyclist who crosses a light causing traffic to stop or nearly hitting pedestrians who have the right to cross (or causing the pedestrians to change their path) should be liable to prosecution. Crossing simply because the light is red should not.

They could add an extra amber filter to many lights for cyclists - that would mean a cyclist is allowed to go if safe. It would be a great cost to do so. Better leave it to the judgment of the cyclist.



Exactly the points raised by Mad Doc in the thread on the cycling sub forum, Liebchen.

If light ist a green for one road of junction - then they will not expect anything to deliberately run the red one - und if an emergency vehicle does so - then they are supposed to use their blues/twos to alert other road users of their presence und only go if the other driver gives way to them. They cannot just blat through - per IG und per all the BiB on the PH site too.
[/quote]
I've had situations where I crossed on green but because I was going up a hill it took me a while to get through the junction and hadn't completed it when the light went green the other way.

But anyway, I have said that cyclist should stop in the above situation.



We said that this ist slightly different und COAST related too. You can see if someone at kerb waiting for green man or not. There are perhaps more Toucan/Puffin than Pelican which do still flash the amber. Und if person ist on crossing at flashing stage - you still cannot go.

Und what ist a long time? I think these are about a second/two second - giving time for elderly to cross.
[/quote]
Try cycling on Finchley Road, NW3 (part of the A41) and see how long these pedestrian lights stay on red.

so even you are agreeing that it is sometimes ok for a cycle to go on red.

No, highway code says the light is red and you must stop.

I would hope that any chicanes put there just to slow down the traffic would have a separate lane for cycles, particuarly on the side that has to give way. I have some sympathy for the cyclist - I also would not want to give way to oncoming traffic. It is perfectly wide enough for myself and an oncoming cyclist. Not sure I would gesture at the traffic unless they gestured at me first.



Then that ist different - but I would phone Highways dept of council und ask why these lights for no reason und estaablish why they are there.

[/quote]
Well it can be used as a pedestrian crossing too. Sometimes there are pedestrians.


Cyclists don't have licences. I hope that we won't ever require them either.

Motorbikes, including mopeds, do require licences and have number plates. Cycles that have a small motor to help with uphills are not capable of doing any higher speeds than regular pushbikes and are not considered motorised.

The only annoyance with motorbikes and mopeds I find is that they often obstruct the through path through the cars.

As a car driver, the following things would annoy me about cyclists:

- Crossing red lights when there IS traffic that they are holding up or could collide with.

- Wrong way down one-way streets. I do not even always check for traffic coming from the wrong direction.

As a pedestrian, the following things would annoy me about cyclists:

- Unauthorised use of the footpath. I would not object to them using the footpath to pass stationary traffic (where there is no room to do this on the road) as long as they realised they do not have right of way. Preferable to do this manouevre wheeling the bike.

- Crossing at red on pedestrian crossings where there are pedestrians crossing.

With that in mind, when I am on my bike I don't do those things.

That's true. But the gap between average driver quality and 'excellent' driver quality is a huge gulf, signalling to me that there's oodles of room for improvement.

Couple that with the knowledge that most crash causes are actually 'pretty dumb', and I'm sure that small changes would deliver substantial improvements.

Then the wider 'social degradation' that we both recognise isn't actually THAT widespread. I reckon we'd find 5% participating and 95% complaining. Even if I was out by a factor of 4 (i.e. 20% participating) - we'd still have 80% of the population open to positive influence.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Jammming und filtering are perfectly OK Liebchen. I ride bike und ride M--M-_ Motorbike (Ist a rather fast one Ist a Honda .. und model ist very much for red meat eaters! ... Mad Doc hates it.. I love it! )

But whether on a bicycle, on devil of motorbike or in the car... I still have to obey a red light signal, und give way to any pedestrian who may happen in my path for any reason.

I do not ever ride on the wrong side of a carriageway, wrong way around a chicane, or on a pavement because that ist not respecting traffic rules or another road user. Ist case of courtesy to others und courtesty begets courtesy und reduces incident. (unless you happen to be possible schizo with PMT per a post on another thread )

But in a traffic jam - this imply rush hour traffic - und you only jam if safe to do so - und that jamming ist just on the white line dividing carriageways. Ist never in the path of anything on-coming und aborted und a filter to the left of traffic chosen instead. Or filter down between two lanes of queuing traffic. IG posted up exactly how to filter und jam safely per Cycle- und MotorbikeCraft... und there are rules to follow. At no point do you impede others or place them into danger.

Perhaps you had better re-read page 127-129 of Franklin's book



Why not? Rules are rule They will fine you in Switzerland. Ever wondered why no one does it there?

Und you can always tell at which one the wardens und gendarme lurk too The one which ist at "red man" the longest :shh: Not supposed to give away secrets like that.




It is. If a drver can be nicked for this - then so should any other traffice whether two-wheeled or even four-legged. You cannot know if something coming up at speed (or rather on speed limit und sees green ahead - does not slow as should make lights before they change. This ist in distance approaching. Not necessarily in sight when numpty on bike ignores the red signal. That is why there ist a MUST on Rule 50 und 55 in the CODE!



How would this work? Other side ist on GREEN! Cyclist use this amber und believe ist safe und some of these muppets will take this as "traffic must stop for them even if is green for them" Nein... you could not guarantee safety this way. A filter to allow left turn or "Give Way" for left turn - und this operate at some junctions anyway. Have seen when in the 'burbs to North (Carlisle) und South (or rather - Preston southwards) of us.

Und how do you know cyclist has "good judgement" Some I have met do not seem to show much common sense. About as low or lower than the "Maureens"


I've had situations where I crossed on green but because I was going up a hill it took me a while to get through the junction and hadn't completed it when the light went green the other way. [/quote]

Which ist why the red stay in place a bit longer und why you are not supposed to go until light show a GREEN to allow for slow moving traffic to clear. Und even if the up hill - rider ist still honking his way up in a pant... you WAIT till he out of way even if this mean traffic light change again Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Und you have to wait again.. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!



Und so they should. Ist manners. Only thing which can break this rule ist emergency vehicle - und they have to have proveable reasons too.


Try cycling on Finchley Road, NW3 (part of the A41) and see how long these pedestrian lights stay on red.

So.. how long can it take an 80 year old to cross? When I was wheelchair bound - was not supposed to go above 10 mph in that motorised version.. I jazzed it up at bit und.. let's just say I would not have held anything up - but before I did so.. it took forever


But - little kittens - aged two -three years. a pram.. they need time to cross.. so three second/four second und possible volume of pedestrians would not really be silly time for allowing this.

Swiss, German, Austrian ones seem to have sensor for pedestrians on crossing und will stop so long as person ist on the crossing. This ist good most of time. Its drawback in the rudh when people run to catch these lights.. You want longest time to stop? The ped crossing on main trunk in Berlin (per Cousin Siegli) und the one near Basel's hub of financial activity .. nightmare of long wait as office staff cross at peak.




Ja....but this ist pelican und your COAST establishes no one in sight. If person in proximity - you need to anticipate what they will do und be prepared to stop. By all means wave them across - if you think they will reciprocate by doing so quickly und not causing serious loss of rythm. But we have to be 100% sure und 10% more on top.



Exactly - und ist COAST in action too.

There are parallels.. you can only bend a rule if COAST/LOOKOUT/POWER principles are met - because applying these mean safety led und 90/95% compliance with laws to letter. Remaining 5% should rest with :cop: discretion

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

If they made a rule that it would be illegal to cross unless there is a pedestrian green light then would it apply only at the junction or would it be legal to walk a number of yards from the junction and cross there?

With my rule it would make no difference where you crossed. It would be a case of whether you were holding up the traffic at a time where it is unauthorised to do so.

Typical example would be some of the smaller roads that cross Oxford Street (W1). It is quite typical that when the signal is green for the crossing traffic, they are obstructed by pedestrians (as well as the occasional bus on a box junction, who should of course also be fined, as buses are not exempt from box-junction rules).

found this posted in a newsgroup

So what do we think?

Livingstone spoke without thinking?

It was a deliberate kite flying excercise?

It was a publicity stunt?

What?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

a daft way of telling the darwin candidates to stop?

Or did they sneak something else in that isn't as bad, so making that more palatable?

It was a suggestion - it seemed worth debating the issue.

Now my own policy would be to build some good paths for cyclists, in particular a tunnel under Hampstead Heath.

Per CW and my "Enjoy Your Bike!" mag (tis a very good mag!) - "Kendigestion" as Wildy calls him - has had another thought!

After all the criticism over this plan - he now has another plan


The

SHARE THE ROADS CAMPAIGN

Of his U-turn - he says



Nope - do not see this logic. Cars are registered and all drivers pay for the running costs of the cars. I do not see paying my way as discouraging me from owning a car and it certainly would not discourage me from having a bike. I've a nice bike and bike thefts are now increasing. There are fors and againsts. My concern with this was the use of yet more scams which would just fleece those who may make very trivial "mistakes"

Livingstone went on to say that London Tranpsort had committed "massive investment" in cycle lanes (which the cyclists say are poorly maintained and planned ) , road safety and promoting cycling.

Yes I do agree with him on this



Indeed. Er- we've all been saying this on here. Ooooh - 'e lurks then

Livingstone added that this courtesy does apply to cars, lorries, coaches and vans parking in cycle lanes or monopolising the ASL.

I do not park in cycle lanes. I park in the car parks and in the bays and pay for my parking. I do not stop in ASL lines - though you can get caught out if traffic light changes and you end up having to pull up within them.

But he also said



Oh.. police with cameras then How novel!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.