This Thread is Seriously
OFF TOPIC.
I am stating a few comments below, and then ALL further discussion that is NOT to do with Red Light Jumping - can move to HERE or make a new Topic in the appropriate Forum/s. Thank you for your assistance with this.weepej wrote:
I'm always amazed that when I'm out walking with somebody they might moan at people in cars that don't show due respect to pedestrians in their view, but when I'm in a car with them they might moan at pedestrians who don't show due repect for cars in their view.
Good but a sad point. Hence the NEED for excellent and well I was going to say 'better' information (public info films, leaflets, stickers etc etc = marketing) but there is so little out there that almost ANY is required ! To encourage MUTUAL functionality is crucial, there is NO single society but multiple, that MUST and needs to work, symbiotically, for the good of all road users.
People are often referred to as being 'busy' which also implies that they have no time for anyone else. This 'selfish' behaviour means that as congestion is brought upon us along with less 'space' to exist in, we are all asked to move within, ever decreasing circles !
So then it is hardly a surprise when barriers, aggression and anger quickly rise to the surface. People increasingly 'snap' when they would have 'normally' (and before) just behaved with courtesy and basic human care for another.
weepej wrote:
And there's clearly a deep seam running through this forum that roads are for cars, and cars only
dcbwhaley wrote:
That is my increasing impression too. And that there is a lot of resentment to poster who disagree with that. Although I am very much in agreement with the anti-camera message of Safe Speed I fear that many of the posters are doing the campaign no good.
The forums are a free speech place to voice opinions of ALL nature relating to all road use. We welcome opposing opinions, so that we can debate freely.
It is good if you feel that there is much car discussion, as cars are the predominant vehicle on the roads, so it is highly likely therefor that it follows that most of the conversations are reflected accordingly.
graball wrote:
... Or maybe we could just educate people to be more wary of their environment?
I would be saying be VERY AWARE of their surroundings at all times, whenever on ANY part of the roadway, or pavement.
Quote:
weepej wrote:
And there's clearly a deep seam running through this forum that roads are for cars, and cars only
dcbwhaley wrote:
That is my increasing impression too. And that there is a lot of resentment to poster who disagree with that. Although I am very much in agreement with the anti-camera message of Safe Speed I fear that many of the posters are doing the campaign no good.
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I don't see that but then I *KNOW* that is not the truth. Can you point me to threads that show this please ?
dcbwhaley wrote:
In another thread, which you can find for yourself, a cyclist who was injured by a motorcyclist is held to be culpable because he wasn't wearing a helmet. But motor car passengers injured because they are not wearing seat belts are "tragic victims". I could go on but I would only break my heart attempting to fight such a deeply seated prejudice.
People are often casual when they express themselves, and often mean a generality of a point and are not being absolute or specific. Plus misinterpretation can be rife sadly. Smilies can help to express the emotions, but it can be hard to always take the gist as it is meant. We always try to obtain as many facts from specific cases as possible, but sometimes we only have a papers brief Court outline and occasionally more details follow later. Then again do remember that posters do NOT speak for Safe Speed. The forums are separate to the website which is the precise and official view, along with my own of course.
dcbwhaley wrote:
And your contention that you *KNOW* disinclines me to attempt to convince one whose mind is firmly closed against an idea they dislike.
This forum discusses all aspects of the Highways and Byways of this Country, many of us have many modes of transport and often voice our opinions from those aspects too. My 'know', very much - refers to the fact that I am confident that people here are well aware that 'Roads are not just for cars', but for all forms of road transport, and that all those road users, are to be respected and never segregated or hierarchical favoured, other than where is practically sensible.
I have a very open mind to new concepts of all kinds. I may not agree with them, but I give all ideas a thorough debate and if a new piece of advice or concept evolves from that debate, great. I see that you have the envious job of working in optics / astronomy, you must constantly be seeking new ideas and concepts, so I am sure you can relate to my perceptions here.
To imply that I pick and choose what to believe seems strange, when the website is always seeking the truth and hard facts. The forum which is here to freely seek understanding of Road use and safety (etc), it is separate to the website.
dcbwhaley wrote:
This campaign against speed cameras is a fine one which I support wholeheartedly and, Clare, I admire your work. But despite that these forums are populated by a number of self righteous J Bonnington Jagworths who feel that the possession of a driving licence gives them ownership of the roads.
Thank you for your support, long may it continue.
It would be a severe injustice if I do not point out, that it is Paul my late partner, that made the website and started this forum, he alone must take full credit. Whilst I have helped him in the background, and we have had a passion for driving from even before we met some 26yrs ago, this is his creation, that I am doing my best to proudly continue.
If opinion were, that 'roads are only for cars', then this is the perfect platform, to educate and guide those that held such a totally floored and non-sense concept !
dcbwhaley wrote:
I have shown these forums to a number of non members, my family friends and they all get the same impression.
I assume you mean here about the 'roads are for cars'? Well then we could hold a Poll in the Poll forum ... I do not have this impression at all, if a pre-conceived idea is placed in someone's mind, then they look with that in mind thereafter ... much research has to be done with great care never to influence, for a totally unbiased viewpoint,
NOT that I
AM suggesting that you have done this ! However friends and family, may have heard you chat about your communications here, and
might have formed a preconceived idea from your prior discussions. However I hope that they will take part (or maybe they already are
) perhaps, and then we can start a NEW thread and discuss this at length.
dcbwhaley wrote:
On this board are a set of forums devoted to "specific road user groups". In that set there is no forum for pedestrians. That is indicative of the mind set of the people who administer this board. Would you establish such a forum as there are some pedestrian related matters I would like to discuss?
I am sorry that you feel this way. If I/we felt that there was a call for such a forum, sure, but most pedestrian discussions that often occur relate to incidents that are linked with other road groups, and can also sit within the Safety, Speed, Driving and the Law or other areas.
Paul like yourself was an (Computer) Electronics Engineer, and would be 'dead precise', as well as concise, and created sections as were deemed necessary and 'fit for purpose'. Like him I am always open to ideas.
We must take this discussion out of this Topic, however. Please go
HERE ...
To ALL : For now this thread MUST either return to its TOPIC or I will have to intervene further.
Thank you
Forum RulesRed Light Jumping :
Ziltro wrote:
I think the red light should mean "give way" then (most - narrow roads might need something different) traffic lights would be there to swap priorities around, and there would be no "stop even though there's nothing coming".
dcbwhaley wrote:
This is another example of motor centric thinkng.. Such a system would make it very difficult for less nimble pedestrians to cross the road.
Well the system could I assume still press a button and then the system commences a sequence that enables the pedestrian to cross and then other roads / crossings go in sequence and a return back to the setup of 'give way'.
This is just an interesting exploration of 'what if's' and can this be 'bettered'. Some of the best ideas happen when people think out of the box.
dcbwhaley wrote:
Pedestrian crossings are not ideal for nervous pedestrians. The average British motorist has too little sympathy for pedestrians for any system which relies on the pedestrian asserting her right to cross the road in the face of a motor car to work properly. This is why zebra crossings are largely replaced by pelican crossings.
I cannot say that I have seen people unable to cross a pedestrian crossing or have to wait long at all to enable to cross the road. As a pedestrian I have crossed with other people and sometimes elderly people with no perceived problems.
If there is a problem with the elderly crossing a road, it is NOT the crossing that is at the heart of the problem but the drivers / riders. The core problem must always be the issue that needs to be addressed, by being improved or adjusted accordingly.
Red lights mean STOP and I think that should never change for many reasons.
The possibility that traffic lights could be left on AMBER for difficult junctions and reactivate as and when the junction (etc) became busy. When the busy moment passes, it reverts back to the Amber system returning the junction to a GIVE WAY and road marking identifying the main route still. This I think has some interesting benefits.
The growing delay on RED is a dangerous policy. As Steve has pointed out this is devaluing the system, people 'run' them sometimes, as they can 'see' it is safe, and as they become increasingly frustrated, with the excessive delays and increasing dis-respect for them.