Safe Speed Forums

What, like when a driver is overtaking using the hatched area and encounters someone turning right, either coming head on or going in the same direction you mean? Both thinking they have the right to be there you mean? That NEVER happens does it? (Well it has to me twice actually)
Or how about running the risk of making one driver think another shouldn't be using an area of roadspace and generating an undesirable reaction? Thats really great for road safety this ambiguity thing.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

But Riggers, the shading surely makes it far LESS likely that two folk will head for the same roadspace. That's why it's useful. It's warning 'most' that such areas of road might be subject to conflict. It NEVER encourages two parties to believe that they have an exclusive right to use it.

Or perhaps you're really saying that all shading should be absolutely inviolate? I would find that a valid argument, although I would still disagree on the basis of 'waste of tarmac' / 'waste of safety space'.

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

No. I am merely pointing out the fact that ambiguity, perceptions of self-importance and vague priorities already exist elsewhere across the roads and that you are seriously overplaying the 'dangerous ambiguity' and 'displaced priorities' cards with respect to letting buses.
Because I just don't see it. I really don't.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Does anyone want to help bridge this gap? Please?

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

Not I. I'm with Rigpig in thinking you have descended into gross hyperbole. "Dangerous ambiguity" FFS. This is a bit of advice that appears in the HC sandwiched between "look out for large vehicles" and "look out for electric vehicles". And it's not particularly new (it appeared in the 1999 version, I'm not sure about earlier ones) so it can hardly be claimed to have been a recent influence on actual behaviour.

It is perfectly reasonable, imo, that buses, coaches and trams (actually not so sure about coaches) should be accorded a minor preference over other vehicles when it comes to moving away from bus stops. (Note - this has no bearing on bus lanes which are a totally separate matter.)

You're in a hole entirely of your own digging.

But surely any ambiguity on the road has an enormous potential to be dangerous and to describe it as a “Dangerous ambiguity” is entirely reasonable.

The priority system on the roads is simple and clear. Without it there would be chaos. To imply that, in certain situations, users have equal or undefined priority is asking for trouble. Showing courtesy is a way to relinquish priority, but under our control and our terms.

And there’s no way that hatched areas with broken borders fall into the “ambiguous” category. We should treat these areas mindful of the priority and the risk that would exist if they weren’t there. An overtake should only be made if we can see that it’s clear and safe to do so. Hatched areas do not change that.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Calling then potentially dangerous ambiguities would then be fair enough. But to imply that they're all dangerous, or to describe the potential as enormous, does seem to fit the definition of "gross hyperbole"...




As I suggested earlier, this already exists. Who has priority at a mini roundabout or unmarked crossroads if, due to the geometry of the approach roads and the times at which the vehicles arrive, the "give way to the right" rule applies equally to everyone? When this happens in the real-world (and it DOES happen), the potential deadlock is broken sooner or later either by one driver ceding their priority and effectively saying "after you, old chap" to the other, or through random variations in driver reaction times leading to one making a move slightly ahead of the other and so taking positional priority.

Same thing happens when a set of traffic lights fail and everyone just seems to pick their way through the now uncontrolled junction without much fuss or bother. The previously enforced priority scheme has been well and truly thrown out of the window, yet drivers seem quite able to cope regardless.

_________________
Chris

I don’t see this as the same thing as the bus. There’s no ambiguity at your mini roundabout. On the approach, everyone should know that the priority is now nonexistent and caution, co-operation and, perhaps, courtesy is necessary.

There is no such clarity in the situation with a bus driver wishing to pull out, who may feel he has certain (ambiguous) rights over other road users.



Again, nonexistent priority – unless maybe a bus comes through believing his busy schedule somehow gives him rights.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

We're talking about a sign on a bus that reads "Please let the bus pull out" or HC advice that states "Give priority to [buses] when you can do so safely".

I don't see anything there that gives bus drivers licence to pull out regardless of traffic approacing from behind. I can understand bus drivers becoming frustrated by being unable to pull out from a bus stop because of consistent failure of passing traffic to show consideration (possibly exemplified by some of the remarks seen in this thread). However, that does not encourage or excuse unsafe manoeuvres. I do not see any ambiguity, much less "dangerous ambiguity".

I can only refer you to a previous post from Paul, which I happen to believe sums up the reality of the situation.

It describes how a situation can become ambiguous. Isn't it easy to see how that ambiguity can be dangerous? Isn't it a situation you approach with caution because you're not sure what might happen?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Hmm, I'm really not seeing how the "non-existent priority" of these examples is any different to the "equal or undefined priority" which you earlier suggested "is asking for trouble." If two drivers approach a junction both believing that priority is non-existent, then both must then also be believing that the other driver has equal priority to them...

_________________
Chris

It seems obvious to me that two drivers knowing they have no priority over a given bit of road space is much safer than both believing they have some sort of priority.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

ABSOLUTELY.

I've been thinking about this and I cannot understand why the potential danger isn't obvious to all.

If you tell BOTH bus drivers pulling out and passing vehicles that under 'most' circumstances BOTH have priority, then Houston, we have a problem.

It's really rather like a cross roads showing a green light in BOTH directions.

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

And what happens to a vehicle NOT allowing a tram to pull out? And trying to race it?

It's a bit like thinking: "I know! I'll park my van on this level crossing and see what happens!"

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Maybe because you seem to be overstating the potential for danger? I can see that there is some potential for conflict, but I simply don't see it being any more dangerous than the numerous other existing potentials for conflict that already exist.



No, sorry, that's not what we're saying. If the bus is ahead of you and indicating to pull out, it has priority and should be able to pull out if safe to do so. If you're alongside the bus and it starts to indicate, you have priority. Under most circumstances then, there shouldn't be this conflict of priority you're concerned about.

Granted, in the cases where the vehicle behind the bus is so close that it wouldn't be able to stop in time, and where the bus driver then thinks they can still pull out anyway, you've got a problem. Where we seem to differ in our opinions is just how much of an issue this really would be.




Except that a green light doesn't grant you absolute authority over other road users, it merely means that you can proceed if safe to do so. I suspect that when you drive through a green light you still check for vehicles running the lights from conflicting directions. To a numpty driver, green might be misinterpreted as a signal that the road ahead is clear for them, but we can't blame the green light for that.

I still think it's more like the mini-roundabout/unmarked crossroads scenario I've been using all along. If driver A gets there before driver B, driver A has priority. If driver B gets there before driver A, driver B has priority. Now what happens if they both get there at the same time, or so close together that it's not obvious who should go first?

So, under MOST circumstances, both drivers know who has priority and if something goes wrong, it should be pretty easy to point the finger of blame. Under SOME circumstances though, the assignation of priority gets blurry (how much of a time gap is necessary to definitively give priority to one approaching vehicle over the other) or completely undefined, and then it's down to common sense, courtesy and perhaps a bit of randomness to untangle the potential conflict.

_________________
Chris

<My bold>. Yep, there's a massive difference between what people should think and do and what they actually think and do isn't there?
What about people who don't interpret the rules the same way that you do? Is that not the whole essence of ambiguity? You may say "well they shouldn't interpret the rules that way", but if they do then we have ambiguity. So there's EVERY way hatched areas fall into the 'ambiguous' category.

I think this link lays it out nicely....

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/hatch.html

Extract...

Despite this, there is a widespread view amongst drivers that they should not enter hatched areas except in an emergency, even if they are only bounded by a dotted white line..

Exactly! Ambiguity.




Utter tosh! There is no explicit invitiation to simply proceed without caution. What if you are at a cross roads and receive a green light only to discover an amber gambler crossing your path, does anyone just drive into them? Or do they use their eyes and recall the fact that a green light is not an open invitation to drive forward regardless?
Sorry, but you're well and truly

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

OK, with the increasingly random and ill-considered use of hatched markings, I concede there can be ambiguity in the mind of the road user, but the rules are simple to the cognoscenti – and I quote from your source:

And, if you come across a hatched area that is bounded by dotted white lines, whether or not it has red paint, remember that there is no practical or legal reason why you should not enter it or cross it to overtake, if you can see that it is safe to do so.



Hatchings eliminate any sense of priority. Why am I struggling to see how that can be anywhere near as bad as shared priority?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Exactly. Nicely summarised, Twister.

Drivers are constantly making judgements based on ever changing situations, isn't that what we who support the SafeSpeed philosophy repeatedly say?

In this case it goes for the bus driver as well as the vehicles around him/her in a parked/pulling-out scenario.

Personally I think that there is EVEN LESS scope for ambiguity when the rule is clear, and letting a bus out does not rely on "a courteous gesture" that may or may not have been intended by a driver approaching a bus intending to pull out.

And, for the fourth time, read my lips, IT WORKS.
These vehicle interactions happen thousands of times every day in the Netherlands, and I NEVER see or hear about "dangerous situations" as is suggested.
Re-read my previous entries on this matter.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Yeah, but but....



That is not the same rule as here:

"Give priority... when you can do so safely" Which implies to me, if it's not safe, you still have priority. So it's up to the bus driver and the motorist to both make a decision on when it's safe.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Exactly my point.
Give buses right of way when pulling out and you have less chance of misinterpretations of intentions (=safer situation) and a better public transport service (over-simplification, but you get my gist).

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.