Hierarchy of Road Users - 29th January 2022

[Deleted User]

Grumpy_chap said:

Grey_Critic said:

Personally I try to give cyclists room but my real concern is that there is no rule that says **Cyclists should be clearly visible** Many are with Hi-Viz vests and proper lights both day and night but many are not. 

I always try to give cyclists room but it is made harder by the absence, in practice, of a consensus where the cyclist should best position themselves.  When in a city area with high levels of congestion, some cyclist are between car and pavement, so I manoeuvre towards the centre of the road slightly to give space.  Then the next cyclist is on the middle of the road passing the cars, but I can't simply move back in to the pavement.

A rider will take the position they feel safest in - any dangerous road, the guidance (as per the HC now) is 1m from the kerb i.e. primary. I tend to vary between there (on commute on main roads) and closer to the kerb (for leisure rides on quiet roads).

When we filter, it's generally safer to do so on the left, you can judge the safe gaps, speed and so on and move up when you need to, provided you have a brain and don't go up the inside of turning lorries. Getting to the front is helpful as it avoids being swiped by big things passing you and then turning as they forgot you were there. Passing on the right can make you more visible but equally runs the risk of being knocked into oncoming traffic by someone impatient deciding to try a rat run side road or turning without indicating. Either way, be consistent when driving

zagfles

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

Car_54

ArchLen said:

neilmcl said:

ArchLen said:

neilmcl said:

ArchLen said:

Car_54 said:

Hasn't the increased volume of traffic in itself made the test harder?
Can you give some examples of things that were once a fail but now a pass?

1) No, sitting in heavy traffic in city centres (where most test centres are located) on an already short test makes it easier than it was when people had to actually drive around their test route. Additionally cars are now much easier to drive due to the level of technological advancements made. 

2) Many things, for example going over the speed limit, sitting in the right hand lane on a dual carriageway, using the wrong gears, failing to use mirrors correctly and at appropriate times, moving off without lights on in the dark. The list goes on. This data is readily available from the DVSA via freedom of information requests, or speak to anyone inside the industry. I.e. a reputable instructor or examiner. 

Such as? As far as I know the way you steer, change gear, accelerate, brake, check mirrors etc hasn't changed in all the years since I've been driving, unless you're talking about an EV of course. All the techie gadgets cars have these days doesn't make the act of driving itself any easier.

Traffic sign reading dashboards displaying the speed limits, lane departure systems, automatic parking, reversing cameras, auto braking, auto hill hold, stop/start, auto lights/wipers, blind spot warning systems.

 Hardly an exhaustive list,;but there are numerous gadgets which make driving easier, certainly for new drivers who will come to rely on them... And then find they cannot afford a car with them on!

Non of which make it easier to pass a driving test. Yes there are plenty of gadgets to makes things more convenient (I wouldn't say easier) but the fundamentals of driving a car remain the same, in fact I'd argue that some of these "technological advancements" can actually make driving more distracting, and therefore potentially dangerous. I wouldn't say it's a good think for new drivers coming to rely on gadgets to drive, in fact quite the opposite.

In your opinion perhaps, but I would argue that all of the above factually make driving easier and therefore passing the test equally is made easier. You are therefore wrong. 

Let's take the automatic parking brake as an example. When a learner stalls the car moving off on a steep incline, the automatic parking brake prevents roll back. In cars without this, the driver would need to manually engage the parking brake to prevent rolling back. In a test situation, because learners are by and large not now taught to use the parking brake, this would probably result in a fail if they did not have an automatic parking brake because they probably won't react in time to prevent a pedestrian or vehicle behind being rolled into. 

That is one example but there are many more. 

What makes you think that?
Do you have recent experience of lessons and/or tests?

ArchLen

Car_54 said:

... learners are by and large not now taught to use the parking brake, this would probably result in a fail if they did not have an automatic parking brake because they probably won't react in time to prevent a pedestrian or vehicle behind being rolled into. 

That is one example but there are many more. 

What makes you think that?
Do you have recent experience of lessons and/or tests?

Yes, over 2 decades of experience in the industry. A good instructor will still teach appropriate use of the parking brake but the majority will not as DVSA no longer consider it's lack of use as a fault. 

neilmcl

ArchLen said:

Car_54 said:

... learners are by and large not now taught to use the parking brake, this would probably result in a fail if they did not have an automatic parking brake because they probably won't react in time to prevent a pedestrian or vehicle behind being rolled into. 

That is one example but there are many more. 

What makes you think that?
Do you have recent experience of lessons and/or tests?

Yes, over 2 decades of experience in the industry. A good instructor will still teach appropriate use of the parking brake but the majority will not as DVSA no longer consider it's lack of use as a fault. 

As what exactly?

Car_54

ArchLen said:

Car_54 said:

... learners are by and large not now taught to use the parking brake, this would probably result in a fail if they did not have an automatic parking brake because they probably won't react in time to prevent a pedestrian or vehicle behind being rolled into. 

That is one example but there are many more. 

What makes you think that?
Do you have recent experience of lessons and/or tests?

Yes, over 2 decades of experience in the industry. A good instructor will still teach appropriate use of the parking brake but the majority will not as DVSA no longer consider it's lack of use as a fault. 

Are you sure? It’s still defined as a fault on the DT1.

NBLondon

zagfles said:

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

I think that's rather optimistic...    I think filters are safer - as long as all involved pay attention.

And will the hierarchy actually be applied to the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks?

JustAnotherSaver

Is this the change saying pedestrians have right of way over cyclists on shared paths? 

If so then yeah I've heard about it and can also predict the outcome - youths with hoods up dressed in all black standing in a line across the path, totally blocking any cyclist passing because they have right of way. 

zagfles

NBLondon said:

zagfles said:

Hopefully this will lead to more sensible use of traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I use a couple of crossroads regularly which have pedestrian crossings, currently when pedestrians press the crossing button all traffic gets a red light while they get a green man. Now they'll be able to give traffic the green light at the same time as giving pedestrians a green man going in the same direction, since turning motorists will have to give way to pedestrians. This happens in most European countries.

I think that's rather optimistic...    I think filters are safer - as long as all involved pay attention.

And will the hierarchy actually be applied to the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks?

If I'm heading straight on at the crossroads and a pedestrian is going in the same direction as me on the pavement to my left, our paths don't cross. They would only cross if I turned left. So as turning traffic has to give way anyway, we can both have green lights. It works fine in other countries. Using filters would mean the lights would have to show a green arrow straight or right but not left when the pedestrian presses the crossing button! 

I've noticed zebra crossings getting more common, the trend was to replace then with pelicans but now seem to be going back to zebras which are much more efficient, as traffic never gets stopped unnecessarily (eg when pedestrian crosses at a gap in traffic before getting green man and cars then get stopped for no-one), or for unnecessarily long (quick walker), as happens all the times at pelicans.

So there does seem to be a trend towards "give way" rather than using lights which should make things more efficient from both pedestrian and motorists point of view. But you'll always get idiots who think they're above the law (both cyclists and motorists, to pre-empt the whataboutery) on whatever type of crossing you have.

Car_54

JustAnotherSaver said:

Is this the change saying pedestrians have right of way over cyclists on shared paths? 

If so then yeah I've heard about it and can also predict the outcome - youths with hoods up dressed in all black standing in a line across the path, totally blocking any cyclist passing because they have right of way. 

No, it isn't. There is no such thing in law as "right of way", but even the general (mis)understanding of this mythical right doesn't extend to blocking a road or path.