Hierarchy of Road Users - 29th January 2022

Nofinway

Username03725 said:

Deleted_User said:

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.

A minor correction if I may. Around one metre out from the kerb is referred to as riding in secondary. Primary is to ride in the middle of the lane, guidance & advice as already covered.

Secondary or primary is down to the cyclist, and should be based on what's safest for the cyclist without being a hindrance.

I like to think of it as traveling in one of the 'tyre grooves'. Nearside is secondary, offside is primary. Roadcraft says to sit in primary as that's where a driver sits and is more likely to see you (although that's up for debate!!). 

molerat

Car_54 said:

neilmcl said:

molerat said:

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. 

Interestingly this is something I commented on in the car recently after having sat behind a couple of driving school cars sitting on the footbrake whilst at traffic lights.

Could they have been in an Automatic though?

Why would that make a difference?

I don't really care what sort of gearbox they have but I find sitting behind a car at night with 3 brake lights glaring at you quite annoying. (and I know those particular local driving school cars are not auto)

zagfles

Deleted_User said:

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?

Sigh

Given you're in or from London, you would presumably be aware of TfL. A study they did of all incidents over 10 years where someone was killed or seriously injured as a result of a road user jumping a red light showed 71% were hit by cars, just 4% by bikes (typically a person is killed by a bike on average slightly less than once a year). Not stopping for red lights, zebras, even ignoring give way on roundabouts etc is routine with drivers, along with drunk driving, driving while using the phone etc. 40 pedestrians are killed, on average, every year on the pavement alone by drivers.

In the hierarchy of things, it's based on harm, a bike can easily stop and swerve, so while I don't condone red light jumping riders (BOBs) / cyclists, they're not the real risk to pedestrians

Sigh

Why do we always get this defensive whataboutery whenever bad cyclists are mentioned? Yes, it's blatently obvious that if you disregard the rules of the road in a one ton metal box you're going do far more harm than if you're on a 10kg bike. That doesn't mean cyclists who disregard the rules are immune from criticism, just because doing it in a car is far worse. That would be a bit like getting defensive when burglars are criticised because murderers are far worse.

It is OK to criticise something even if other things are far worse.

neilmcl

Car_54 said:

neilmcl said:

molerat said:

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. 

Interestingly this is something I commented on in the car recently after having sat behind a couple of driving school cars sitting on the footbrake whilst at traffic lights.

Could they have been in an Automatic though?

Why would that make a difference?

Because it's the norm, if not advised, to use the foot brake when sitting at lights rather than putting into Park or Neutral and using the hand brake. 

Car_54

neilmcl said:

Car_54 said:

neilmcl said:

molerat said:

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. 

Interestingly this is something I commented on in the car recently after having sat behind a couple of driving school cars sitting on the footbrake whilst at traffic lights.

Could they have been in an Automatic though?

Why would that make a difference?

Because it's the norm, if not advised, to use the foot brake when sitting at lights rather than putting into Park or Neutral and using the hand brake. 

It may be the norm, but it's bad practice. 

ArchLen

Car_54 said:

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.

The DT1 is a merely a guide for examiners, and although the definitions of faults are clearly written, examiners are to assess the situation. In this instance provided the test candidate didn't roll back towards a hazard in close proximity, no fault will be recorded because "no one was affected". Bad instructors know this and therefore teach their pupils to hold the car on the clutch and/or footbrake. 

It could be argued that this is 'ok', but I personally believe correct procedure should be embedded in new drivers from the start before bad habits start to take hold. In this case if only to save people's eyes from getting fried by ultra bright brake lights was at night!!

NBLondon

Deleted_User said:

Given you're in or from London, you would presumably be aware of TfL. A study they did of all incidents over 10 years ...

Yep - it gets trotted out repeatedly even though it's not addressing the actual point I was making about the behaviour of the actual cyclists I encountered repeatedly while crossing roads in Central London.  As zagfles points out - the fact that bad drivers can and do kill or seriously injure pedestrians does not negate the fact that bad cyclists can and do injure pedestrians as well.  I have had the bruises to prove that...

NBLondon

zagfles said:

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! 

True.  If you are the first in that queue then you can head straight on.  If you are second, you might have to wait as the vehicle ahead is turning left and gives way to pedestrians. In some crossroads I know - it might well be only one vehicle per cycle of the lights...  Add in London levels of impatience and there will be test cases for this hierarchy.

Username03725

neilmcl said:

Because it's the norm, if not advised, to use the foot brake when sitting at lights rather than putting into Park or Neutral and using the hand brake. 

Who does the advising? I hate it esp in the dark, being sat behind a car whose driver sits for the whole cycle of traffic lights with the car held on the brake pedal rather than the handbrake. It's not the norm. Just because too many people are too idle to do things properly that doesn't make it right, and there is absolutely no more effort in being in neutral with the h/brake on than there is sitting with the brake pedal on, so you're not making life better. Being in gear with the clutch down is even worse, for effort.

At the lights, in neutral and h/brake on, there is no delay in getting away. As the lights go to amber (or if you know the cycle and the adjacent lights go from green back to red prior to your lights changing) that's your signal to press the clutch in, slip into 1st gear and then go to the handbrake. Unless you're driving an ergonomic disaster of a car, that all happens fluently and fluidly. On my current car I can push it into first with my fingers whilst still being poised to release the h/brake in one smooth easy motion. I don't do Grand Prix starts, but it's extremely rare for me not be off & away before the car behind has started moving.

The main issue is that sitting with the foot brake on shows a complete lack of manners. You know that it annoys enough people as it's been mentioned on here, now that it's come up as a discussion point. Yet despite knowing that keeping high brightness eye level brake lights on when sitting at lights is a known annoyance, your preference is to keep doing that because 'that's your norm.' Thanks for nothing bud.

Jenni_D

I'm not sure @neilmcl was saying that he does that, just that a lot of people do - hence it has become the norm (i.e. standard practice, even though it's not a recommended practice). I feel your ire is directed at the messenger rather than the message.