Hierarchy of Road Users - 29th January 2022

Username03725

Apologies if so, but it does bug me esp when rolling up to a crossroads where the facing lights have just changed to red. 

zagfles

NBLondon said:

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.

In heavy pedestrian areas it won't work, so it'd need to carry on as now, but the junctions I'm thinking about pedestrian numbers are light and also there are 2 lanes, so it's likely someone going straight would be able to go. It's definitely better than stopping all traffic in all directions because one pedestrian wants to cross. 

NBLondon

You mean...  design the lights/phasing to reflect the actual junction and the traffic patterns (including pedestrians)?   That's a bit advanced for some places y'know...

zagfles

NBLondon said:

You mean...  design the lights/phasing to reflect the actual junction and the traffic patterns (including pedestrians)?   That's a bit advanced for some places y'know...

Well they seem to manage it in most of Europe.

neilmcl

Username03725 said:

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.

You do understand I was specifically referring to Automatic cars, and also not something I do anyway, as I drive a manual.

Nofinway

zagfles said:

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.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

zagfles

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

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.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

Nofinway

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

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.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

zagfles

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

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.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

Nope.

Getting into dictionary definitions never ends well, but the majority of online dictionaries say "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

NBLondon was doing no such thing. No attempt whatsoever to deflect from or justify bad driving, he/she wasn't responding to an accusation or difficult question, but merely asking if the same rules would apply to cyclists, as he/she has suffered physical harm from bad cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road.

But the reply from Farfetch was clearly a counter-accusation to the accusation against bad cyclists. AKA 'whataboutery'

Nofinway

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

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.

That's actually quite funny!

A post responding to the usual 'whataboutery' regarding cyclists running red lights etc being accused of whataboutery - where will it end?

Glad I amused you! But NBLondon's post wasn't really whataboutery, ie he/she didn't try to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad driving, he/she just asked if the same rules would be applied to cyclists. Whereas the post I responded to was clearly an attempt to minimise or deflect from the impact of bad cycling by referring to the (obvious) greater harm caused by bad driving.

Pedestrians like NBLondon who get bruises from bad cycling have grounds for complaint. Those complaints shouldn't be dismissed just because bad driving might have killed them. Any more than if I get punched in the street my complaint should be dismissed or trivialised because some people get knifed in the street.

Geddit?

AKA - 'whataboutery'
Geddit?

Nope.

Getting into dictionary definitions never ends well, but the majority of online dictionaries say "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

NBLondon was doing no such thing. No attempt whatsoever to deflect from or justify bad driving, he/she wasn't responding to an accusation or difficult question, but merely asking if the same rules would apply to cyclists, as he/she has suffered physical harm from bad cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road.

But the reply from Farfetch was clearly a counter-accusation to the accusation against bad cyclists. AKA 'whataboutery'

Sigh (I can do it too!)

Not remotely interested in your dictionary definition. You're also being selective in your quoting and the context and tone of NB's initial post. It was clearly inflammatory and deliberately so. The figures quoted by Farfetch also clearly (and always do) show that the issue is blown out of all proportion - why did NB even mention it? Of course the hierarchy will address that - it's the point!

I see very poor cycling in London from time to time. I'm sure NB has had bad experiences - I have. The whole purpose of the new hierarchy is to ensure responsibility lies with those likely to and do cause the greatest harm - we know that is most definitely not cyclists running red lights.