Hierarchy of Road Users - 29th January 2022

Marvel1

Can see it now, main road, wanting to turn right into a side road, stop to give way to oncoming vehicles, a gap merges, nope a pedestrian is waiting, gap missed, continue waiting as there are more oncoming vehicles and traffic builds behind.  

Could be worse at school times.

zagfles

Marvel1 said:

Can see it now, main road, wanting to turn right into a side road, stop to give way to oncoming vehicles, a gap merges, nope a pedestrian is waiting, gap missed, continue waiting as there are more oncoming vehicles and traffic builds behind.  

Could be worse at school times.

The reality would be more like wait for a gap, turn across the gap up to the junction, get delayed a few seconds by pedestrians, oncoming traffic can see you're blocking the road so would slow a fraction, but not likely to need to stop as the delay would normally only be a few seconds. The alternative might be to have traffic light controlled junction with pedestrian crossing where all traffic is stopped to let pedestrians cross, causing much bigger delays.

At quiet junctions it won't be an issue, at busy junctions you'd probably need traffic lights/crossings anyway, but for those in between the new rules would swing the balance away from needing to use traffic lights to allow pedestrians to cross.

As I keep saying, it's tried and tested in other European countries.

Car_54

zagfles said:

Marvel1 said:

Can see it now, main road, wanting to turn right into a side road, stop to give way to oncoming vehicles, a gap merges, nope a pedestrian is waiting, gap missed, continue waiting as there are more oncoming vehicles and traffic builds behind.  

Could be worse at school times.

The reality would be more like wait for a gap, turn across the gap up to the junction, get delayed a few seconds by pedestrians, oncoming traffic can see you're blocking the road so would slow a fraction, but not likely to need to stop as the delay would normally only be a few seconds. The alternative might be to have traffic light controlled junction with pedestrian crossing where all traffic is stopped to let pedestrians cross, causing much bigger delays.

At quiet junctions it won't be an issue, at busy junctions you'd probably need traffic lights/crossings anyway, but for those in between the new rules would swing the balance away from needing to use traffic lights to allow pedestrians to cross.

As I keep saying, it's tried and tested in other European countries.

… every one of which has roads that are less safe than the UK …

zagfles

Car_54 said:

zagfles said:

Marvel1 said:

Can see it now, main road, wanting to turn right into a side road, stop to give way to oncoming vehicles, a gap merges, nope a pedestrian is waiting, gap missed, continue waiting as there are more oncoming vehicles and traffic builds behind.  

Could be worse at school times.

The reality would be more like wait for a gap, turn across the gap up to the junction, get delayed a few seconds by pedestrians, oncoming traffic can see you're blocking the road so would slow a fraction, but not likely to need to stop as the delay would normally only be a few seconds. The alternative might be to have traffic light controlled junction with pedestrian crossing where all traffic is stopped to let pedestrians cross, causing much bigger delays.

At quiet junctions it won't be an issue, at busy junctions you'd probably need traffic lights/crossings anyway, but for those in between the new rules would swing the balance away from needing to use traffic lights to allow pedestrians to cross.

As I keep saying, it's tried and tested in other European countries.

… every one of which has roads that are less safe than the UK …

In terms of what? Deaths, serious injuries? I'd wager it's fairly rare to be killed or seriously injured by traffic turning at a junction. Yes it'll happen, but turning traffic will likely to going 10mph or less. You probably need to look elsewhere to explain the differences in road safety.

Nofinway

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

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. 

It clearly wasn't unless you have a persecution complex. The complaint was about "the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks" and from later posts it appears NB has been injured by such cyclists.

Why is that inflammatory? It's specifically about cyclists who cycle badly, not all cyclists, and who nobody appears to condone. Do you think cyclists who go through red lights are OK? Farfetch doesn't "...so while I don't condone red light jumping riders...". So why the knee-jerk leap to their defence with whataboutery about bad motorists being far more dangerous (duh, really?).

As a motorist, I would never leap to the defence of bad motorists just because other crimes (eg genocide, to take a ridiculous example) are worse.

You're misquoting again plus are you living on the moon?

Earlier in this thread there is a poster (Grey critic) who trots out the usual 'cyclist running red light' nonsense - it is endemic in any article or post about this type of thing, including NB London. It is totally unnecessary and deliberately inflammatory - as I said why even mention it? 

What have I misquoted? I cut and pasted! As for NB, it seems he's been injured by bad cyclists. Is that OK? Or can it never be mentioned? Maybe you should avoid the internet if you think people complaining about bad cyclists who injure people is "inflammatory". Or do you think cyclists jumping red lights and ignoring zebra crossings is OK? It's an argument, but not one offered so far by anyone. Just the strawman argument that it's not as bad as motorists doing the same (which nobody has disputed, hence a strawman).

No one has suggested that there isn't the odd bad cyclist out there - more that it's always commented/blamed on the 'anti-social cyclist jumping red lights' when in fact it really isn't. If you don't know why it needs to be in context then your either being very obtuse or just lack understanding.

Only today: https://twitter.com/CloverSummers/status/1486779072134983688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1486779072134983688%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fcycling-live-blog-28-january-2022-289891

Username03725

It does occur that the discussion above of all these potential problems of how traffic will be hindered is missing the point that a core govt objective is to reduce car use and increase walking & cycling. If drivers get fed up with the additional hold-ups and even near misses that arise out of this, who knows, they might even take to walking, cycling or public transport. Heck, that could even be an underlying reason for these changes. 

zagfles

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

zagfles said:

Nofinway said:

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. 

It clearly wasn't unless you have a persecution complex. The complaint was about "the type of anti-social cyclists who ride through red lights at pedestrian crossings or think zebra crossings are just public artworks" and from later posts it appears NB has been injured by such cyclists.

Why is that inflammatory? It's specifically about cyclists who cycle badly, not all cyclists, and who nobody appears to condone. Do you think cyclists who go through red lights are OK? Farfetch doesn't "...so while I don't condone red light jumping riders...". So why the knee-jerk leap to their defence with whataboutery about bad motorists being far more dangerous (duh, really?).

As a motorist, I would never leap to the defence of bad motorists just because other crimes (eg genocide, to take a ridiculous example) are worse.

You're misquoting again plus are you living on the moon?

Earlier in this thread there is a poster (Grey critic) who trots out the usual 'cyclist running red light' nonsense - it is endemic in any article or post about this type of thing, including NB London. It is totally unnecessary and deliberately inflammatory - as I said why even mention it? 

What have I misquoted? I cut and pasted! As for NB, it seems he's been injured by bad cyclists. Is that OK? Or can it never be mentioned? Maybe you should avoid the internet if you think people complaining about bad cyclists who injure people is "inflammatory". Or do you think cyclists jumping red lights and ignoring zebra crossings is OK? It's an argument, but not one offered so far by anyone. Just the strawman argument that it's not as bad as motorists doing the same (which nobody has disputed, hence a strawman).

No one has suggested that there isn't the odd bad cyclist out there - more that it's always commented/blamed on the 'anti-social cyclist jumping red lights' when in fact it really isn't. If you don't know why it needs to be in context then your either being very obtuse or just lack understanding.

Only today: https://twitter.com/CloverSummers/status/1486779072134983688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1486779072134983688%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Froad.cc%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fcycling-live-blog-28-january-2022-289891

What is "always commented/blamed on the 'anti-social cyclist jumping red lights'"? Someone getting injured by a bad cyclist isn't allowed to mention it on a thread discussing the changes to the rules which apply to the cyclists/pedestrians as well as motorists? You don't get to censor this discussion, report posts if you think they are inappropriate.

BikingBud

zagfles said:

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.

Including part time signals. Nothing worse than having signals that are scheduled for rush hour and everyone having to stop rather than just allowing the natural flow of the give way at roundabouts.

BikingBud

Regarding brake lights being on, Highway Code Rule 114:

• In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.

This behaviour stems from drivers being unaware how their vehicle operates. On many modern cars press the brake pedal firmly and the autohold brake comes on, this keeps the brake lights on even when they have removed the direct foot pressure. If you apply the parking brake the lights do go out but many don't see holding brake and parking brake as 2 separate systems or understand how they operate. Some examples:

VW
Ford

Another fault is thinking DLRs work all round, they are front only but as the DLR also illuminates the dash so as it gets dark they do not realise the rear lights are not on. Do away with DLR and just have auto lights.

Marvel1

I was going to turn left into a side road, a pedestrian waiting to cross, I stopped to give way, they weren't looking and just waved me on to go.