Driving standards

[PhilJ W]

Not quite driving standards, but why have pedestrians taking to walking with the flow on roads where there isn't a pavement? Unless there's been a recent change to the Highway Code (which covers ALL road users)

 

And why do runners/joggers insist on using the road when there's a perfectly good pavement to use? Are they Darwin award entrants?

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

Agreed. I was always taught that you walked facing oncoming traffic, so that you could see the danger and react to it.

 

The other thing I have noticed around here are a breed of middle aged joggers who will jog in the road rather than on the pavement. Why? Are they trying to get run over?

Around here cyclists often ride on the pavements and footpaths. I was amused by one such cyclist, he'd been knocked off his bike by a car on a crossing and he was spouting and shouting about taking the driver of the car to the cleaners and making sure that they lost their licence. When it came up in court the defence only had to point out that it was a pedestrian crossing to get the claim thrown out.

[njee20]

Put yours toys back in the pram and read my original post.

It's people like you who give cyclists a bad name.

 

Mike.

Why? Because I'll make a judgement on whether to use a cycle path (thankfully as is my right) or not, and therefore you think I'm a wit who deserves to get run over? Charming.

 

I never cycle on footpaths or pavements. Nor do I jump red lights. I do cycle a lot, and I'm acutely aware that cyclepaths are, unfortunately, often atrocious and woefully unsuitable. However, attitudes like yours propagate an idea that roads are for cars and everyone else should get out of the way. Runners must run on pavements, cyclists must use cycle paths and if a texting car driver mows them down then what a stupid cyclist for being there in the first place...

Edited September 4, 2016 by njee20

[Guest]

When it came up in court the defence only had to point out that it was a pedestrian crossing to get the claim thrown out.

Citation?

You hit anything with a car on pedestrian crossing and you really haven't got a leg to stand on.

[PhilJ W]

Citation?

You hit anything with a car on pedestrian crossing and you really haven't got a leg to stand on.

The cyclist rode across the pedestrian crossing from the pedestrian footpath. He was deemed culpable as it was proved that he had failed to stop or even look. (And that was from the evidence of another cyclist coming the other way).

[Enterprisingwestern]

Why? Because I'll make a judgement on whether to use a cycle path (thankfully as is my right) or not, and therefore you think I'm a ######wit who deserves to get run over? Charming.

 

I never cycle on footpaths or pavements. Nor do I jump red lights. I do cycle a lot, and I'm acutely aware that cyclepaths are, unfortunately, often atrocious and woefully unsuitable. However, attitudes like yours propagate an idea that roads are for cars and everyone else should get out of the way. Runners must run on pavements, cyclists must use cycle paths and if a texting car driver mows them down then what a stupid cyclist for being there in the first place...

 

Then don't complain when the inevitable happens.

 

\Mike.

[njee20]

The inevitable being I'm killed for doing nothing whatsoeve wrong? What a lovely person you are. I hope you're wearing a flak jacket. Otherwise don't complain when you're stabbed in the street

 

Your attitude epitomises what's wrong with this country.

[jonny777]

I have never understood why, in an intelligent society, we can't pass a law which says that pavements can be used by cyclists unless there are signs to the contrary.

 

This cycle usage would be subject to the law which would give pedestrians the priority of right of way at all times.

 

Restrictions could be imposed in town centres/near rows of shops, but for the most part as long as cyclists gave way to pedestrians I think it could work. After all most adults are (or like others to believe they are) responsible human beings.

 

There might be a problem with groups of teenagers racing up and down on bikes vs old grannies with hearing difficulties, but if the law is firmly worded and the punishments for wilful transgression are relatively harsh, then it ought to work.

 

After all, I can drive around my area and see mile after mile of pavements which are not being used by anyone from one hour to the next; or even one day to the next.

[PatB]

Here in Australia, cyclists and pedestrians have shared the paths and pavements of Canberra since the year dot and, by and large, everyone rubs along pretty well.  There's certainly no particular carnage, even given occasional bouts of stupidity on both sides. Canberra has now provided sufficient lived experience of such an arrangement that it's just been adopted by Western Australia (and, for all I know, other states) and, again, seems to be working OK.

[kevinlms]

Here in Australia, cyclists and pedestrians have shared the paths and pavements of Canberra since the year dot and, by and large, everyone rubs along pretty well.  There's certainly no particular carnage, even given occasional bouts of stupidity on both sides. Canberra has now provided sufficient lived experience of such an arrangement that it's just been adopted by Western Australia (and, for all I know, other states) and, again, seems to be working OK.

But the only excitement in Canberra, is when the bells ring for a call back for MP's to vote. What they also need for that to work, is an extension bell at Canberra Airport!

[ScRSG]

I'm sure it has been said before, but when are drivers going to indicate BEFORE the brake lights go on! Happened to me three times in one journey today.

[PatB]

I'm sure it has been said before, but when are drivers going to indicate BEFORE the brake lights go on! Happened to me three times in one journey today.

 

Manouvre, signal, mirror .

[njee20]

I have never understood why, in an intelligent society, we can't pass a law which says that pavements can be used by cyclists unless there are signs to the contrary.

 

This cycle usage would be subject to the law which would give pedestrians the priority of right of way at all times.

 

Restrictions could be imposed in town centres/near rows of shops, but for the most part as long as cyclists gave way to pedestrians I think it could work. After all most adults are (or like others to believe they are) responsible human beings.

 

There might be a problem with groups of teenagers racing up and down on bikes vs old grannies with hearing difficulties, but if the law is firmly worded and the punishments for wilful transgression are relatively harsh, then it ought to work.

There are all sorts of issues with that sadly, and what problem does it really solve? Cyclists getting killed? That is the same as mandating bullet proof vests to reduce gun crime, and again, it just reinforces that roads are for motor vehicles. Should horses use the pavements too? They're more of an inconvenience after all. What about motorbikes? They're more vulnerable, and if it's about saving lives...

 

Why would people cycle if they're forced to give way to pedestrians? What about all the side roads they'd no longer have right of way at? Driveways? Should cyclists not travel at more than 5mph to avoid collisions? Is there a speed limit? Can people do 30 mph on the pavement? How do you enforce that? How do cyclists know how fast they're going? In your example is it the default that the teenagers are wrong if in collision with a deaf granny, regardless of the outcome?

 

Better education for drivers and enforcement of existing laws and harsher penalties for those who kill people would be vastly better than allowing/encouraging cycling on pavements. I genuinely think there should be a compulsory cycling part of the driving test.

Edited September 4, 2016 by njee20

[newbryford]

Better education for drivers and enforcement of existing laws and harsher penalties for those who kill people would be vastly better than allowing/encouraging cycling on pavements. I genuinely think there should be a compulsory cycling part of the driving test.

 

I think you should pass tests in order.

 

Walk, cycle, moped, motor bike, car.  A bit like the Darwin theory of evolution. It'll see a few off along the way...........

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited September 4, 2016 by newbryford

[njee20]

Seems reasonable! I'm pretty certain plenty of people never actually passed a driving test, so not sure it'll help.

 

As an aside... Even if you do mandate cycle paths you're still not safe: clicky.

[PatB]

There are all sorts of issues with that sadly, and what problem does it really solve? Cyclists getting killed? That is the same as mandating bullet proof vests to reduce gun crime, and again, it just reinforces that roads are for motor vehicles. Should horses use the pavements too? They're more of an inconvenience after all. What about motorbikes? They're more vulnerable, and if it's about saving lives...

 

Why would people cycle if they're forced to give way to pedestrians? What about all the side roads they'd no longer have right of way at? Driveways? Should cyclists not travel at more than 5mph to avoid collisions? Is there a speed limit? Can people do 30 mph on the pavement? How do you enforce that? How do cyclists know how fast they're going? In your example is it the default that the teenagers are wrong if in collision with a deaf granny, regardless of the outcome?

 

 

 

None of those problems seem to be manifesting themselves here.to any discernible extent. Admittedly the workability of the whole thing hinges on people not being d#*ks but, by and large, they seem not to be. 

[jonny777]

There are all sorts of issues with that sadly, and what problem does it really solve? Cyclists getting killed? That is the same as mandating bullet proof vests to reduce gun crime, and again, it just reinforces that roads are for motor vehicles. Should horses use the pavements too? They're more of an inconvenience after all. What about motorbikes? They're more vulnerable, and if it's about saving lives...

 

Why would people cycle if they're forced to give way to pedestrians? What about all the side roads they'd no longer have right of way at? Driveways? Should cyclists not travel at more than 5mph to avoid collisions? Is there a speed limit? Can people do 30 mph on the pavement? How do you enforce that? How do cyclists know how fast they're going? In your example is it the default that the teenagers are wrong if in collision with a deaf granny, regardless of the outcome?

 

Better education for drivers and enforcement of existing laws and harsher penalties for those who kill people would be vastly better than allowing/encouraging cycling on pavements. I genuinely think there should be a compulsory cycling part of the driving test.

 

 

I wasn't putting forward my proposal in order to solve a problem, nor to save lives; but if those are by-products of the introduction then all well and good.

 

I just see pavements, especially in less urbanised areas, as a large resource that is readily available; and the pavements are constructed and maintained at great expense by local councils only for hardly anyone to use them for much of the time.

 

I don't see why not having priority over pedestrians would stop folk from cycling; after all I have been on numerous bridleways and many canal towpaths where cyclists and walkers manage to co-exist, and add horses to that mix as well in the case of bridleways, and there are no speed limits. People just use common sense.   I don't remember mentioning anything about removing the cyclists' freedom to ride on side roads. This is not about curtailing cycle freedom, but merely adding pseudo cycle paths across the country at little or no extra cost as an alternative.

 

The motorbike would not be included in my pavement scenario because motorbikes are more than capable of matching the speeds of other road vehicles, and to my mind should be treated with exactly the same respect as any other road vehicle.

 

If the pavement law was such that pedestrians have the right of way, then with a collision between a deaf granny and a person on a bike, the bike rider would be deemed by law to be at fault.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Had to go to Oxford and back yesterday. Large numbers of "Sunday drivers" about causing unnecessary chaos and delay.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Had to go to Oxford and back yesterday. Large numbers of "Sunday drivers" about causing unnecessary chaos and delay.

 

Probably because it was a Sunday.

 

Mike.

[Rugd1022]

Had to go to Oxford and back yesterday. Large numbers of "Sunday drivers" about causing unnecessary chaos and delay.

 

I think I must have passed several of them on the M6 this morning on the way back from Washwood Death, all pootling along in the middle and outside lanes at circa 55mph, oblivious to all and sundry around them. My oppo Big Rodge was driving and I was in the passenger seat so I was able to observe them at close quarters, all of them looked too old to walk never mind drive, all of them had trouble seeing over the top of their steering wheels and had their seats in the full forward position so they were practically leaning on the steering wheels!

 

NB : this is not an ageist post, purely an observational one!

[njee20]

The motorbike would not be included in my pavement scenario because motorbikes are more than capable of matching the speeds of other road vehicles, and to my mind should be treated with exactly the same respect as any other road vehicle.

 

Whilst cyclists don't?

I'm not trying to be facetious, the trouble is that if you legalise/encourage riding on pavements it just gives the knuckle-dragging anti-bike motoring contingent more ammunition to suggest cyclists have no place on the roads. By suggesting that cyclists can ride on the pavements as long as they give way to pedestrians or be found legally culpable in the event of a collision it's hardly doing anything to refute that. We're already seeing on this thread people saying "cyclists who don't use cycle paths deserve to die", and this is ostensibly a thread complain about driving standards; you'd assume it was self-selecting in weeding out those with the lack of mental capacity to understand the highway code.

 

There should be a focus on sharing and potentially improving existing infrastructure - people on bikes (commuters at least) are generally reducing congestion, so it's an odd psychology that a certain subset of motorists complain about them so much. Do they think they'd be held up less if everyone drove cars instead?

[royaloak]

Citation?

You hit anything with a car on pedestrian crossing and you really haven't got a leg to stand on.

Very very wrong, look at the 'rules' of using a pedestrian crossing, the first thing you have to do is stop and ensure it is safe to cross, you dont have carte blanche to just walk straight across, not that it prevents people doing exactly that!

[Calnefoxile]

My turn to have a bit of a whinge about Driving Standards.....

 

On Saturday I got called out to a job in the centre of Cardiff, now as most of you know it was hoofing it down in the South West for most of the day, so why 'o' why didn't most people have their flaming lights on!!!!

 

I lost count of the number of dark coloured cars that were hurtling along the outside lane of the M4 without any lights on, and not all of them were BMW's or Audi's either. I drive a Vauxhall Insignia that has daytime running lights and headlights that come on via a light sensor, but even I knew that I needed to actually turn my headlights on because it was raining. Oh and by the way, if your daytime running lights are on, it doesn't necessarily also mean your rear lights are on as well. My previous car was a VW Golf which had Daytime Running Lights which also included the rear lights, but the Vauxhall doesn't, so please people CHECK TO SEE WHAT LIGHTS COME ON WITH YOUR DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS. 

 

On a different tack with reference to Cyclist theme running through this thread, has anyone seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37277374 it seems that Plod have got the woman involved in the Jeremy Vine incident.

 

Cheers

 

Neal.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Calnefoxile

[Horsetan]

....Can people do 30 mph on the pavement? How do you enforce that? ....

 

Well, I suppose you could soup-up one of those mobility scooters.....

[Guest]

Very very wrong, look at the 'rules' of using a pedestrian crossing, the first thing you have to do is stop and ensure it is safe to cross, you dont have carte blanche to just walk straight across, not that it prevents people doing exactly that!

 

Scroll back to the post I was quoting which implied hitting a bicycle was fine because it was a pedestrian crossing.

 

In any case when driving up to a crossing you should be eyeballing what's waiting to cross so you shouldn't be taken by surprise.

[Guest]

Well, I suppose you could soup-up one of those mobility scooters.....

 

Just get a Chinese one. They can do 60.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/29/elderly-chinese-jumping-red-lights-and-driving-wrong-way-down-ro/