Boris keeps the important traffic flowing

Judith Smith wrote:
So you are saying that at that crossing if someone is crossing the
right hand side of the crossing ie they have not reached the central
island and your light is green that you must stop for the pedestrian
on the other side of the island.

Yes, that's what the Highway code says. The injunction to wait for
people to cross the road even for a double in-line crossing does not
have the force of explicit law (there's no "Must") but is stated
explicitly in the HC & is probably implied by the previous laws
referenced in the two preceeding rules regardless.

This would certainly explain the circumstances where the car was
estimated to be doing thirty mph.

I suspect some drivers stop, which give the children a false sense of
security because a minority of drivers are completely unaware (or
don't care) that they should be stopping and simply take the view that
because the light is green that they can drive through the crossing
with impunity.

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

On 14 May, 18:37, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Judith Smith wrote:

*I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with the
*crossing - more as I said the kid had not been taught to use it
*properly.

*I suggest he had not been told that if he was caught on the island he
*needed to press the button to change the lights again and he should
*not continue crossing once his "permission" light had gone out.

*Hardly the motorist's fault.
* - but hey - lets's give a motorist a bashing

The crossing goes straight across - it's a single crossing one side of
the road to the other, from kerb to kerb. *The Highway code is
explicit on that point.

"197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one
crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for
pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island."

The child was on the crossing when the amber light started flashing. *
The highway code is explicitly clear that the motorist MUST give way
to the pedestrian in that situation. *

"196 Signal-controlled crossings Pelican crossings. These are
signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red
'Stop' light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber
light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the
crossing."

Thing is - this is too complex for London drivers.

In London - Amber == Green

I have been here for a while and as far as I recall
in other parts of the country Amber != Green.

As the RAC Foundation has recently suggested
the fault here lies with the design of the crossing.
Drivers are simply too stupid to understand such
subtlety. (Well I know that they are not actually
stupid but their aggressive behaviour is ingistinguishable
from idiocy and so that is how we need to treat them.)

What clearly needs to be done is that
the Amber/Green ambiguity needs to be removed.
(Well there is no ambiguity for anyone who can read
but apparently that is expecting too much of road
vehicle operators.) This type of crossing needs
to be changed to remove the flashing amber
phase. Leave the lights at red until all possibility
of lingering pedestrians has been removed.

Job Done.

On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:46:32 +0100, Phil Armstrong
wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:
So you are saying that at that crossing if someone is crossing the
right hand side of the crossing ie they have not reached the central
island and your light is green that you must stop for the pedestrian
on the other side of the island.

Yes, that's what the Highway code says. The injunction to wait for
people to cross the road even for a double in-line crossing does not
have the force of explicit law (there's no "Must") but is stated
explicitly in the HC & is probably implied by the previous laws
referenced in the two preceeding rules regardless.


I wonder what the purpose of the push-buttons on the central island
is?

They are obviously not needed.





--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On May 14, 6:37*pm, Ian Smith wrote:

judith defends the motorist.

judith suggests that it is 'bashing' the motorist even to point out
that they are breaking the law.

But you do bash motorists. You dislike them. Your laughable website
makes that abundantly clear.

On May 14, 10:31*am, Keith T wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Squashme wrote:

[quoting someone else, I think]

*In each case, the cause has been the same: a child has started to
*cross, only to be marooned in the middle of the road when the green
*man has started to flash. Like all pelican crossings, it simply
*doesn't give you enough time, thanks to the Mayor's decision to reduce
*the length of time all traffic lights in London stay red in the hope
*of reducing congestion. Linford Christie might be able to make it but
*a child doesn't stand a chance."

I don't think you can entirely blame Boris - the pedestrian phase I
use most often is so short that at my normal walking pace (as an above
averagely fit and healthy adult) I get about 80% across the road on
the green man. *This is well outside Boris' sphere of control.

With my daughters accompanying me, I typically get to about the white
lines in the middle of the road.

regards, * Ian SMith

*From when the green man/woman/person of indeterminite gender is lit
you've got ten second before they start flashing. At this point you have
to be ready to slap the roof of cars or kick the doors to remind them
that you are still on the crossing.

Yep...motorists are so fundamentally selfish, reckless and unobservant
that otherwise they would run you over, either through not seeing you,
or deliberately. ******s, the lot of 'em (except me, because I'm more
entitled to drive than the hoi polloi).

(Not done this for a while but it was frequent when my girls were
younger. Not yet been thumped for it as my rant involves the idea of
them killing my child.

You sound like a joy to share the roads with. I'm sure you're not
sanctimonious towards others any more than is necessary.

Nearly shoved a cyclist off once as he just
missed me and one of my girls, I wouldn't have been too concerned if
he'd ended up in hospital as he was prepared to speed across while
people were in his way.)

I think you might be new here, in which case you should know that the
head moderator of URC, Guy Chapman, doesn't permit any criticism of
cyclists on this group. Cyclists are all perfect; motorists are all
scum. Since you didn't realise, you'll probably get away with it this
time, but don't let it become a habit.

"Phil Armstrong" wrote in message
...

I suspect some drivers stop, which give the children a false sense of
security because a minority of drivers are completely unaware (or
don't care) that they should be stopping and simply take the view that
because the light is green that they can drive through the crossing
with impunity.

This is something which concerns me. I regularly pass a secondary school
which is very busy. There are 1500 pupils, cycle lanes and parked cars on a
wide road and a Toucan crossing in a 30mph limit. There is also a newsagents
on the opposite side of the road. The children to-and-fro across the road
going from the shop to the school (and vice versa) and getting to school.
Some use the crossing, some don't, some wait for the lights, some don't,
some run across the road, some walk, some stand in the cycle lane waiting
for the traffic to stop or do the funky chicken on the kerbside. As a
responsible driver (and cyclist) I always give way to them if they are on
the road. Whether the lights are green or whether they are stuck in the
middle. Some drivers don't. Some drivers try to teach them a lesson for not
"crossing properly". I suspect a child will die soon. There are those of us
who drive with consideration, but as you say, giving that consideration
leads them to a false sense of security as some drivers just take their
right of way and will mow down anything in it.

On Thu, 14 May 2009, Phil Armstrong wrote:
Judith Smith wrote:
So you are saying that at that crossing if someone is crossing the
right hand side of the crossing ie they have not reached the central
island and your light is green that you must stop for the pedestrian
on the other side of the island.

Yes, that's what the Highway code says. The injunction to wait for
people to cross the road even for a double in-line crossing does not
have the force of explicit law (there's no "Must")

So, what does your rule 197 say?

Mine says:
"Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing,
even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who
are crossing from the other side of the island."

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 13 May, 21:59, Squashme wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/q9tu6c

Toby Young:-
"My five-year-old daughter's best friend was run over last week. It
happened on the pelican crossing on Uxbridge Road, opposite St
Stephen's Primary School in Shepherd's Bush.

Miguel waited until he saw a green man, crossed to the island in the
middle of the road, then carried on walking, not realising that the
green man had started flashing. He was hit by a Ford Focus travelling
at 30mph.

Luckily, he wasn't badly hurt, but it is only a matter of time before
a child is killed at this crossing. Miguel is the third child from St
Stephen's to be hit there this year.

In each case, the cause has been the same: a child has started to
cross, only to be marooned in the middle of the road when the green
man has started to flash. Like all pelican crossings, it simply
doesn't give you enough time, thanks to the Mayor's decision to reduce
the length of time all traffic lights in London stay red in the hope
of reducing congestion. Linford Christie might be able to make it but
a child doesn't stand a chance."

Third class citizens. Endanger and delay the peds so that the over-
privileged and important motorists (and the cyclists who do bother to
stop) don't get too frustrated.

It was acknowledged on TV yesterday that, "One in five pedestrian
crossings at junctions in London do not give people enough time to
cross the road, it has been revealed.

Figures obtained by London Assembly Lib Dems show 472 crossings do not
comply with the minimum timings guidelines..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8048961.stm

So your conclusions would seem to be correct.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Ian Smith wrote:
So, what does your rule 197 say?

Mine says:
"Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing,
even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who
are crossing from the other side of the island."

You're right: an error on my part. (I was focusing on rule 198 in
combination with the first part of 197, since the incident in question
happened when the lights had turned green, but the second part of rule
197 makes it quite clear that it doesn't matter: waiting is mandatory.)

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

In ,
Judith Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 09:57:10 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
Judith Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

Sounds to me like he had crossed to the island on one green light -
and then crossed the second carriageway - probably even on a red
(for him)

Which part of "marooned in the middle of the road when the green man
has started to flash" suggests that the children in question were
starting to cross on a red light?


That'll be the bit where it says :

"Miguel waited until he saw a green man, crossed to the island in the
middle of the road,"

You missed a bit:

"then carried on walking, not realising that the green man had started
flashing."

Please explain how a flashing green light is red.

and as you well know - if there is an island it will be most likely
two separate crossings.

Which this crossing isn't.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olives, chives!