Boris keeps the important traffic flowing

On 15 May 2009 06:07:54 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

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


You have said before - you need to apply common sense - the wording
of the HC is not perfect - the only time you have to wait for a
pedestrian on the crossing is when the lights are red or amber. That
is one of the main purposes of this type of crossing. It is clear to
all when they have the right of way - and more importantly what you
can expect the other road users to do.

Does it say anywhere that you MUST wait for pedestrians who are
crossing the road from one side of the road to the other? No - because
the implication (and the law) is that the lights must be red or
amber.

I see you have chosen not to answer the scenario I posted earlier -
any chance of doing so?

Here is another if that was too difficult.

You approach a Pelican - perhaps even two lanes in each direction - no
central island - the light for you is green - there is someone stood
*on* the crossing on the other side of the road.

Do you have to stop - and hence stop all the traffic behind you so
that that person can cross?

What if there is an island in the middle of the road - does that
change the situation?

Is that a "yes" I hear?











--

"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."

Nuxx Bar wrote:
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).


If I'm on a crossing I won't have judged it carefully it so I can be
offended at the behaviour of drivers and others. I don't play that game.
I've seen all the road safety stuff from Darth Vader to hedgehogs, not
only that I give them plenty of time to stop without activating thier
airbags.

(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.

Surpisingly enough, I'm a bit too generous usually - according to other
drivers and cyclists - I realise I share the roads (and pavements) with
others and know that it is often better to wait than forge ahead
regardless. Over 25 years of cycle commuting in London hasn't left me
bitter and twisted. I even find it relaxing at times. Bus drivers and
black cab drivers (for the pedants, that's the vehicle, not the
licensee) often recognise that the cyclist is actually letting them out
or had dropped back a bit to give them room. This is frequently paid
back 50 metres further up the road where they make a bit of space for
me, usually the slight reduction in speed that allows me to get past
instead of firmly plugging a gap.
I've always approached cycling with a recognition of how the other road
users are likely to behave - as a driver and pedestrian myself, I've had
a bit of practice. I don't see others as adversaries but as part of the
traffic, we're all road users, same Highway Code.


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.

The cyclist in me is glad it doesn't need any training or test or
license to ride and that my bike doesn't need an MOT test, the driver in
me wonders if some of these cyclists should be ever in charge of any
vehicle and wouldn't a bit of mandatory awareness training be useful.Oh
********, I believe in equality, I also believe in calling a stupid ****
a stupid ****, it's one of the drawbacks of equality that's missed.
I could help out by ranting about cars with fish on the back of them as
thier safe conduct appears to be through divine intervention while
racking up a body-count around them. I won't help by recounting watching
a cyclist trying to pedal with almost flat tyres - wobble all over the
road, then brake -- wobble all over the road. Same cyclist got to
traffic lights, sat well over the white line (placed vack as then local
buses need to turn the corner) and promptly fell off the bike when the
lights turned green as one of the flip-flops had slipped off the pedal.
The drivers behind were apitient and waited for the cyclist to remount,
no beeping or revving of engines. Should the cyclist have fallen off and
got thier head squashed (I've seen it, it's not nice) it would most
likely have been the fault of the drivers.

New to this list, not new to ng's.
Cyclists are people, cyclists are part of the traffic.
We may have been on tarmac first but it's a priviledged position - no
license, no insurance, no road tax, no MOT. If cyclists can't learn to
interact with the rest of humanity then they get picked off one at a
time, ask Dawkins.


And yes, I have been knocked off my bike a few times.
And no, no points on my license.
And 38 minutes North London to Waterloo, rush hour, obeying all the
Highway Code and not ****ing others off.



--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:48:06 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

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.


Feel free to answer either of the two scenarios I have painted
elsewhere in the thread.


--

"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."

In ,
Judith Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 10:48:06 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

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.


Feel free to answer either of the two scenarios I have painted
elsewhere in the thread.

Feel free to explain how your scenarios have anything to do with the one
described in the original post.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:29:38 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Phil Armstrong considered Fri, 15 May 2009
10:19:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:

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

AAUI, they hadn't even gone green - they were flashing amber for the
roadway and flashing green for the peds.

You have made this up.


Not that it makes any practical difference of course - once someone
has started to cross on green, they have priority over road traffic
until they reach the opposite footway, irrespective of what the lights
may or may not do.


Rubbish

Pedestrians at Pelican crossings only have priority to cross whilst
their signal is on steady green but do have ‘right of precedence’ to
complete their crossing during the flashing green (flashing amber to
vehicles) stage.

They have no priority or right of precedence once the light has gone
to green for the traffic.

That is why there are buttons on the central islands; if a pedestrian
cannot complete the crossing in the allowed time and only gets as
far as the island - then they cannot continue if the light has gone
to green for the traffic.

They must press the button and wait for a new sequence.


--

"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 Fri, 15 May 2009 12:56:32 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

snip


Feel free to answer either of the two scenarios I have painted
elsewhere in the thread.

Feel free to explain how your scenarios have anything to do with the one
described in the original post.


They are further examples of showing how ridiculous your understanding
of the use of the Pelican is.

However - I did think they would be too difficult for you - so fair
enough.

There is absolutely no way that you can expect a motorist approaching
the lights at green to have to stop mandatorily - whilst the lights
are at green.

If the light is green for the motorist then they have priority and
precedence - it is as simple as that.











--

"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 Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:33 +0100, Judith Smith yet again seized the
opportunity to be wrong with both hands and wrote:



If the light is green for the motorist then they have priority and
precedence - it is as simple as that.


Significance of vehicular light signals at Pelican crossings
12. - (1) The significance of the vehicular light signals
prescribed by regulation 5(2)(a) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 for the
purpose of indicating a Pelican crossing shall be as follows -

(a) the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may
proceed beyond the stop line and across the crossing;

......

(2) Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other road
users...

"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
...
Mad as a Badger considered Fri, 15 May 2009
21:35:35 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:33 +0100, Judith Smith yet again seized the
opportunity to be wrong with both hands and wrote:



If the light is green for the motorist then they have priority and
precedence - it is as simple as that.


Significance of vehicular light signals at Pelican crossings
12. - (1) The significance of the vehicular light signals
prescribed by regulation 5(2)(a) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 for the
purpose of indicating a Pelican crossing shall be as follows -

(a) the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may
proceed beyond the stop line and across the crossing;

.....

(2) Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other road
users...

Or to put it in simple terms:
Red = STOP
Amber = STOP
Red/Amber = STOP
Falshing Amber = Give Way
Green = Give Way.

There is no light which means GO.

Indeed, I remember being taught when I did my cycling proficiency that Green
means "proceed if it is clear to do so". Our instructor was quite adamant on
this point and had some difficulty convincing a class of 9 year olds the
Green *did not* mean Go.

Though looking at the way some people drive, they really do think green
means go. Perhaps they have the mentality of unconvinced 9 year olds...

On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:51:24 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Mad as a Badger considered Fri, 15 May 2009
21:35:35 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:33 +0100, Judith Smith yet again seized the
opportunity to be wrong with both hands and wrote:



If the light is green for the motorist then they have priority and
precedence - it is as simple as that.


Significance of vehicular light signals at Pelican crossings
12. - (1) The significance of the vehicular light signals
prescribed by regulation 5(2)(a) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 for the
purpose of indicating a Pelican crossing shall be as follows -

(a) the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may
proceed beyond the stop line and across the crossing;

.....

(2) Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other road
users...

Or to put it in simple terms:
Red = STOP
Amber = STOP
Red/Amber = STOP
Falshing Amber = Give Way
Green = Give Way.

There is no light which means GO.

Ah - so you are saying that there is no difference between Flashing
Amber and Green.

Green means that you may GO across the crossing - eg if someone
chooses to suddenly run out across the crossing it will be their fault
- not yours.

(There is also the matter of priority and precedence - but that will
be too hard for you to comprehend.)


--

"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 Fri, 15 May 2009 21:35:35 +0000 (UTC), Mad as a Badger
wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:33 +0100, Judith Smith yet again seized the
opportunity to be wrong with both hands and wrote:



If the light is green for the motorist then they have priority and
precedence - it is as simple as that.


Significance of vehicular light signals at Pelican crossings
12. - (1) The significance of the vehicular light signals
prescribed by regulation 5(2)(a) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 for the
purpose of indicating a Pelican crossing shall be as follows -

(a) the green signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may
proceed beyond the stop line and across the crossing;

.....

(2) Vehicular traffic proceeding beyond a stop line in accordance with
paragraph (1) shall proceed with due regard to the safety of other road
users...


Precisely - the vehicle has priority and precedence.

If someone chooses to cross a crossing when the green light is showing
to the traffic and they get hit by a cyclist or car going at twenty
miles per hour - whose fault will the accident be?


--

"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."