Why do pedestrians

On 05.07.2016 07:28, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:00:00 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 04/07/2016 17:46, soup wrote:

On 04/07/2016 17:37, Simon Jester wrote:

Why do pedestrians thank drivers with a wave for stopping at zebra
crossings?

Probably for the same reasons as drivers thank each other with waves
when one stops as the other has right of way.

I frequently wave at cars that give me plenty room overtaking me,
cars that wait at side roads etc etc.
You may say they are just not 'breaking the law' but to me
politeness costs nothing and any situation where drivers do that extra
little bit of actually acknowledging you exist and treat you as other
traffic deserves my thanks/acknowledgment

It really IS amazing that some people are so consumed with bitterness
and spite that they simply cannot comprehend unforced politeness,
isn't it?

Actually, I can't remember ever seeing a cyclist wave.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" 1546 (John Heywood)

On 05/07/2016 14:11, Peter Keller wrote:
On 05.07.2016 20:41, MrCheerful wrote:
On 05/07/2016 08:52, Nick wrote:
On 04/07/2016 20:35, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 04-Jul-16 6:08 PM, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 5:46:49 PM UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 04/07/2016 17:37, Simon Jester wrote:

Why do pedestrians thank drivers with a wave for stopping at zebra
crossings?

Probably for the same reasons as drivers thank each other with waves
when one stops as the other has right of way.

I frequently wave at cars that give me plenty room overtaking me,
cars that wait at side roads etc etc.
You may say they are just not 'breaking the law' but to me
politeness costs nothing and any situation where drivers do that
extra
little bit of actually acknowledging you exist and treat you as other
traffic deserves my thanks/acknowledgment

By doing so you are implying the driver has done you a favour, that is
my point.

No he isn't.


Why do you thank people then? To my mind it does give the impression
that someone has done more than the minimum required by law.




By thanking/acknowledging the acts of others, you improve everyone's
day, and increase the chances of similar things happening on other
occasions, the cost is nil, which improves things even more.

Agreed.
I like to be visible and predictable, signal intentions well in time,
and wave thanks and smile when everyone understands each other and acts
appropriately.

Are you *sure* you're a cyclist? ;-)

On 05/07/2016 10:51, soup wrote:

On 04/07/2016 18:08, Simon Jester wrote:


By doing so you are implying the driver has done you a favour,

So that "cheers chief" as I get of the bus means the bus driver has
done me a favour ?

It may be a fault but I don't go through life only thanking people
who have really gone out of there way to help me.

My wave, or calling "cheers" or " ta for that" to dog walkers
who restrain their dogs is more an acknowledgement than thanks
but it does help mark me out as a human with family etc not just a
bicycle with some two legged thing on it.

Clearly, there are some posters here who firmly believe that everyday
contractual and transactional relationships must never be made more
pleasant and more agreeable by the use of common politeness.

"A pint of bitter, please" must be right out as far as Nick, Jester and
TMS320 are concerned, because it implies that the barman is being asked
to do something altruistic and extra-contractual.

"Thank you" or any of its variants must also be strenuously avoided
because of the claimed implication that the recipient of the said pint
had no right to it, even after having paid for it.

What a world they (imagine they) move in.

On 05/07/2016 14:08, Peter Keller wrote:

On 05.07.2016 04:46, soup wrote:
On 04/07/2016 17:37, Simon Jester wrote:

Why do pedestrians thank drivers with a wave for stopping at zebra
crossings?

Probably for the same reasons as drivers thank each other with waves
when one stops as the other has right of way.

I frequently wave at cars that give me plenty room overtaking me,
cars that wait at side roads etc etc.
You may say they are just not 'breaking the law' but to me
politeness costs nothing and any situation where drivers do that extra
little bit of actually acknowledging you exist and treat you as other
traffic deserves my thanks/acknowledgment

+1

+2

I am shocked to learn that some posters here operate on a "no politness"
basis.

But it may well explain a few things.

JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2016 14:11, Peter Keller wrote:

Agreed. I like to be visible and predictable, signal intentions well
in time, and wave thanks and smile when everyone understands each other
and acts appropriately.

Are you *sure* you're a cyclist? ;-)

Well, we're sure that _you_ are not one, so **** off to a cycling
newsgroup.

Anyone else: what this this poster's real name?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

etc

And you think a probability is ok to walk in front of?

If you want certainty nothing would move on the roads.

I get certainty when crossing. I cross when: No car could reach me.
The cars that could reach me are slowing down (so clearly the drivers
have decided to let me cross).

Slowing down heh? How do you know it's because of you, rather than for
something that you haven't seen? So you do work with probabilies.

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on. You
admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock. Did
you see the video of a driver crashing into van because the desire to
"inform" was more important than the need to slow down?

If I tried to get my every whim I would be dead. Whether on
foot, on a bicycle, in a car it is for exactly the same purpose
- a person travelling from one place to another. Someone in a
car merely introduces a physics issue. Some people seem to
think that if they are in a car then others have some sort of
moral obligation to keep out of the way.

They do. Just as a car should keep out of the way of a lorry.
The number of ****wit car drivers I see going round a small 2
lane roundabout at the same time as a lorry, then are surprised
when it needs both lanes.

That's purely a physics matter.

And so is a nimble lightweight pedestrian avoiding a large fast
heavy car that can't change direction at the drop of a hat.

Try canoeing in the path of a car ferry and see who gets told off
for being an idiot.

That is also a physics matter. It's not the moral one - the general
attitude of some lazy pedestrians that they shouldn't even have to
twitch a foot for a real one.

And queues are getting longer (generally) because people are
buying bigger cars. What right do they have complain about the
road space taken that they need to get for their extra metal?

Bigger cars don't make longer queues.

It's like boiling frogs - the effect real enough but it has been
developing sufficiently slowly that it is not immediately
noticeable.

The other day I was overtaken on my bicycle by an old Mini. It did
not have to cross the centre line.

It would if it gave you the ludicrous metre gap psycholists want.

Oh? Were you there?

The next vehicle had to. Now, consider when there is another car
approaching: two old cars and everybody's happy; two modern cars,
one has to wait, the driver gets upset and the cyclist gets the
blame. Just one example.

Now go on the motorway and watch the old mini slowing the faster cars
down.

That's usually the driver, not the car. Besides, performance has
nothing to do with size inflation.

Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

etc

And you think a probability is ok to walk in front of?

If you want certainty nothing would move on the roads.

I get certainty when crossing. I cross when: No car could reach me.
The cars that could reach me are slowing down (so clearly the drivers
have decided to let me cross).

Slowing down heh? How do you know it's because of you, rather than for
something that you haven't seen? So you do work with probabilies.

It doesn't matter, if the car is slowing enough to stop before the white lines, I can cross.

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on. You
admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences next time.

Did you see the video of a driver crashing into van because the desire to
"inform" was more important than the need to slow down?

When did I say it took priority?

If I tried to get my every whim I would be dead. Whether on
foot, on a bicycle, in a car it is for exactly the same purpose
- a person travelling from one place to another. Someone in a
car merely introduces a physics issue. Some people seem to
think that if they are in a car then others have some sort of
moral obligation to keep out of the way.

They do. Just as a car should keep out of the way of a lorry.
The number of ****wit car drivers I see going round a small 2
lane roundabout at the same time as a lorry, then are surprised
when it needs both lanes.

That's purely a physics matter.

And so is a nimble lightweight pedestrian avoiding a large fast
heavy car that can't change direction at the drop of a hat.

Try canoeing in the path of a car ferry and see who gets told off
for being an idiot.

That is also a physics matter.

And so are cars.

It's not the moral one - the general
attitude of some lazy pedestrians that they shouldn't even have to
twitch a foot for a real one.

Why should they waste time and fuel when the one on foot can wait 3 seconds?

And queues are getting longer (generally) because people are
buying bigger cars. What right do they have complain about the
road space taken that they need to get for their extra metal?

Bigger cars don't make longer queues.

It's like boiling frogs - the effect real enough but it has been
developing sufficiently slowly that it is not immediately
noticeable.

The other day I was overtaken on my bicycle by an old Mini. It did
not have to cross the centre line.

It would if it gave you the ludicrous metre gap psycholists want.

Oh? Were you there?

I know how big a mini is.

The next vehicle had to. Now, consider when there is another car
approaching: two old cars and everybody's happy; two modern cars,
one has to wait, the driver gets upset and the cyclist gets the
blame. Just one example.

Now go on the motorway and watch the old mini slowing the faster cars
down.

That's usually the driver, not the car. Besides, performance has
nothing to do with size inflation.

What is the maximum speed of an old mini? What is its 0-60 time? Compare and contrast with an average modern family hatchback.

Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

What on earth makes you think driver side corner damage is more likely?

--
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 05/07/2016 01:08, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 00:58:34 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 04/07/2016 21:28, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 21:12:32 +0100, Alycidon
wrote:

On Monday, 4 July 2016 20:30:15 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 19:44:09 +0100, Alycidon
wrote:

On Monday, 4 July 2016 18:31:20 UTC+1, Simon Jester
wrote:

The point is you are stood at a zebra crossing waiting
for
permission from a motorist to cross.
You have priority and should not be in fear for your
life for
exercising that priority.

Indeed - if I am at a zebra and a car is approaching, but
has
plenty of time to stop if I walk out, then I will simply
walk across there and then.

This saves time in the same way as when I drive on when
three cars
turn up at a mini roundabout - I make the other parties' mind
up for them which then negates any "after you" dithering.

If you did that in front of me you'd get hooted at. You
should at least wait to see if the car is slowing. One day
you're going to get run over.

Been doing it for 40 years now - not so much as a feeble parp
parp yet. Better for a driver than in out in out shake it all
about.

There's a very simple way to cross a zebra. You turn to face
across the road so drivers know you want to cross. You watch the
car approaching you [1], and when you see it slowing down for
you, you cross.

It is possible to plan for eventualities and adapt to situations as
they arise. It only takes two seconds to cross the footprint of a
car, after all. But people mind less if you get on with it and
don't stand there dithering.

Crossing in front of a car which wasn't going to stop either means
you have to run for your life, or the car has to stop more rapidly
than it should be doing and possibly lose control.

I have spatial awareness to look after myself. If you don't what on
earth are doing trying to be in charge of a car?

I've got to part [1] before, and the car made no attempt to
stop. Doing what you do could cause an accident.

Depends on whether they were within the zig zags as you started to
cross.

Like either of us would check something like that, instead of
concentrating on the more important thing of avoiding being in the
same place as someone else at the same time.

And I've never heard of zigzags meaning anything of the sort. You're
supposed to "stop if safe to do so" - that's not an emergency stop.
The only thing the zigzags mean is no parking, because apparently
pedestrians are too dumb to be able to look round a parked car.

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

--
Hey diddle diddle the cat took a piddle,
All over the bedside clock.
The little dog laughed to see such fun.
Then died of electric shock.

On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320
wrote:

etc

And you think a probability is ok to walk in front of?

If you want certainty nothing would move on the roads.

I get certainty when crossing. I cross when: No car could reach
me. The cars that could reach me are slowing down (so clearly the
drivers have decided to let me cross).

Slowing down heh? How do you know it's because of you, rather than
for something that you haven't seen? So you do work with
probabilies.

It doesn't matter, if the car is slowing enough to stop before the
white lines, I can cross.

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Did you see the video of a driver crashing into van because the
desire to "inform" was more important than the need to slow down?

When did I say it took priority?

If I tried to get my every whim I would be dead. Whether
on foot, on a bicycle, in a car it is for exactly the same
purpose - a person travelling from one place to another.
Someone in a car merely introduces a physics issue. Some
people seem to think that if they are in a car then others
have some sort of moral obligation to keep out of the way.

They do. Just as a car should keep out of the way of a
lorry. The number of ****wit car drivers I see going round a
small 2 lane roundabout at the same time as a lorry, then are
surprised when it needs both lanes.

That's purely a physics matter.

And so is a nimble lightweight pedestrian avoiding a large fast
heavy car that can't change direction at the drop of a hat.

Try canoeing in the path of a car ferry and see who gets told
off for being an idiot.

That is also a physics matter.

And so are cars.

It's not the moral one - the general attitude of some lazy
pedestrians that they shouldn't even have to twitch a foot for a
real one.

Why should they waste time and fuel when the one on foot can wait 3
seconds?

You appear to be saying that a person going by car has the more
important journey.

And queues are getting longer (generally) because people
are buying bigger cars. What right do they have complain
about the road space taken that they need to get for their
extra metal?

Bigger cars don't make longer queues.

It's like boiling frogs - the effect real enough but it has
been developing sufficiently slowly that it is not immediately
noticeable.

The other day I was overtaken on my bicycle by an old Mini. It
did not have to cross the centre line.

It would if it gave you the ludicrous metre gap psycholists
want.

Oh? Were you there?

I know how big a mini is.

The next vehicle had to. Now, consider when there is another
car approaching: two old cars and everybody's happy; two modern
cars, one has to wait, the driver gets upset and the cyclist
gets the blame. Just one example.

Now go on the motorway and watch the old mini slowing the faster
cars down.

That's usually the driver, not the car. Besides, performance has
nothing to do with size inflation.

What is the maximum speed of an old mini? What is its 0-60 time?

Compare and contrast with an average modern family hatchback.

So what? There is nothing to stop a car the size of an old Mini having
modern performance.



I once had a 425cc 2CV that would have had 16hp (making about 25hp/ton)

before the compression dropped. I got as much performance out of it as a

lot of people deploy.

Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

What on earth makes you think driver side corner damage is more
likely?

The extra width combined with extra front wheel overhang requires more
space to make a turn. Meanwhile, less space is available due to the size
of the approaching cars. Performance does not increase junction
capacity, whereas size certainly reduces it. I am surprised you can't
recognise this.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320
wrote:

etc

And you think a probability is ok to walk in front of?

If you want certainty nothing would move on the roads.

I get certainty when crossing. I cross when: No car could reach
me. The cars that could reach me are slowing down (so clearly the
drivers have decided to let me cross).

Slowing down heh? How do you know it's because of you, rather than
for something that you haven't seen? So you do work with
probabilies.

It doesn't matter, if the car is slowing enough to stop before the
white lines, I can cross.

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Not in my case. I often hoot at younger less experienced drivers who can't be bothered using the indicator.

Did you see the video of a driver crashing into van because the
desire to "inform" was more important than the need to slow down?

When did I say it took priority?

If I tried to get my every whim I would be dead. Whether
on foot, on a bicycle, in a car it is for exactly the same
purpose - a person travelling from one place to another.
Someone in a car merely introduces a physics issue. Some
people seem to think that if they are in a car then others
have some sort of moral obligation to keep out of the way.

They do. Just as a car should keep out of the way of a
lorry. The number of ****wit car drivers I see going round a
small 2 lane roundabout at the same time as a lorry, then are
surprised when it needs both lanes.

That's purely a physics matter.

And so is a nimble lightweight pedestrian avoiding a large fast
heavy car that can't change direction at the drop of a hat.

Try canoeing in the path of a car ferry and see who gets told
off for being an idiot.

That is also a physics matter.

And so are cars.

It's not the moral one - the general attitude of some lazy
pedestrians that they shouldn't even have to twitch a foot for a
real one.

Why should they waste time and fuel when the one on foot can wait 3
seconds?

You appear to be saying that a person going by car has the more
important journey.

No, just they're going faster. Why change the speed form 30 to 0 to 30 when you can change from 3 to 0 to 3?

And queues are getting longer (generally) because people
are buying bigger cars. What right do they have complain
about the road space taken that they need to get for their
extra metal?

Bigger cars don't make longer queues.

It's like boiling frogs - the effect real enough but it has
been developing sufficiently slowly that it is not immediately
noticeable.

The other day I was overtaken on my bicycle by an old Mini. It
did not have to cross the centre line.

It would if it gave you the ludicrous metre gap psycholists
want.

Oh? Were you there?

I know how big a mini is.

The next vehicle had to. Now, consider when there is another
car approaching: two old cars and everybody's happy; two modern
cars, one has to wait, the driver gets upset and the cyclist
gets the blame. Just one example.

Now go on the motorway and watch the old mini slowing the faster
cars down.

That's usually the driver, not the car. Besides, performance has
nothing to do with size inflation.

What is the maximum speed of an old mini? What is its 0-60 time?

Compare and contrast with an average modern family hatchback.

So what? There is nothing to stop a car the size of an old Mini having
modern performance.



I once had a 425cc 2CV that would have had 16hp (making about 25hp/ton)

before the compression dropped. I got as much performance out of it as a

lot of people deploy.

If you don't upgrade it, older cars are crap at accelerating and going fast. My first car was a Rover Maestro. It wouldn't go over about 90 on the flat.

Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

What on earth makes you think driver side corner damage is more
likely?

The extra width combined with extra front wheel overhang requires more
space to make a turn

But they tend to design them better as they're more expensive, so the wheels turn sharper allowing a smaller turning circle. Apparently rear wheel drive also gives you an even tighter turning circle.

Meanwhile, less space is available due to the size
of the approaching cars. Performance does not increase junction
capacity,

Of course it does. If everybody goes faster, more cars pass the junction per minute.

whereas size certainly reduces it. I am surprised you can't
recognise this.

Twice as fast and twice as big makes the junction capacity the same.

--
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same god who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them -- Galileo Galilei