#51
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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? ;-) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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 - )) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Why do pedestrians
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do pedestrians always have the right of way? | Gus | Techniques | 8 | August 5th 13 05:06 AM |
More pedestrians complaining just because they think the pavement isfor pedestrians | Marie | UK | 25 | January 9th 12 01:33 AM |
Damn Pedestrians! | Sofa Slug | Recumbent Biking | 1 | March 20th 11 01:20 PM |
Pedestrians are fed up with motorists too | SW[_3_] | UK | 3 | November 29th 10 10:15 AM |
Pedestrians |
Badger South | General | 57 | October 9th 03 03:25 AM |