Tiger Crossing Picture

[Psamathe]

I always find the easiest way to issue people CC licenses is to upload the media to Wikimedia Commons - where you select the license you want to apply and it makes it available in a central repository. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You can do it without an account or if you have quite a few, easy/free to create an account and you can then use CC licences with attribution (i.e. any use of the work has to credit you) or without attribution or CC0 as you want.

Ian

[gaz]

A special thank you to geomannie and gaz who supposedly got out in the cold (well at least over here it's cold) and took their very clear pictures! Where not given yet, I would ask for a clear public domain / licence statement, ...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124990768 ... 455814412/, includes link to the CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 statement.

[gzll]

I always find the easiest way to issue people CC licenses is to upload the media to Wikimedia Commons - where you select the license you want to apply and it makes it available in a central repository. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You can do it without an account or if you have quite a few, easy/free to create an account and you can then use CC licences with attribution (i.e. any use of the work has to credit you) or without attribution or CC0 as you want.

I would have suggested that but I'm pretty sure you do need an account, and I didn't want to ask for that. How would you upload to Wikimedia Commons without an account?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124990768 ... 455814412/, includes link to the CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 statement.

Thank you, can't get any clearer than that!

[Psamathe]

I always find the easiest way to issue people CC licenses is to upload the media to Wikimedia Commons - where you select the license you want to apply and it makes it available in a central repository. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You can do it without an account or if you have quite a few, easy/free to create an account and you can then use CC licences with attribution (i.e. any use of the work has to credit you) or without attribution or CC0 as you want.

I would have suggested that but I'm pretty sure you do need an account, and I didn't want to ask for that. How would you upload to Wikimedia Commons without an account?
....

You are right. I always remain logged-in and had assumed incorrectly that because anonymous/not logged-in can edit that you could also upload. Sorry.

Ian

[wjhall]

Parallel crossings are a very doubtful concept. Fundamentally, like most cycle facilities, they treat cyclists like pedestrians. In this case this is potentially dangerous, because a pedestrian exercising their priority can easily step backwards if they misjudge the situation. A cyclist cannot, and this design may encourage cyclists to act as unwise pedestrians do and assume that because being first on the crossing gives legal priority it will always be safe. A prudent pedestrian can put a toe on the crossing to claim legal priority; this is less easy for a cyclist. Mostly zebras work because drivers have been taught to watch for pedestrians in the vicinity of the crossing, and it is true that most will also watch for cyclists acting like pedestrians, but the fact that these have been appearing on roads for at least two years without making their way into the highway code suggests that the DfT is having difficulty working out what to advise users to do. And possibly what to call them, the advantage of codes like 'Puffin' is that they are unambigously associated with a specific type, 'Parallel' may need converting to a code.

Bristol City Council have created an example at the Cairns Road-Kellaway Avenue crossing that is a world away from the original type example somewhere in London, which seems to lead to a cycle & foot only route across an urban road, from a carefully hidden pavement cycle path on a side road. The Cairns Road example is at a cross roads, where what cyclists really needed was just a counterflow for the short N-bound one way section. It diverts cyclists in both directions round a dog leg on the pavement, mixing with pedestrians and both directions of cyclists. Using the road N bound remains banned by the direction arrow. Kellaway is a fairly busy road.

The underlying effect is a half hearted modification of vehicle priorities, not marked in the conventional way, but vaguely with markings that have not been explained in the Highway Code. If the council really thinks that Cairns Way should have priority over Kellaway Avenue it should have put in the usual give way signs and markings, with any reinforcing features needed for giving the minor route priority over the major.

On the same quiet way they also have another one on Wellington Hill West where the cyclist as pedestrian principle is yet more fully developed with wiggle onto the pavement. Choosing to put this onto and existing zebra has diverted the quiet way onto a busier road into the back of Southmead Hospital than would be natural.




PHOTOS

Cairns Road - Parallel crossing at crossroads.

Wellington Hill West - the cyclist as pedestrian.

[SA_SA_SA]

I note the example in cycling embassy photo upthread has a give way sign for cyclists, presumably to avoid (mainland European? where the following meaning would be more likely?) cyclists thinking their route is the 'main' road with full time priority rather only gaining priority once they have entered into a clear crossing

[thirdcrank]

I note the example in cycling embassy photo upthread has a give way sign for cyclists, presumably to avoid (mainland European? where the following meaning would be more likely?) cyclists thinking their route is the 'main' road with full time priority rather only gaining priority once they have entered into a clear crossing

I don't understand the point you are making but the rules for zebra crossings changed with TSRGD 2016 to require drivers to give way to pedestrians and that applies to parallel crossings as well ie drivers must give way to cyclists on them.

22.—(1) The give-way line marking provided for at item 54 of the Part 2 sign table (and shown in the diagram at item 53) conveys to vehicular traffic proceeding along the carriageway towards a Parallel crossing—

(a) the position at or before which a vehicle must be stopped (“the stop position”), and
(b) a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position, if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... le/14/made

[SA_SA_SA]

My point is I think other countries a cycle route continuing across a road inside solid white lines might have priority over the road always ie cyclists may cycle across without slowing almost to stop in case of needibg to give way to priority traffic, in same way that vehicles on a main road, with priority over side roads , flow normally. A cyclist mistakenly doing that at a tiger crossing might get a unwelcome surprise, as like the pedestrian they are meant to enter crossing, only when a gap or traffic has stopped so free flowing road traffic with priority may hit as they enter the crossing .

I thought the give way sign for cyclists avoided that misdirection, similarly imo the original tiger crossing markings of simply wider (possibly yellow ) zebra style stripes did by saying this is a zebra but for cyclists too. The chosen uk layout could look like a cycle priority crossing beside a zebra so the 1st time one is encountered a misunderstanding is possible.

[thirdcrank]

AFAIK, the HC hasn't been amended to cover parallel crossings. The present rule for zebra crossings includes this:-

Rule 195

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
  
  you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
  ....
  ...
  be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

...
Law ZPPPCRGD reg 25

Presumably, that will be amended with appropriate references to cyclists and parallel crossings. One weakness of our legal system in this sort of situation is the search for loopholes; another the the absence of anything like enforcement until after a serious crash. This type of crossing has existed a while now so there must be some experience of how things work in practice.
=============================================================================
PS The HC advice to pedestrians will presumably be expanded to cover cyclists.

Rule 18

At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing (...)

Rule 19

Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... ns-1-to-35

[mjr]

A cyclist mistakenly doing that at a tiger crossing might get a unwelcome surprise, as like the pedestrian they are meant to enter crossing, only when a gap or traffic has stopped so free flowing road traffic with priority may hit as they enter the crossing .

I feel that is a misinterpretation of the regulations. People are advised to wait for traffic to stop but are not required to. Once you enter the crossing area (the toe on the crossing mentioned above, which is rarely needed in practice because most motorists aren't idiots), carriageway vehicles must give way. The regs are phrased as they are IMO to avoid sanctioning people running into the sides of carriageway vehicles.

As such, the broken line used for the cycle crossing is arguably correct, resembling a give way line for carriageway traffic. You can probably proceed but beware idiots who jump out.

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the situation for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings goes to the heart of what's wrong with our whole set-up. Zebra crossings are really a game of bluff, arguably made worse in recent years by the absence of much in the way of enforcement. I could imagine parallel crossings being more a form of Russian Roulette. Our legislators seem unable to produce a form of words which even tries to ensure the safety of pedestrians on pedestrian crossings. Incorporating crossing regs into TSRGD is probably a good thing, but the introduction of GIVE WAY lines seems to be an illusory benefit in that the person using the crossing must be in harm's way before the traffic is required to stop.

This is the wording for GIVE WAY lines at a junction and there's similar wording for GIVE WAY lines at road narrowing and for GIVE WAY signs. (See my post above for the zebra crossing wording)

Give way marking

7. The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by a road marking provided for at item 3 of the sign table in Part 6 of this Schedule are—

(a)except as provided in paragraphs (b) to (d), that no vehicle may proceed past the transverse line which is the nearer to the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident; (My emphasis.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ule/9/made

[mjr]

IMO, the situation for pedestrians at pedestrian crossings goes to the heart of what's wrong with our whole set-up. Zebra crossings are really a game of bluff, arguably made worse in recent years by the absence of much in the way of enforcement. I could imagine parallel crossings being more a form of Russian Roulette. Our legislators seem unable to produce a form of words which even tries to ensure the safety of pedestrians on pedestrian crossings.

Generally I agree, but I blame lack of enforcement more than regulations wording. The regulations already outlaw the worst offences. With image recognition and cheaper cameras, we could have zebra/parallel crossing cameras monitoring the worst ones, but no government dares introduce them, I think for fear of "war on motorists" headlines.

[wjhall]

The ur-crossing does indeed have give way signs on the cycle route, presumably for the footway, but an obvious source of confusion with give way to the road. The Cairns Road example does not, possible because doglegging the cycle route onto the pavement using the shared pavement sign makes this unnecessary, or because there is no set standard or procedure, nobody really knowing what these things are for.

Another oddity is the no entry for upper Cairns Road. This is done as normal with the white bar on red disc sign at the entrance, but they seem to have intended to use the white ahead only arrow on blue ground rather than a no left turn sign on the main road. If that is its purpose. This seems to be part of an increasing tendency to use the blue signs specifying what is permitted rather than the better understood red prohibition sign with exception plate. In this case the effect of the exception plate seems to be to permit contraflow up what is marked as the other side of the road.

When I photographed the ahead only sign was turned to the wall and google says it was replaced by a no right turn sign, which is probably correct, although the left turn is also banned but without advance warning for the latter, or repeat at the junction for the former. This probably reflects a change in the order at the consultation stage, adding a cycle exception to the banned right turn. The need to have this pointed out to them at consultation suggests a lack of thought.

Parallel crossing give way lines are the same as those for ordinary zebras, single dashed lines rather than the double dashed lines used for give way at ordinary junctions. The parallel crossing is thus a weaker version that resembles the information lines painted in roundabouts or cycle route crossings without priority.

The more I look at this junction, the more I see muddle and confusion.

[thirdcrank]

I would say that the HC has to be taken as a whole. Once people decide that "should" is optional the whole lot is undermined.

Then, while only the MUST and MUST NOT rules are enforced with specific sanctions, the civil courts (compo) seem to place a lot of emphasis on the SHOULD rules when considering contributory negligence. And in the unlikely event that the authorities ever get their acts together, a failure to follow the HC could form the basis of a prosecution for due care or dangerous.

IIRC, Somebody above commented on the possibility of a rider arriving at speed and emerging from a blind junction. I presume there is official guidance on the location of crossings of this type (and somebody may well have linked to it ?) A future thread on here may be started by a rider using a parallel crossing having a collision with a rider on the main drag, both confident of what the other "should of" done

[wjhall]

Bristol City Council also created one with the zebra lines right across the crossing, before the TSRGD was issued, which was still in that form a year ago.

At the other crossings it is not clear what the single dashed lines mean. Given that the Marsh Street cycle crossing is light controlled they are probably not give way lines. The new beaconless zebras crossing the cycle track do have double give way lines, which actually goes further than ordinary zebras, which only have single give way lines.