Cycling UK Forum

It seems that the Department for (Motorised?) Transport is blocking progress on active travel according to this article in the Guardian.

Crossing side road junctions in the UK is stressful. There is an assumption that turning traffic will not give way and will rarely indicate, so people must either grit their teeth and accept whatever fate brings them or move away from their desired line to a distance where they feel they could react quickly enough to avoid an approaching car. This issue is exacerbated for those with disabilities and those with small children,

Perhaps it's time that the law requiring beacons and zigzags was reconsidered, didn't our government recently acknowledge that there is a climate emergency, a widespread air pollution problem, as well as a serious problem with inactivity and obesity?

Wanlock Dod wrote:Perhaps it's time that the law requiring beacons and zigzags was reconsidered, didn't our government recently acknowledge that there is a climate emergency, a widespread air pollution problem, as well as a serious problem with inactivity and obesity?

Won't making cars stop make that worse...

I don't see the problem, don't see the need for beacons and given how few drivers know about rule 170 painting a zebra should clear it up for them.

Perhaps some public information films too, I think they used to work quite well.

Chris Boardman who is campaigning on this issue is an absolute hero.

Conventional zebra crossings cost a fortune because they need power for the beacons. Boardman is proposing a crossing with just paint but no beacons costing £300. This would mean that cyclists can proceed alongside a main route Greenway with the same priority as the motor vehicles alongside. These zebra crossings would force the motorist to give-way turning at side roads.

These crossings without beacons are so safe and wonderful that they use them at Cranebridge main Addenbrookes hospital so they must be good.

This would be the very same Chris Boardman who was railing against substandard infrastructure only last week:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners
Now he is arguing to do pedestrian crossings on the cheap.

What is really needed in this case are continuous footways:
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-walk-in-walton.html

I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

Even when the moturds cede priority they do not stop, they crawl forward, miss one by a whisker

Spinners wrote:I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

In an interview on P.M. he cited rule 170 of the H.C., hardly his law. I think it also applies to vehicles turning right.

Mike Sales wrote:

Spinners wrote:I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

In an interview on P.M. he cited rule 170 of the H.C., hardly his law. I think it also applies to vehicles turning right.

Please show me where I have mentioned Rule 170 of the Highway Code.

Spinners wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

Spinners wrote:I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

In an interview on P.M. he cited rule 170 of the H.C., hardly his law. I think it also applies to vehicles turning right.

Please show me where I have mentioned Rule 170 of the Highway Code.

I can't, which is unsurprising because I never suggested you did.
Please read my post more closely.

Mike Sales wrote:

Spinners wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:
In an interview on P.M. he cited rule 170 of the H.C., hardly his law. I think it also applies to vehicles turning right.

Please show me where I have mentioned Rule 170 of the Highway Code.

I can't, which is unsurprising because I never suggested you did.
Please read my post more closely.

Then why quote my original post?

Spinners wrote:
Then why quote my original post?

We are at cross purposes.
In you post you called the give way on turning rule, Boardman's Law. I wanted to make clear that it is a H.C. rule, not a law in any sense Boardman's, except I suppose that he references it, and wants to see it better observed.

The line of yours which occasioned my post is this, to make my point as explicit as possible.

I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

You seem to have taken offence, but I meant none.

Mike Sales wrote:

Spinners wrote:
Then why quote my original post?

We are at cross purposes.
In you post you called the give way on turning rule, Boardman's Law. I wanted to make clear that it is a H.C. rule, not a law in any sense Boardman's, except I suppose that he references it, and wants to see it better observed.

The line of yours which occasioned my post is this, to make my point as explicit as possible.

I think it's more a case of the £300 crossing allied to his 'give way' law (all vehicles must give way to pedestrians and cyclists when turning left).

You seem to have taken offence, but I meant none.

Sorry Mike - let's rewind. I'm at fault for using the words 'proposed amendment' or 'proposed clarification' or similar.

Spinners wrote:Sorry Mike - let's rewind. I'm at fault for using the words 'proposed amendment' or 'proposed clarification' or similar.

No problem.

As a pedestrian, I think zebras on junctions are a good idea. As a cyclist, I'd be concerned about the sort of paint used -large white stripes of slippery paint on a wet day isn't good for cyclists cornering.

Pete Owens wrote:This would be the very same Chris Boardman who was railing against substandard infrastructure only last week:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners
Now he is arguing to do pedestrian crossings on the cheap.

What is really needed in this case are continuous footways:
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-walk-in-walton.html

Is there actually anything substandard about zebra crossings in the rest of Europe? If there is I have certainly never noticed it myself, the main difference seems to be that they are often rather more abundant thus making walking a bit more convenient. How much would a continuous footway cost per junction? It seems to me that they are trying to improve things as much as possible with a tiny amount of money compared to what is being spent on infrastructure for cars. Improving conditions for active travel would seem to be a much better use of scarce resources to me given that if successful it will lower the costs of healthcare rather than increase them.