Bedford turbo roundabout - it is done

[thirdcrank]

Pete Owens

Even as a once high-mileage cyclist, now limited by angina, I'd always class myself as a pedestrian above all. FWIW, I find the Jeremey Clarkson comparison unfair.

My comments about zebra crossings are based partly on my experience of how the system promotes survivors' justice: AFAIK, the stats suggest that the part of the carriageway on either side of pedestrian crossings of all types is particularly dangerous for pedestrians, whereas I've always strongly believed that in the absence of proof to the criminal standard that a pedestrian casualty was on the crossing, the driver's version has often prevailed.

My general drift was intended to be that the way provision for pedestrians is planned - much like provision for cyclists - is intended only to control and restrict their movement in order to maximise the convenience of drivers and the traffic capacity of the network. There's no inevitable reason why pelicans and the like are set to delay pedestrians.

I'd agree entirely that we should not be campaigning for anything at the expense of pedestrians and I've never intentionally suggested that we should do so. I do believe, however, that if cyclists are to be treated as honorary pedestrians, then assuming that cyclists, especially inexperienced cyclists, will be safe crossing roads alongside zebras is mistaken, especially if they are only protected by a GIVE WAY line. Somebody has posted - and until now I thought it was you - along the lines that it was unsafe for a cycle route to cross a normal road protected only by GIVE WAY signs because drivers do not obey them. I can't see how doing it next to a zebra will make any difference. I suspect this arrangement will be rare, even if the change is introduced, because highwaymen will resist doing it, and that rarity with the consequent unfamiliarity on the part of drivers will tend to make compliance even less less likely.
===========================================================================
PS The post review facility has offered me your reply to SA_SA_SA.

I can only assume your barrack room lawyer jibe refers to me. I always try to go to some lengths to explain I am not a lawyer of any sort, but I do have some practical experience. Again, I think you are being unfair.

[Pete Owens]

Pete Owens

Even as a once high-mileage cyclist, now limited by angina, I'd always class myself as a pedestrian above all. FWIW, I find the Jeremey Clarkson comparison unfair.

Well in a debate has been entirely by cyclists in terms of the convenience to cyclists of using these crossings - for someone to suddenly attempt to claim that these are not the favoured arrangement for pedestrians when pedestrian campaigners are well known to take the opposite view is not really that credible. I can say with certainty that pedestrians would prefer to have exclusive use of the pavement and crossings, so it is a serious imposition on the to expect them to share with cyclists at all. To argue that not only do they need to tolerate the presense of cyclists in their space, but also the convenience of their crossings should be downgraded to suit cyclists needs is pushing it a bit.

My comments about zebra crossings are based partly on my experience of how the system promotes survivors' justice: AFAIK, the stats suggest that the part of the carriageway on either side of pedestrian crossings of all types is particularly dangerous for pedestrians,

This is a particular problem with signalised pedestrian cossings rather than zebras (unsurpisingly since drivers attention is focussed on the lights rather than pedestrians - and pedestrians approaching a crossing and seeing the signal change will tend to cross straight away rather than walk to the crossing and wait another 5 minutes). When the highwaymen noticed the poor safety record of pelican crossings they also noticed that it often slightly away from the crossings - which is why you see all the cattle pens to force pedestrians to cross only at the time and place to suit the motons.

whereas I've always strongly believed that in the absence of proof to the criminal standard that a pedestrian casualty was on the crossing, the driver's version has often prevailed.

Well if they werent on the crossing then presumably the driver would be claiming that they mowed them down on the pavement.

But this is exacly the sort of legalistic nitpicking that detracts from the main issue - which is that in practical terms zebra crossings perform better both in terms of safety and convenience to pedestrians than other forms of crossing. The important thing is that pedestrans can cross safely and without delay - not that blame can be attributed after the event.

My general drift was intended to be that the way provision for pedestrians is planned - much like provision for cyclists - is intended only to control and restrict their movement in order to maximise the convenience of drivers and the traffic capacity of the network. There's no inevitable reason why pelicans and the like are set to delay pedestrians.

And the systematic removal of zebra crossings which permanently accord priority to pedestrians in favour of signal controlled crossings is very much part of that pattern.

I'd agree entirely that we should not be campaigning for anything at the expense of pedestrians and I've never intentionally suggested that we should do so. I do believe, however, that if cyclists are to be treated as honorary pedestrians, then assuming that cyclists, especially inexperienced cyclists, will be safe crossing roads alongside zebras is mistaken, especially if they are only protected by a GIVE WAY line.

Indeed - it would be better for the cyclists to use a wider pedestrian crossing following the same rules as pedestrians (ie to stop at the crossing whee drivers wil be looking)

Somebody has posted - and until now I thought it was you - along the lines that it was unsafe for a cycle route to cross a normal road protected only by GIVE WAY signs because drivers do not obey them.

Indeed so - It is not so much a matter of not obeying as the arrangement makes it very difficult for cyclists and drivers to see each other. If you give priority to drivers then it is difficult for cyclists to notice that a car coming from behind them is about to turn across their path. If you reverse the priorities you make it difficult for drivers to spot a cyclist coming from behind them and about to cross their path. Priority is usually accorded tro drivers on the grounds that the more vulnerable road user is likely to take greater care.

I can't see how doing it next to a zebra will make any difference. I suspect this arrangement will be rare, even if the change is introduced, because highwaymen will resist doing it, and that rarity with the consequent unfamiliarity on the part of drivers will tend to make compliance even less less likely.

Putting two crossings that operate to different rules immediately parallel to each other would be completely daft.

===========================================================================
PS The post review facility has offered me your reply to SA_SA_SA.

I can only assume your barrack room lawyer jibe refers to me. I always try to go to some lengths to explain I am not a lawyer of any sort, but I do have some practical experience. Again, I think you are being unfair.

Absolutely - you initial criticism of zebras was very much in terms of an over precise interpretation of the law rather than how zebra crossings work in practice. If you take the highway code over-literally then drivers only need to stop for pedestrians that have stareted to cross while pedestrians should not start to cross until drivers have stopped. The absurd, if logically consistent, conclusion from this that pedestrians should never start to cross at a zebra crossing.

[Vorpal]

Absolutely - you initial criticism of zebras was very much in terms of an over precise interpretation of the law rather than how zebra crossings work in practice. If you take the highway code over-literally then drivers only need to stop for pedestrians that have stareted to cross while pedestrians should not start to cross until drivers have stopped. The absurd, if logically consistent, conclusion from this that pedestrians should never start to cross at a zebra crossing.

IMO, it's not so absurd. It can be difficult to get across a busy road at a zebra crossing. I can recall waiting for a couple of minutes once while a stream of cars went past. That crossing has since been signalised, and it is perhaps more convenient now for pedestrians.

In many other European countries, drivers are obligated to stop for pedestrians who are about to cross. And they do so.

[Guy951]

My twopenn'orth of anecdata regarding the declining usefulness of zebra crossings.

When I were a lad (1970's) it was very rare for a motorist not to stop if they saw pedestrians waiting to cross. It was even rarer, locally at least, to hear of a pedestrian being knocked down on a crossing.

There is a zebra a couple of hundred yards from my house. I ride over it at least twice a day. I walk past it several times a week. I use it occasionally. From personal observation I can state around 7 motorists in 10 will not stop if they see pedestrians waiting to cross, and a frightening 3 in 20 will not even slow down when pedestrians are already on the crossing, it being, apparently, the pedestrian's job to get out of their way.

Pelicans and toucans may not be perfect, but at least the red lights and loud beeping offer *some* protection against the morons.

[kwackers]

Pelicans and toucans may not be perfect, but at least the red lights and loud beeping offer *some* protection against the morons.

I'd prefer zebras with proper policing.

IMO pelicans and toucans are frequently a waste of space. Every single new system that has been installed near me will only turn red when a gap in the traffic appears - which is when you'd cross anyway. As a jogger I'm usually over the road and a significant distance away when I hear the beeps.

[Guy951]

IMO pelicans and toucans are frequently a waste of space. Every single new system that has been installed near me will only turn red when a gap in the traffic appears - which is when you'd cross anyway.

That's not the fault of the crossings. That's down to the car-centric mindset of the people who programme them.

I'd prefer zebras with proper policing.

With proper policing we wouldn't need red lights and beeping noises. (Or ASLs, or cycle lanes, or helmet cams, or hi-vis and so on and on and on and on....)

[mjr]

IMO pelicans and toucans are frequently a waste of space. Every single new system that has been installed near me will only turn red when a gap in the traffic appears - which is when you'd cross anyway.

That's not the fault of the crossings. That's down to the car-centric mindset of the people who programme them.

It's both. People programming them to wait for gaps (or long after, in the case of the Highways Agency on the A47 near me) is a fault and the ability of the crossings to be programmed in that way is a fault. At least zebras can't be reprogrammed. I feel we should be pushing for shared zebras and for a change in the law for all zebras to require cars to stop when pedestrians are waiting to cross.

[reohn2]

With proper policing we wouldn't need red lights and beeping noises. (Or ASLs, or cycle lanes, or helmet cams, or hi-vis and so on and on and on and on....)

But didn't you know?
Haven't you heard?
We can't afford to enforce the law or punish criminals,much better to have the law of the jungle/might is right law.
Entropy and the class system is alive and kicking(mostly the powerless in society) in the UK today

[BSRU]

Pelicans and toucans may not be perfect, but at least the red lights and loud beeping offer *some* protection against the morons.

I'd prefer zebras with proper policing.

IMO pelicans and toucans are frequently a waste of space. Every single new system that has been installed near me will only turn red when a gap in the traffic appears - which is when you'd cross anyway. As a jogger I'm usually over the road and a significant distance away when I hear the beeps.

There is a new pedestrian crossing near Swindon station that turns red virtually immediately, much to the disgust of many drivers.

Although in general the older crossings change after a long wait, often to fit in with nearby junction traffic lights.

[SA_SA_SA]

The zebra and parallel crossing in the new rules, actually has give way lines for the highway, so cars must always give way to cyclists crossing...

.... existing zebra crossings are equipped with those vary same give way lines. The intention is that both crossings operate to the same rules. ie the existing ones for pedestrians at zebra crossings.

Then why not just use the perhaps yellow? stripes of a tiger* crossing, beside the black and white of the zebra that would seem to indicate to all more clearly that the cycle crossing uses zebra-ish rules (requireing cyclist to wait till safe to cross ie cars absent or stopped). The text
"5.10 The proposed crossing layout is shown in figure 5.1 below.
TSRGD will include this layout, and will set out that drivers must give way to both cyclists
and pedestrians at the give-way lines. "
seems a bit ambiguous: drivers would have to give way at a priority cycle path too (hence my desire for an accompanying give way triangle on a pole for those) and such a crossing would need good sightlines from the road.

My worry is that cyclists would assume that such a crossing granted them the sort of priority that you have on a major road at a cross roads

Well I agree, that thats what drawing a path rather than zebra-ish stripes would suggest, and to me the text is ambiguous, so perhaps that is what they intend. If it isn't then yellow (or just white) stripes for the cycle part would seem better: i.e. 2 parallel zebras style crossings, one for pedestrians and one for cyclists.

*or would a yellow and black zebra-ish cycleonly part of a such a paired crossing be a Lion crossing?


So, I agree if it actually is zebra-ish, the separate cycle part should look zebra-ish.

[Vorpal]

How bout adopting the dragon's teeth type give way that is used in many other countries.

[ianr1950]

I didn't think you could cycle mover a Zebra Crossing. You can cycle over Toucan crossings as these are light controlled.

[mjr]

You can cycle over a Zebra crossing, just like you can cycle over most roads at any point you can cross. After all, if you couldn't cycle over a Zebra, how would you get past one when riding along a road? I can imagine that trying to define a law saying you can only ride across it in one direction but not at right angles would give our legislators and courts a nervous breakdown

What you don't have is the priority that pedestrians get once they step on a zebra. This may change in TSRGD2015 and there's a bit of discussion about the consultation about it starting at viewtopic.php?p=783377#p783377

[Mick F]

Pedestrians don't have priority crossing zebra crossings, they have precedence.
Small point, I know.

[mjr]

I wrote precedence and then edited it because it's a less clear word. I feel it's ambiguous out of its legal context - actually, I looked at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... tents/made and it's not exactly great there.