Air horn to deter pedestrians

[mjr]

As noted above: one is illegal, the other is not.

It's not even that clear cut. Cyclists jumping carriageway lights is illegal, cyclists jumping toucans/puffins is not - it's even encouraged by some highway authorities when they refuse to change signal timings to prioritise walking and cycling in line with their local transport policies.

[Bez]

Yes, good point. Indeed on a near enough daily basis I cycle across one toucan at red, because gaps in the traffic arise at a similar frequency to the time it takes the lights to change, so by crossing on red I don't disrupt the flow of traffic or disturb any drivers.

Courteous red light "jumping"? Surely not even conceivable in the "everything is the same as everything" fantasy land some people are advocating

[robing]

Everyone knows there is absolutely no problem in going through a red light on a bike in the right circumstances

[Bez]

Everyone knows there is absolutely no problem in going through a red light on a bike in the right circumstances

And everyone has a subjective opinion, collectively covering a vast spectrum, about what "in the right circumstances" means.

[Cugel]

Everyone knows there is absolutely no problem in going through a red light on a bike in the right circumstances

And everyone has a subjective opinion, collectively covering a vast spectrum, about what "in the right circumstances" means.

If one closes the eyes, rings the imaginary bell three times and wishes very hard, only things that one wants to happen will and nothing untoward will occur.

This is a theory (nay, a hard & fast, almost religious, belief) applied by many in post modern life, at least until their wishful goes THUNK! as it hits a bit of reality.

There are many rituals equivalent to the three imaginary bell rings but they all involve closed eyes (and minds) as well as the ardent wishing. The trouble is that it often works 27 times before the THUNK! occurs. But as we know, correlation is not causation, even with wishful hopes & dreams.

Anyroadup, it will be all someone else's fault, innit.

Cugel

[Bez]

Come again?

[661-Pete]

It's not even that clear cut. Cyclists jumping carriageway lights is illegal, cyclists jumping toucans/puffins is not - it's even encouraged by some highway authorities when they refuse to change signal timings to prioritise walking and cycling in line with their local transport policies.

Eh? Can someone please point me to the relevant Act where it says that?

[Bez]

There isn't one, because the law only defines what is illegal. The offence relates to crossing the associated solid white line (or signage in the case of temporary lights, IIRC); pelican/toucan crossings have no such line.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... on/10/made

(Enforced by RTA1989 S36.)

[Barks]

Benz wrote-

And since pedestrians are just the same as any vehicle, are you going to paint centre lines and give way lines on pavements and shopping malls to organise their flow?

. They do in some parts of Hong Kong, they even had a sort of roundabout ina shopping mall and uniformed staff directing when groups hould move. It was very very busy though, it actually made sense.

[thirdcrank]

I detect some crossed purposes here. I think some are talking about the signals for road traffic and others about the signals for people crossing.

[Bez]

Possibly so

To clarify: it's legal (and often beneficial to all) to cross a carriageway when the pedestrian/cycle light is red; it's illegal to proceed across the white line accompanying a red light when travelling along the carriageway.

[thirdcrank]

All the regs., about traffic lights and crossing signals are now consolidated here:

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
SCHEDULE 14
Signs for traffic control by light signals, signs for crossings, and signs for lane control
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016 ... le/14/made

(There's plenty of it.)

[The utility cyclist]

In the video we see examples of obstructing another person to use the highway by their action/inaction when there are other close by alternates which do not hinder their progress in the slightest, or simply wander out in front of another user of the highway with not a single thought as to their own or others safety.

Moving along a highway at a lower speed than other users is not obstructing the highway.

If we have rules, and I might add rules that people on bikes are hounded to death to follow more than any other road user group by far, why can't we apply those rules to ALL groups including those on foot so that we do have some harmony.

The rules which the pedestrians are not following are mostly only SHOULD ones at strongest. Like the ones for cyclists, many of them don't make much sense in some situations, including some of those pictured: do you really think that last guy should cross the road twice rather than walk with-flow in the cycleway?

If I as a pedestrian continually blocked other pedestrians through my own carelessness/ignorance and did this constantly as most of these types do that would not be deemed acceptable.

Really? Not only does it seem to be acceptable, it's commonplace, especially in busy places like That London in the video.

Pretty much all the time when I've come across someone at a pedestrian refuge or waiting to cross at the side of a busy road and they've not just blithely stepped out so acknowledged my presence (thus avoiding a potential collision with me) i will shoulder check and see if it's safe for me to slow and wave them across, removing the possible threat to both of us.
I see it as a courtesy of one person not putting me in a position of threat of harm in exchange for same and aiding them to continue their journey as uninterrupted as possible whilst delaying mine by a few seconds if that (which was probably much less than they were delayed by the motor vehicles).

So you don't follow the rules either!

Moving at a slower pace does not automatically mean you do not pose threat of harm to others, this is obvious.
Rules that all people should follow which include not to block nor put others in a position where one could be harmed are acceptable rules, this includes people on foot, or do you think just because you're on foot you don't pose a risk of harm, the stats say otherwise.
Acceptable to you maybe, not to most being continually blocked when there are multiple other options within a gnats whisker with no added inconvenience.
I follow the rules more than most, I'm more courteous than most, I bet I cede and offer much safer passage for the vulnerable/pedestrians more often (and indeed motorvehicles) than you do on any road type you care to name. yes, really

We keep addressing this matter as if pedestrians are more vulnerable than people on bikes, I don't believe there is any significant difference between either pedestrian/cyciists and pedestrian or cyclists to motorvehicles. There has to be some responsibility placed upon all groups, currently people on bikes take up the slack of those on foot and in motors, this is a simple and very basic fact. It's everywhere in discussions and actions by police and government. This is currently a big imbalance, whilst the threat of death whilst cycling from a pedestrian is low the threat from people dangerously occupying the highway when there is absolutely no need to do so and does not impinge upon their journey.ability to get somewhere, is absolutely there and importantly it's getting worse for one vulnerable group and the burden of responsibility thrust ever further upon that group.
If there is an almost equal amount of vulnerability within the groups why does one get more slack on how the rules are applied or indeed what rules are put there at all over and above the rules for the equally vulnerable? How is that fair?

[Airsporter1st]

My riding is nearly all country lanes mainly narrow typical 4 meters wide with no white lines or pavements, the verges are often muddy, overgrown, or high hedgerows. I use a 'PING' bell whenever i approach walkers or horse riders, as soon as i'm close enough i always say 'Hello!' in a friendly manner as to not cause any offence, this ploy usually works okay...

But what i do find a little too often are dozy dog walkers, apparently oblivious to their surroundings, or any sense of highway code road safety, and ignoring my 'Ping' as i approach from a distance at typically 15mph, the dog-walker typically is walking one side of the road, but the dog on the other side, and a 12 foot lead stretched out across the road like a barrier, often a closer up 'Ping' will only achieve a very reluctant acknowledgement, and with extremely slow reactions they take their time to reign their dog in so i may pass at 3 or 4 mph - because i'd had to slow right down, however i still say, Hello, thank you very much, but often they look on at me with hostility and annoyance...

I don't know what the answer is

A sub-machine gun in place of the horn?

[Cyril Haearn]

Yes, good point. Indeed on a near enough daily basis I cycle across one toucan at red, because gaps in the traffic arise at a similar frequency to the time it takes the lights to change, so by crossing on red I don't disrupt the flow of traffic or disturb any drivers.

Courteous red light "jumping"? Surely not even conceivable in the "everything is the same as everything" fantasy land some people are advocating

Nothing is the same as nothing?