Cycle lane shambles

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16075
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mjr » 16 Sep 2020, 11:06pm

mikeymo wrote:
mjr wrote:
atlas_shrugged wrote:It was cut and all pedestrians and cyclists have to press a beg button to get a green light permission to cross the road.

You don't have to, as red man means "give way" but I know what you mean. It's rather irritating.


Is that what the red man means?

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossings.html#:~:text=22-,Pelican%20crossings.,figure%20shows%2C%20do%20not%20cross.

Yes, effectively. Also:
1. That website is a driving school scam. The real site is www.gov.uk/highway-code
2. The highway code is inaccurate on that. If you obey it, you will be standing looking at empty roads a lot while the 54 second delay on the "beg button" ticks past.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14079
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby gaz » 16 Sep 2020, 11:55pm

anniesboy wrote:Wonderful planning,lampost in middle of new cycle path

Put it in the middle of the street instead.
IMG_20200916_235256.jpg
Nothing to see here.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 16 Sep 2020, 11:58pm

mjr wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
mjr wrote:You don't have to, as red man means "give way" but I know what you mean. It's rather irritating.


Is that what the red man means?

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-pedestrians-crossings.html#:~:text=22-,Pelican%20crossings.,figure%20shows%2C%20do%20not%20cross.

Yes, effectively. Also:
1. That website is a driving school scam. The real site is http://www.gov.uk/highway-code
2. The highway code is inaccurate on that. If you obey it, you will be standing looking at empty roads a lot while the 54 second delay on the "beg button" ticks past.


Thanks for directing me to the real highway code.

Rule 21: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 seems clear to me. Picture of a red man and the words "do not cross".

Why do you assert that the red man means "give way", and that "the highway code is inaccurate on that"?

thirdcrank
Posts: 29449
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby thirdcrank » 17 Sep 2020, 7:55am

The only traffic signals which pedestrians must obey (ie liable to a penalty for not doing so) are those given by police and traffic officers.

37 Directions to pedestrians.

Where a constable in uniform or traffic officer is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, a person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable in the execution of his duty or the traffic officer (as the case may be)], either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic, is guilty of an offence.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/37

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16075
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mjr » 17 Sep 2020, 9:12am

The meaning of a red man is "should not" so the highway code is inaccurate to turn that into "do not":
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/9/made wrote:(3) The significance of a red symbol when illuminated is that, in the interests of safety, pedestrian, equestrian or cyclist traffic (as the case may be) should not use the crossing.

If you choose to disregard the automated advice, the normal road rules apply, so it's effectively give way because you shouldn't unnecessarily cross a kerb or line to move into another road user's path.

This ability has been used by highways authorities to reject requests to make lights respond quicker to beg buttons.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 17 Sep 2020, 9:41am

mjr wrote:The meaning of a red man is "should not" so the highway code is inaccurate to turn that into "do not":
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/part/1/paragraph/9/made wrote:(3) The significance of a red symbol when illuminated is that, in the interests of safety, pedestrian, equestrian or cyclist traffic (as the case may be) should not use the crossing.

If you choose to disregard the automated advice, the normal road rules apply, so it's effectively give way because you shouldn't unnecessarily cross a kerb or line to move into another road user's path.

This ability has been used by highways authorities to reject requests to make lights respond quicker to beg buttons.


I see, thanks.

Looking through the HC, I infer that the only parts of it which mean there is a legal sanction involved, are those that use the words "must" or "must not". They often have a reference to specific legislation. Have I got that right?

Is "another road user's path" defined anywhere? Common sense would say if they have to brake (or maybe consider braking) to avoid you that constitutes being in their path.

I sometimes wonder if it would be better if pelican/toucan crossings had no lights except a green. So adult or sighted pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users could make up their own mind if it is safe to cross ("give way"), but those who wanted or needed certainty, could press a button and wait for the green. Though that might be confusing, at least on first introduction. And might need some sort of "walking without due care and attention" type law. I tried out a new bit of cycle path the other day (Leeds ring road, Moortown). At one point it crosses a dual carriageway, with a central refuge. The posts are up for the toucan crossing, but the lights aren't installed yet. So I just watched the traffic and crossed when safe. I remember thinking "even when the lights are working, this would be a very safe place to just wait for a gap". There's excellent sight-lines, it's all 40mph, in one direction there are lights further up which will cause traffic to wait, and no side roads. I'll probably just ignore the little red man, even when it's installed.

Jdsk
Posts: 2349
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby Jdsk » 17 Sep 2020, 9:47am

mikeymo wrote:Looking through the HC, I infer that the only parts of it which mean there is a legal sanction involved, are those that use the words "must" or "must not". They often have a reference to specific legislation. Have I got that right?

"Who The Highway Code is for, how it's worded, and the consequences of not following the rules."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction then click Wording...

Wikipedia: The Highway Code: Legal aspects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Highway_Code#Legal_aspects

Jonathan

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 17 Sep 2020, 10:09am

Jdsk wrote:
mikeymo wrote:Looking through the HC, I infer that the only parts of it which mean there is a legal sanction involved, are those that use the words "must" or "must not". They often have a reference to specific legislation. Have I got that right?

"Who The Highway Code is for, how it's worded, and the consequences of not following the rules."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction then click Wording...

Wikipedia: The Highway Code: Legal aspects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Highway_Code#Legal_aspects

Jonathan


Thanks. The words must/must not aren't used in the section on traffic lights:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic

Though there are separate offences for running a red light. Maybe when that police officer was berating me for running a red light I should have asked her which one she was going to prosecute me under. Though I didn't, under the "nobody likes a wise guy" principle, and she let it go.

Presumably there isn't a separate law which applies to pedestrians ignoring a red light.
Last edited by mikeymo on 17 Sep 2020, 10:53am, edited 1 time in total.

Jdsk
Posts: 2349
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby Jdsk » 17 Sep 2020, 10:19am

Sorry, I'm lost.

mikeymo wrote:Though there are separate offences for running a red light. Maybe when that police officer was berating me for running a red light I should have asked her which one she was going to prosecute me under. Though I didn't, under the "nobody like a smart buttock" principle, and she let it go.

Excellent principle.
Rule 175 has a MUST and 176 a MUST NOT.

mikeymo wrote:Presumably there isn't a separate law which applies to pedestrians ignoring a red light.

At a crossing?

Jonathan

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3478
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby Bmblbzzz » 17 Sep 2020, 10:41am

thirdcrank wrote:The only traffic signals which pedestrians must obey (ie liable to a penalty for not doing so) are those given by police and traffic officers.

37 Directions to pedestrians.

Where a constable in uniform or traffic officer is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, a person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable in the execution of his duty or the traffic officer (as the case may be)], either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic, is guilty of an offence.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/37

And the flashing red at railway level crossings.

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 17 Sep 2020, 10:56am

Jdsk wrote:Sorry, I'm lost.

mikeymo wrote:Though there are separate offences for running a red light. Maybe when that police officer was berating me for running a red light I should have asked her which one she was going to prosecute me under. Though I didn't, under the "nobody likes a wise guy"* principle, and she let it go.

Excellent principle.
Rule 175 has a MUST and 176 a MUST NOT.


Ah, right. I just quoted what must been have intended as "general" rules about traffic lights.

Jdsk wrote:
mikeymo wrote:Presumably there isn't a separate law which applies to pedestrians ignoring a red light.

At a crossing?

Jonathan


I suppose so.

*Edit to reflect moderation of original post - "nobody likes a smart buttock" doesn't really have the right tone.
Last edited by mikeymo on 17 Sep 2020, 12:01pm, edited 1 time in total.

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 17 Sep 2020, 11:01am

Bmblbzzz wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:The only traffic signals which pedestrians must obey (ie liable to a penalty for not doing so) are those given by police and traffic officers.

37 Directions to pedestrians.

Where a constable in uniform or traffic officer is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, a person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable in the execution of his duty or the traffic officer (as the case may be)], either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic, is guilty of an offence.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/37

And the flashing red at railway level crossings.


There's an actual law about that is there? Apart from Darwin of course.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29449
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby thirdcrank » 17 Sep 2020, 11:36am

Yes. I was wrong not to mention level crossings. It's not an excuse but enforcement is normally a matter for the transport police.

Light signals for pedestrian traffic at level crossings

52.—(1) Light signals conveying to pedestrians at level crossings the prohibition specified in paragraph (2) shall be of the size, colour and type shown in diagram 4006 and so designed that—

(a) the red figure shown in diagram 4006 is internally illuminated by an intermittent red light which is shown at a rate of flashing of not less than 60 nor more than 90 flashes per minute;
(b) the red figure is illuminated only when the intermittent red lights prescribed by regulation 39(2)(b) are illuminated; and
(c) the signal heads are ES compliant.
(2) The red figure when illuminated in the manner prescribed by paragraph (1) shall convey the prohibition that pedestrians shall not proceed beyond the transverse road marking shown in diagram 1003.2 on the footway or diagram 1001 on the carriageway.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/200 ... on/52/made

mikeymo
Posts: 1350
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby mikeymo » 17 Sep 2020, 11:57am

thirdcrank wrote:Yes. I was wrong not to mention level crossings. It's not an excuse but enforcement is normally a matter for the transport police.

Light signals for pedestrian traffic at level crossings

52.—(1) Light signals conveying to pedestrians at level crossings the prohibition specified in paragraph (2) shall be of the size, colour and type shown in diagram 4006 and so designed that—

(a) the red figure shown in diagram 4006 is internally illuminated by an intermittent red light which is shown at a rate of flashing of not less than 60 nor more than 90 flashes per minute;
(b) the red figure is illuminated only when the intermittent red lights prescribed by regulation 39(2)(b) are illuminated; and
(c) the signal heads are ES compliant.
(2) The red figure when illuminated in the manner prescribed by paragraph (1) shall convey the prohibition that pedestrians shall not proceed beyond the transverse road marking shown in diagram 1003.2 on the footway or diagram 1001 on the carriageway.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/200 ... on/52/made


So there is an instance where an actual law about pedestrians and red lights applies. Are pedestrians often prosecuted for this, do you know?

Though I do sometimes wonder why we need laws about this - "there's a few hundred tons of train coming down the track, really fast, that's why the red light is on. I'd stay where you are if I were you. But if you want to cross, it's your funeral" - might be as useful. I don't suppose a human body can derail a train. Not nice for the driver though.

thirdcrank
Posts: 29449
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycle lane shambles

Postby thirdcrank » 17 Sep 2020, 12:10pm

mikeymo wrote: ... So there is an instance where an actual law about pedestrians and red lights applies. Are pedestrians often prosecuted for this, do you know?


I have absolutely no idea. The British Transport Police has primary responsibility for enforcing the law on the railways. Nothing to do with level crossings, of course, but the issue of BTP's responsibilities seems likely to be touched on when this inquiry reports:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-54071621