To the exceptionally stupid woman......

[Earl Aelfheah]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bit disingenuous - making it an offence to cross a

> road other than at traffic lights is a lot more

> than 'a modicum of discipline'. It almost sounds

> like you think pedestrians should have to wait for

> you rather than the other way round - rather an

> odd point of view if you choose to live in a large

> city, surely.

Totally agree. There is a small point where pedestrians have right of way. Cars should slow down and if someone's approaching the crossing stop. It's not difficult

> The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers,

> cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some

> of us are in all three of those groups) - need to

> remember to read the whole road.

True. But I'd add that with cars posing a far higher threat to other road users, they burden of responsibility is not actually equal.

[Earl Aelfheah]

..after all a careless pedestrian primarily risks hurting themselves, a careless driver risks the lives of others.

[Winder]

Gloves Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Black Jag eh! Someone is doing alright!

Not necesserily; could have been a 1964 Mk 10 Jag, Yuk!

[DulwichLondoner]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a small point where

> pedestrians have right of way. Cars should slow

> down and if someone's approaching the crossing

> stop. It's not difficult

Do they have right of way even when the traffic light is red for them?

Even when they jump in the middle of the road from behind a truck which hides them from the view of oncoming traffic?

Even when they jump in the middle of the road forcing motorists to make panic stops which are, in and of themselves, dangerous?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ..after all a careless pedestrian primarily risks

> hurting themselves

Ehm, not necessarily, no. Cyclists and pedestrians behaving stupidly can cause a lot of damage if other road users have to make sudden maneuvers to avoid them - even if everyone respects the safety distance between vehicles.

One of the bike magazines I read had one such story, about a guy who broke a leg and had to write off his scooter because a girl jumped in the middle of the road without looking. From memory, he made a panic stop, lost control of the scooter which hit another vehicle, he hit the road, slid for a bit then hit the kerb. The girl was unhurt but fled the scene.

[DulwichLondoner]

Loz Wrote:

> I would go a little further and put everyone in

> the cab of a reasonably large van. I've driven

> some pretty large vehicles in my time and I have a

> good idea where all the blind spots are. I now

> cycle about a mile or so in zone 1 and I cringe at

> some of the places cyclists place themselves, not

> understanding the driver has a very tiny chance of

> knowing they are there.

Excellent point.

There was a video a while ago, I believe made by TFL, showing a truck driver who looks at his mirrors and doesn't see anyone. The camera then zooms out, and shows an army of cyclists that were in the driver's blind spot.

It should be common sense, but evidently it isn't. This is the kind of stuff that should be shown in schools, on billboards all over the country, as an ad on all websites, etc.

Unfortunately, the trend has been very different. The self-righteous cycle brigade has successfully lobbied to have the "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" signs removed from trucks, and replaced with something more generic like "mind the blind spot". After all, cyclists own the road, and no one should dare tell them what they can and cannot do, even if it is for their own safety... If a fraction of the time, money and efforts dedicated to this had been dedicated to making more people aware of blind spots etc (eg by showing the video I mentioned) , London would be a much safer city for all.

These things leave me extremely saddened and speechless. Oh, and before the cycle nazis have a go at me, let me remind them that I speak from personal experience: as a motorcyclist, I was totally in favour of the "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" signs, and that (staying the hell back from large vehicles) is precisely what I do all the time when riding my motorcycle.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DL: "Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even

> if this makes the road safer for all?"

>

> Substitute motorists for pedestrians and that's

> exactly your position re 20MPH limits.

Sure. Exactly identical. Except for a few tiiiiny differences:

* What I advocate would cost almost nothing - other than possibly the money needed to educate the public - because it wouldn't require changing signs all over the city

* The benefits of what I advocate are clear; the disadvantages are as clear and extremely more limited (oh, the trouble of having to walk 60 metres to the next crossing, what an unbearable inconvenience).

* There has been no trial with inconclusive results; the government doesn't need to commission a 3-year nationwide study to look into the matter, etc.

* Pedestrians' compliance with what I advocate might only waste a few seconda of their time; by contrast, try driving from North to South London at night, when there is no traffic, but you must stick to 20mph, even on wide deserted roads, away from high streets and busy places.

* Pedestrians' compliance does not require them to be distracted from the road, like a driver who has to constantly check the speedometer because there is no tolerance in speeding fines

* I don't claim it would be a panacea to all problems, whereas the councils and the 20mph campaigns came up with all kinds of ridiculous claims about how 20mph limits would ease congestion (where's the proof?), increase house prices (why? is that even desirable?), etc.

Do I need to continue?

Do you have children? Do you teach them that it's their constitutional right to cross the street whenever and wherever they feel like it, or do you teach them that, if there is a pedestrian crossing nearby, they should go there and use it?

Finally, allowing pedestrians to cross only at designated crossings would be in everyone's interest, as it would reduce congestion and pollution. Have you ever noticed the constant queue of cars approaching the Goose green roundabout, because there is a zebra crossing but no traffic light, so pedestrians always have right of way? Don't you think we'd breathe fewer fumes if there was a traffic light, rather than a constant queue of cars? And I say this as a pedestrian, because I walk there but almost never ride there.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and before the cycle nazis have a

> go at me

I think don't someone who thinks using "nazis" to describe people who disagree with him is really worthy of the consideration of debate. Especially someone who comes up with arguments such as that we shouldn't have lower speed limits because he apparently doesn't have the skill to monitor his speedometer and ride safely at the same time. End of the day, DL, you rehash the same old arguments over and over every time this subject comes up and make it more and more apparent that the simple fact of the matter is that for you the motor is king and anything at all which prioritises cyclists or pedestrians over motorists enjoying the "right" to get around as fast as possible is anathema to you. It would be more honest if you admitted this rather than dress it up in a rather transparent "really I'm actually protecting the pedestrians" argument.

[DulwichLondoner]

OK, I should not have used the word nazis. Let me rephrase: the cycle lobby which has been more dedicated to changing the wording on a sign it finds offensive, than to actually make its community aware of how dangerous it is not to respect the common-sense suggestion of that very sign.

Forcing pedestrians to cross only at designated crossing, if one is available nearby, would have no impact whatsoever on my speed. I will always continue to ride defensively, i.e. assuming the road is full of idiots who want to kill themselves and me, and lowering my speed in busy areas because some idiot may always materialise in the middle of the road, jumping from behind a parked van etc.

Of course, the key questions remain unanswered:

* where is proof of the benefits of the 20 mph limits?

* could that money not have been better spent elsewhere?

* why were councils so keen to rush this through without waiting for the DfT's assessment?

* is it so tragic to demand pedestrians walk to the next designated crossing, if there is one nearby, and use that? Such an unbearable inconvenience? Please, please somebody enlighten me as to why this would be so wrong and intolerable. Everyone's silence on this point is simply deafening.

By the way, my focus is more on protecting myself than pedestrians. Like I said multiple times, I am all for Darwinian selection: if an idiot wants to kill himself/herself in a stupid way, so be it, let the gene pool improve. My issues are:

1) children, who are not mature enough, should be protected. Right now they get a very bad example from people crossing whenever they feel like it.

2) I would much rather suicidal idiots did not involve me and others, and found a way to improve the gene pool by themselves.

You know, your accusations are so ridiculous because what I advocate (staying back from large vehicles or crossing only at designated crossing) is not what I want only others to do, but is what I do myself for the very reasons I mentioned.

[DulwichLondoner]

This is what I witnessed in just 15 minutes, during today?s morning commute:

1) Near Oval, I was riding (legally) in a bus lane; the lane next to me was totally jammed. A black cab ahead of me, in my same bus lane, almost hit a pedestrian who ran in the middle of the road, appearing out of the blue because the queue of stationary cars on the right hid him from sight. The cab managed to break in time, but only just. All of this happened about 30 metres from a traffic light. Would it have been too much of a hassle to walk 30 metres to that traffic light, and wait a few second for the green man?

2) On Vauxhall Bridge road, over the space of, I?d say, about 200 metres, two guys (one with a dog!) decide they absolutely had to run in the middle of the road, because they couldn?t have possibly wasted 40 seconds of their previous time walking to the next traffic light. Vauxhall Bridge road is quite wide and busy; this time the two geniuses were clearly visible, in plain sight, not hidden, but this is hardly a justification: they forced about 12 vehicles to brake all of a sudden, which is inherently dangerous, and in fact to cars came dangerously close to hitting each other

3) Near the post office of Vauxhall Bridge road, a mum tries to cross the street with her 6 or 7-year old child; makes a few steps, then luckily realises it?s too dangerous, walks back and decides to walk all the 10 metres (yes: 10!) to the traffic light.

This kind of behaviour is, IMHO, criminal and idiotic, because it needlessly exposes those pedestrians and other road users to unnecessary danger.

It should be discouraged and, yes, I applaud the interactive French billboards because this is exactly what they do.

Does anyone disagree? If so, could they please be so kind as to elaborate why on Earth these individuals could not have walked a few seconds to the next traffic light, especially on those roads, which are always busy, and which have lots of traffic lights everywhere? What is the justification? Note this has nothing to do with speed: I know all too well that people are idiot, that this behaviour can never be fully eradicated, and I will therefore always ride very, very slowly, regardless of the official speed limits, every time there is a situation that could lend itself to this idiocy (e.g. bumper-to-bumper traffic on the lane to my right).

[JohnL]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > There is a small point where

> > pedestrians have right of way. Cars should slow

> > down and if someone's approaching the crossing

> > stop. It's not difficult

>

> Do they have right of way even when the traffic

> light is red for them?

> Even when they jump in the middle of the road from

> behind a truck which hides them from the view of

> oncoming traffic?

> Even when they jump in the middle of the road

> forcing motorists to make panic stops which are,

> in and of themselves, dangerous?

>

Yes they do - once in the road, as the other option is just to run over them.

If a pedestrian appears in the road for any reason whatsoever all other traffic should stop (even if the pedestrain is completely in the wrong - and could be prosecuted later - he has right of way for now)

watch out by Peckham Rye by the way as the whistler is jumping into the middle of the road all day every day at present.

[DulwichLondoner]

JohnL Wrote:

> If a pedestrian appears in the road for any reason

> whatsoever all other traffic should stop (even if

> the pedestrain is completely in the wrong - and

> could be prosecuted later - he has right of way

> for now)

What do you mean, exactly? I am certainly not advocating killing them, surely this was clear!

The point is not whether we should kill these idiots or not!

The point is whether this behaviour is wrong, and should be discouraged as much as possible, e.g. with education campaigns like the French billboards, with making it illegal (as it is in a number of countries) to cross away from a crossing if one is within a certain distance, etc.

[Robert Poste's Child]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This kind of behaviour is, IMHO, criminal

>

> Does anyone disagree?

Not criminal because not a crime...

[DulwichLondoner]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal

Criminal

(of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Not the primary meaning and perhaps confusing given many of your post focus on the legal position.

However, have it your own way - going to stop posting as the discussion isn't going anywhere.

[Northeastview]

Gloves Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In theory the pedestrian should approach, stop,

> and then thank the driver when they stop.....then

> cross.

>

This made me laugh 😂 Do you wave your appreciation to other car drivers when the lights change and it's your turn to go?

[JohnL]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

>

>

> > If a pedestrian appears in the road for any

> reason

> > whatsoever all other traffic should stop (even

> if

> > the pedestrain is completely in the wrong - and

> > could be prosecuted later - he has right of way

> > for now)

>

> What do you mean, exactly? I am certainly not

> advocating killing them, surely this was clear!

>

> The point is not whether we should kill these

> idiots or not!

> The point is whether this behaviour is wrong, and

> should be discouraged as much as possible, e.g.

> with education campaigns like the French

> billboards, with making it illegal (as it is in a

> number of countries) to cross away from a crossing

> if one is within a certain distance, etc.

I don't go jumping into roads as a pedestrian so I'd

say it's wrong - but once in the road as a car driver

I stop - maybe I'm just a defensive pedestrian and a

defensive driver.

I remember getting almost run over a few times when

I was new to London and I treated the roads like I'd

treat a Swansea road (running into the side of busses

and the like trying to catch them - but after a few

months got used to the capital)

Don't forget our politicians want to discourage cars

(they are talking about pay per mile in London) - so

they are more likely to promote pedestrians I guess.

[malumbu]

66 posts on a thread best placed in the Daily Mail. And an offensive title. I could have a rant about dangerous pedestrians, cyclists and drivers but I can't be bothered. And thanks to the cyclist who didn't give me grief when I tried to dodge traffic by St James Park. Very foolish of me. And it the tables had been reversed and I was on the bike then I wouldn't have been so tolerent. There's a lesson.

Last post definitely shows why this should be left to the Daily Mail. Politicians who want to discourage cars. Sadly not enough in my opinion - and charging by the mile (as will have to come one day) is the most equitable way of paying for our roads.

More importantly there are far more important threads on this site, such as gents in shorts, and fruit picking. I await your views dear readers!

[cella]

I posted a few weeks ago as a cyclist knocked me over on the pavement outside the Flying Fish. Just walked back from Rosie's chip shop and was almost knocked down by a bike on the pavement. I pointed at the road as he sped off where he should have been and was greeted with"shut the F..... up you F.....ing white c.... still in shock and feel quite ill.

[DulwichLondoner]

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milanotoday.it%2Fcronaca%2Fincidente-stradale%2Fpedone-condannato.html&edit-text=

This happened in Milan.

A genius not only crossed the street despite the red man, but did so behind a bus which hid from the sight of oncoming traffic. A motorcyclist hit him, was thrown off his bike, hit a pole with his head, and died.

The genius was found guilty, given a one-year suspended sentence, and sentenced to pay EUR 150k to the family of the deceased.

This is why I ride defensively, i.e. assuming the road is full of idiots whose only mission in life is to kill themselves and me.

Would the pro-pedestrian brigade like to comment?

[malumbu]

This thread is like a spot on your face. You know it is there, you know you don't like it, but you can't help occasionally looking at it, and worse still picking it. And you know you shouldn't. And then you hate yourself for doing that. I was going to post these lines before, but I thought that would be nasty (or even trolling, although I don't like to think of myself as such).

So I started a nice light hearted thread instead, poking fun at myself as well. My words this time aren't at all light hearted. Step back people and look at yourself. Surely you are better than this selective rant about the minority of humanity.

Think nice thoughts instead. About when people were helpful and courteous. When someone smiled at you in the street or when someone gave their seat up on public transport. Think happy talk, and Captain Sensible. Good nice and bless.

[robbin]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... as a cyclist knocked me

> over on the pavement outside the Flying Fish.

> Just walked back from Rosie's chip shop and was

> almost knocked down by a bike on the pavement.

Make your mind up! Were you "knocked over" or only "almost" knocked down?

[red devil]

They are different events robbin, separated by 'a few weeks'...doh!

[cella]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> cella Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ... as a cyclist knocked me

> > over on the pavement outside the Flying Fish.

> > Just walked back from Rosie's chip shop and was

> > almost knocked down by a bike on the pavement.

>

> Make your mind up! Were you "knocked over" or

> only "almost" knocked down?

Blimey, thanks for the support Robbin - are you a pavement-riding cyclist?

[robbin]

No, I'm not - I just misread your post, for which I apologise - my mistake.

[malumbu]

I met a nice man in Blue Mountain cafe today in Sydenham. Traffic is a bit bad there but I didn't see any stupid women, or men to that point, either crossing the road or cycling on the pavement. Pehaps I should have stayed longer as sadly I don't have anything to report on this thread. In fact I'm not sure why I am posting at all.