reohn2 wrote:mjr wrote:The majority of the focus should be to the front but the driver should keep checking around the vehicle, like the Highway Code says (rule 161 "All mirrors should be used effectively throughout your journey. You should use your mirrors frequently so that you always know what is behind and to each side of you..." mainly but also 160 and 211).
It's not all or nothing, all one person's fault or the other. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?
And if the driver's attention is taken by frontal activity what then?
Should s/he stop until all activity has ceased?
If you drive you'll know that it isn't so simple
I do drive and it's not ever so simple, but it's not
that hard. I have slowed or stopped countless times when the level of activity around the vehicle means that it's a good idea to do so, to allow myself time to react to the events if needed and reduce the severity of any collision if I get it wrong. That does mean I've stopped sometimes when I theoretically had priority, including when pedestrians have abruptly stepped out in front of me (and I think he was drunk, although that wasn't obvious before I stopped).
That's why it's not so hard for some of us to understand that riding up the inside of left turning HGV's is a complete folly,which people mindful of their welbeing don't do!
No, people shouldn't do it, but they do, so the driver should watch out for it.
By that logic, once the driver's satisfied him/herself there's nothing in front, surely she/he can close his eyes until the manoeuvre is completed?
Please stop being deliberately obtuse and silly in you response to a perfect logical progression of events.
The logic isn't perfect which is why it breaks down when we continue it!
Boot on the other foot,do you when manoeuvring either as a pedestrian,cyclist or driver after satisfying yourself that a manoeuvre is safe to continue with then continue?
Only until such point that I consider it safe to continue - if my ongoing observation makes me think it is no longer safe to continue, then I stop - don't you?
......In other words: a driver can't be both as diligent and careful as the Highway Code and run over a pedestrian unless something pretty freaky happens.
Like riding up the inside of their HGV whilst the vehicle is signalling and turning left perhaps?
No, that's not freaky - that's even in the Highway Code! pwa's example of a dog running out from between parked cars is closer but I really mean completely freak incidents like something unseen propelling a pedestrian from the footway into the middle of the carriageway without prior warning.
reohn2 wrote:beardy wrote:.......I thought XAPBob's post above sums it up very well, though I would offer another option. A complete ban on cyclists (or anybody else) filtering on the inside of HGVs and possibly every other motorised vehicle. If the public were capable of dealing with it, this could have the exception for marked mandatory cycle lanes of a significant width, like in some other countries but I dont think our drivers could cope with it.
IMO that's a perfectly reasonable rule/law to implement which should also be followed up with a public information schedule,including TV,radio,billboard and any other media available used to reinforce and drive home the message.
By outlawing all the marked cycle lanes on the left of left turns, any UK government would essentially be calling all their party colleagues in charge of highway authorities incompetent. Seeing as they don't even have the backbone for changes like presumed liability which shouldn't call many other politicians into question, I don't think this law's going to happen soon. Could you stick to more realistic measures like improving junction layouts?
pwa wrote:How would you suggest we improve matters in the nineteenth century roads of Pontycymmer, where the roads are fairly narrow, cars have to park on the street, delivery vehicles have to use the same roads as cyclists and pedestrians.
Do they really need to share as much as they do?
http://osm.org/go/euM_GXmw--?layers=C and similar on Google Streetview looks like a typical layout of parallel mostly-terraced streets, so for much of it, alternating streets could be made access-only for motor traffic and cycles and pedestrians encouraged to use them and the valley cycle route (rather than the current approach of detours and barriers you need to overcome to use it AFAICT). I accept sometimes the choice will become between riding up/down hill and a busier road, but you can't really ride that area without some hills anyway. That's what I've seen done in towns and villages elsewhere in Europe. It can be fairly cheap at first, with different road surfaces applied to the access-only streets when they'd be resurfaced anyway - the main thing it needs is political will.
There is a very nice cycle track, but people have to walk or cycle down the streets to get to it. Do you want to go up there and tell people that they cannot have cars any more? Do you suggest deliveries to shops are forbidden, or can only happen after midnight? I'm not sure how you would change things for the better in the real world outside London. We don't start with a clean slate. We start with what we have.
That's not the problem. Our streets aren't narrower or more complicated than most of Europe. I think the key difference is that we have a confrontational system and many people start with a political can't-do mindset that invents problems (cannot have cars???
) rather than a can-do one that looks at the benefits (half the streets will get less traffic while the rest will get less turning traffic and safer walking/cycling routes closer to them).
The tools will be different. The underlying problem (political will) is the same.
