Can't disagree with you on that.coruskate said:Fine, so wait for them to get back in their cars and then run them down on a bicycle. But the moral obligation is on the more dangerous party (that's the cyclist, who is carrying more mass and more momentum) to be correspondingly more careful in his interaction with the more vulnerable (that's the pedestrian).
Oh, wow, love the look of that.HaloJ said:Isn't this the bit where Mike says Air Zound?
Saw one used this morning and was more than surprised myself at how loud they are. A pedestrian stepped out between two parked cars into the path of a cyclist who was a few meters in front of me. Even following behind it was loud. It had the desired effect though as the pedestrian leapt back.BentMikey said:LOL! It would work well, but might be a tad harsh on peds.
In a similar way, green lights mean 'go if safe'...so we too have a duty of care.Black Sheep said:doesn't work like that.
They do have a duty of care to check it is clear to cross, the green light is there to say it is safe, you do not have to wait for it if you think it is safe to cross on red.
IMO, common sense would say you do slow down/give way to the people...because the alternative is probably mowing down 50 people.nigelb said:So we can stop a major dual carriageway like the A14 by having a snake of say 50 people crossing in single file, turning round and crossing back again?
Common sense says no, and in any case I suspect you'd find yourself in trouble for causing an obstruction.
It isn't.jonny jeez said:that'll be the "new thing I learnt today" then...I never knew that's were the term "Car" came from.
It is an indication of the poor crossing provision and the inadequate pedestrian phase typically available for pedestrians.2Loose said:The phenomenon of people trying to save time by risking a crossing close to something that they consider quite safe is annoying, but I often have this even on a motorbike. They see that there is more room in the road to avoid the vehicle, or even using strength of numbers to force a smaller vehicle to stop is just typical of impatient people and todays rush rush rush society.
This behaviour however is 'just typical of impatient people and todays rush rush rush society'.I found that holding the clutch and revving the engine on the approach to the crossing got people to scatter, but I would imagine an airzound must work at least as well to remind them of their mortality and the vehicle heading in their direction
Not convinced of this. Where I used to work there was a cross where the lights were sequenced to give more than enough time for people to cross & would switch to amber within about 5s. Once the traffic had stopped people would just walk across the road in front of cars, there were hooters going most of the day as drivers, imo quite rightly, got pissed off with pedestrians ignoring the lights. Sometimes motorist took to almost driving through the stream of pedestrians to start moving again.jonesy said:It is an indication of the poor crossing provision and the inadequate pedestrian phase typically available for pedestrians.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Gearing and crossing chain advice||General Cycling Discussions||14|
|Field crossing etiquette||CC Cafe - General Chat||5|
|Crossing the Black Forest; maybe.||Touring & Adventure Cycling||16|
|S||Giant toughroad vs cube cross pro?||Bikes & Buying Advice - What Bike?||9|