Road Manners

blorg

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

FFS 'Yes'. I do.

DFD.

Would make one wonder how anyone managed before the things were invented. Must have been carnage. They were not commonly used before the 1930s (in London at least.) Maybe people paid attention to what they were doing or something crazy like that.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

The point is, these things are there primarily to reduce the danger posed by motorised traffic both to other motorised traffic and other road users. In the absence of cars does anyone think we would actually need traffic lights to keep pedestrians safe from bicycles?

I do. And not just to keep pedestrians safe from bicycles but also to keep other cyclists safe from bicycles. I don't share what seems to be your view here that motorised vehicles are the cause of all idiotic and dangerous behaviour on the roads. Take idiots from behind the steering wheels of cars and put them on bikes and, hey, they are still idiots (and vice versa too).

blorg wrote:

Would make one wonder how anyone managed before the things were invented. Must have been carnage. They were not commonly used before the 1930s (in London at least.) Maybe people paid attention to what they were doing or something crazy like that.

They managed quite badly in the UK, apparently, according to this report:

In 1926 there were 1,715,000 motor vehicles registered and 4,886 road fatalities, giving a ratio of 2.9 fatalities per thousand vehicles. The Second W orld W ar interrupts the general downward trend of the ratio. Between 1939 and 1944 the number of motor vehicles registered fell by 49% while the number of fatalities remained relatively stable, leading to a rise in the ratio to 4.0 in 1944. By 1997, the number of motor vehicles registered increased to 26,974,000 but the number of fatalities fell to 3,599. Thus, the ratio of fatalities per one thousand motor vehicles fell to 0.1.

Beasty

doozerie wrote: »

They managed quite badly in the UK, apparently, according to this report:

The 1865 Locomotives on Highways Act stipulated that all mechanically powered road vehicles must:

• Have three drivers.
• Not exceed 4 mph (6.4 kph) on the open road and 2 mph (3.2 kph) in towns.
• Be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag to warn the public.

Unfortunately these rules were done away with in 1896, the speed limit was upped to 14 mph, and carnage ensued...

monument

doozerie wrote: »

You can use as many variations on the word "cautiously" as you like but the fact is that many cyclists already ignore red lights with no regard for others which gives no reason to be optimistic that they'll behave any better if the laws are relaxed further. In my view as cyclists we should have to earn the right for concessions like being able to treat a red light as a yield, and currently the majority of cyclists that I see each day have no respect for red lights and so as a body we have not earned that right when all we are talking about here is an initiative to save us time on our journeys. If motorists sought the same concession there'd be uproar and talk of lives put at risk and motorists trying to satisfy their own self-importance, but somehow when cyclists seek it we are apparently doing so for some greater good, which I find bizarre.

At the moment providing for cyclists -- in law or any thing else -- has only a little to do with current cyclists. Policy is to grow cycling numbers and this context must be looked at when we're talking about providing anything for cyclists.

In any case, cyclists are not responsible for each other. If some cyclists are breaking the law, they should be stopped. That's the police's responsibility, nothing to do with other cyclists. We're not a body which has the kind of collective responsibility you're describing here.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

They managed quite badly in the UK, apparently, according to this report: In 1926 there were 1,715,000 motor vehicles registered and 4,886 road fatalities, giving a ratio of 2.9 fatalities per thousand vehicles...

That report seems to be on fatalities caused by motor vehicles. I don't see any evidence in it that in the first third of the 20th century the UK suffered a rash of fatalities caused by bicycles that were only arrested by the introduction of the traffic light.

tomasrojo

The decline in pedestrian deaths with increasing car use is described by Smeed's Law.

http://john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/

Ruben Smeed first observed this phenomenon in an article in 1949. He found it to be universal. Every country for which he could find data experienced a decrease in deaths per vehicle as vehicles per capita increased. (See my discussion of the Smeed Law in Risk and Freedom Chapters 2 and 7.) There are myriad adjustments to the growing threat of traffic. Anyone who has lived in a country at the early stages of motorization will be familiar with a very different driving style. Car owners tend to be rich and powerful and drive with disdain for the chickens and pigs and peasants in their path. If you live in a village with little traffic you do not spend a lot of time drilling your children on the Green Cross Code. The withdrawl of children is a significant part of the explanation. In 1922 in Britain there was very little traffic and a nation-wide 20mph speed limit – and there were more than three times as many children killed in road accidents than today. The Smeed Curve might be described as a social learning curve.

DirkVoodoo

Won't somebody please think of the chickens/pigs/peasants!

zynaps

tomasrojo wrote: »

The OP is in the wrong, as already pointed out.

As mentioned above, sometimes you have to break the lights that have induction loops buried in front of them, since you can't activate them by a bike. Even a bike with a large Chariot trailer behind it, as I found out on Emmet Road yesterday. I was at the head of the queue and the car behind me was hanging back respectfully and the lights went through two cycles without giving us a green. I had to motion her to come closer so the lights would be activated, which she did very gingerly indeed. Probably still wondering what was going on.

I've had that happen a few times. Interestingly (or not), different sensors have different levels of eh... sensitivity.

When I'm leaving DCU via the Collins Avenue exit, I usually lie the bike down on the road right on top of the sensor, which seems to trigger it very quickly. There were others (back on my old, better bike which got stolen) that never seemed to pick it up, so I would similarly beckon cars behind me to roll forward (often to confused stares, just like when you try to indicate to someone that their lights are off at night), or else break the light when it (relatively) safe if there's no option.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

That report seems to be on fatalities caused by motor vehicles. I don't see any evidence in it that in the first third of the 20th century the UK suffered a rash of fatalities caused by bicycles that were only arrested by the introduction of the traffic light.

You suggested that the absence of traffic lights in the 1930s had no impact on road user safety at the time. I pointed you at a study which states that road safety back then was pretty poor by comparison to today. Now you're picking up those goalposts again and racing of to some other distant location with them - god bless your energy.

doozerie

monument wrote: »

At the moment providing for cyclists -- in law or any thing else -- has only a little to do with current cyclists. Policy is to grow cycling numbers and this context must be looked at when we're talking about providing anything for cyclists.

In any case, cyclists are not responsible for each other. If some cyclists are breaking the law, they should be stopped. That's the police's responsibility, nothing to do with other cyclists. We're not a body which has the kind of collective responsibility you're describing here.

A policy of growing cycling numbers is a good one, however, I also believe that some of the existing initiatives, and some of the proposed ones, seem more concerned with ticking boxes than actually promoting cycling through creating a better and safer environment for cyclists. I believe that the more we seek to segregate cyclists from other road users the more we'll ultimately discourage cycling in favour of other modes of transport primarily for reasons of safety, cycle lanes being the most extreme example here.

Despite the best efforts of the worst of the cycle lanes to remove cyclists from the road entirely, the fact is that cyclists will always have to share road space with other road users on many stretches of road, at most junctions, etc. A very good place to start in trying to ensure cyclist safety on shared roads is to work towards all road users adhering to the same set of rules and there is already a set of rules in place for this which everyone should have at least a basic understanding of. Right now people on all modes of transport seem to be able to ignore some of the most basic and simple of those rules with virtually no risk of penalty and that is a ridiculous situation.

As you say, they should be stopped (ultimately by the gardai), but I believe we also have a collective/social responsibility to discourage such behaviour in other cyclists both in what we do (i.e. obeying the rules ourselves) and in what we say (i.e. if you see someone you know act like an idiot on a bike or in a car, don't just tut and dismiss it, tell them). Some, probably many, people simply don't realise that what they considered an innocuous action on their part actually endangered others, and these people are likely to be more careful in future if this is highlighted to them. I would also like to think that others would highlight to me if I inadvertently do something stupid on the road. In much the same way as every individual's vote counts in an election, every voice of reason counts in the battle against stupidity and complacency. In certain areas, we really do end up with the society and social behaviour we deserve.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

You suggested that the absence of traffic lights in the 1930s had no impact on road user safety at the time. I pointed you at a study which states that road safety back then was pretty poor by comparison to today. Now you're picking up those goalposts again and racing of to some other distant location with them - god bless your energy.

My original point; I am hardly moving any goalposts here:

blorg wrote: »

The point is, these things are there primarily to reduce the danger posed by motorised traffic both to other motorised traffic and other road users. In the absence of cars does anyone think we would actually need traffic lights to keep pedestrians safe from bicycles?

I was suggesting that traffic lights became necessary because of the threat caused by motor vehicles. There was not some sort of carnage on the roads being caused by bicycles pre-traffic light; horse-drawn vehicles were the killers before the motoring era.

The statistics you posted paint a picture of a horrendous death toll per motor vehicle in the twenties; this only supports my point that the things were introduced in the UK to deal with a threat from motor vehicles.

Bicycles simply are not that dangerous compared to motor vehicles. This is not to say they pose no danger whatsoever but the danger is several orders of magnitude less.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

I was suggesting that traffic lights became necessary because of the threat caused by motor vehicles.

In fact you went further than that and asked if anyone thought we'd need traffic lights in the absence of motorised vehicles. There were two responses to your post that said yes, to which you haven't responded at all. Why pose the question if you are going to simply ignore the answers?

So here is a question for you based on what you wrote above: in a world with no motorised vehicles how would you propose that cyclists safely pass through junctions intersecting with other busy routes filled with other cyclists, and that pedestrians safely cross busy routes filled with cyclists i.e. given that you seem to believe that traffic lights exist purely to deal with motorised vehicles what alternative method would you advocate to allocate/switch right of way to other road users in the absence of traffic lights?

doozerie

@monument, Incidentally, in relation to collective responsibility, for several years now the Garda Traffic Watch service (as mentioned here) has existed to allow anyone to report incidents of dangerous driving. That is an example of an initiative to encourage people to be socially/collectively responsible in the battle against at least some stupidity on the roads.

Garda Traffic Watch specifically targets motorists and from what I've read a lot of people have used the service (me included, although I've had mixed results in doing so). If people are willing to be socially responsible towards the antics of motorists, why should we as cyclists feel that we can shun our social responsibility towards those that define themselves within our group? The alternative is that we just turn a blind eye to stupid behaviour by cyclists and hope that we are not the ones to be subjected to the consequences of their behaviour next time round.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

So here is a question for you based on what you wrote above: in a world with no motorised vehicles how would you propose that cyclists safely pass through junctions intersecting with other busy routes filled with other cyclists, and that pedestrians safely cross busy routes filled with cyclists i.e. given that you seem to believe that traffic lights exist purely to deal with motorised vehicles what alternative method would you advocate to allocate/switch right of way to other road users in the absence of traffic lights?

I would suggest something along the lines of Shared space. You seem so taken with idea of rule following and right of way that you just can't consider the idea of road users operating with consideration for each other.

Even in a rule-following traffic management system rules like priority to the right or using mini-roundabouts at crossroads (yield to right) and pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings, where, you know, peds have right of way) would deal with those issues.

BostonB

The reason we have lights is because road users don't cooperate.

That especially true in Ireland. Over the last 10yrs we've become incredibly selfish on the road.

Lumen

BostonB wrote: »

The reason we have lights is because road users don't cooperate.

That especially true in Ireland. Over the last 10yrs we've become incredibly selfish on the road.

If you treat people like idiots, they find new ways to express their idiocy, resulting in a feedback loop, the end result of which is...

tomasrojo

One of those images is from the Daily Mail. Does that automatically invalidate any point you were making?

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

One of those images is from the Daily Mail. Does that automatically invalidate any point you were making?

Not unless it's Photoshopped. The PA copyright would seem to suggest not.

tomasrojo

Just noticed the other day how many motorists reverse out of their driveway onto the main road. I think this is illegal, isn't it? How worked up should one be about this? Is it a constant flouting of the law, of is that law essentially outdated and will never enforced or relevant to a court proceeding?

Somewhat tangential, but while we're on the subject of laws not being followed ...

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just noticed the other day how many motorists reverse out of their driveway onto the main road. I think this is illegal, isn't it?

I don't think so. It is against the ROTR to reverse from a minor road on to a major road, but a driveway is not a minor road.

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

If you treat people like idiots, they find new ways to express their idiocy, resulting in a feedback loop, the end result of which is...

....

Sculpture?
http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/london_photos/Canary_Wharf_Traffic_Lights.htm

Lumen

BostonB wrote: »

Sculpture?

You want the truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

zynaps

Lumen wrote: »

If you treat people like idiots, they find new ways to express their idiocy, resulting in a feedback loop, the end result of which is...

Well, the opposite end of the spectrum is anarchy which just leads to bad people doing bad things and getting away them. A middle ground is nice

Lumen wrote: »

Hmm... I seem to recall an exit from Blanchardstown shopping centre being like that A few years ago I counted about 25 traffic light boxes at one junction.

BostonB

zynaps wrote: »

...
Hmm... I seem to recall an exit from Blanchardstown shopping centre being like that A few years ago I counted about 25 traffic light boxes at one junction.

Thats redundancy in case they get nicked.

BostonB

Lumen wrote: »

You want the truth? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.

I can't handle cake either. Hence the handles.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

I would suggest something along the lines of Shared space. You seem so taken with idea of rule following and right of way that you just can't consider the idea of road users operating with consideration for each other.

Now you're talkin'. I like the idea of Shared Space as it doesn't segregate the different road users. From what I understand of Shared Space everyone has equal responsibility for being considerate for everyone else, so the idea of cyclists being able to ignore red lights when drivers can't doesn't arise as it is contrary to the whole premise of the solution.

Whether people would actually allow it to work here is a whole other topic of course, but in principle I am all for it.

blorg wrote:

Even in a rule-following traffic management system rules like priority to the right or using mini-roundabouts at crossroads (yield to right) and pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings, where, you know, peds have right of way) would deal with those issues.

Is this the right time to raise the behaviour of the Irish on roundabouts and to question whether roundabouts are safer than traffic lights in this county?...

BostonB

Its far from clearcut as driver behavior and the effectiveness of lights, junctions and roundabouts is completely compromised by abysmal road design and planning in Ireland.

zynaps

BostonB wrote: »

Its far from clearcut as driver behavior and the effectiveness of lights, junctions and roundabouts is completely compromised by abysmal road design and planning in Ireland.

Especially the hideously stupid roundabouts (e.g. Malahide Road passing Coolock) with a traffic light and/or overly-sensitive pedestrian crossing at the exits - dangerous AND a bottleneck causing phantom traffic.

[edit]
And two-lane roads leading into a roundabout with no lane markings. And two-lane roads which pass through a junction and then suddenly there's only one lane on the other side. Hello... recipe for confusion and disaster! Can we have some more deterministic traffic markings/mechanisms please?

cdaly_

doozerie wrote: »

So here is a question for you based on what you wrote above: in a world with no motorised vehicles how would you propose that cyclists safely pass through junctions intersecting with other busy routes filled with other cyclists, and that pedestrians safely cross busy routes filled with cyclists i.e. given that you seem to believe that traffic lights exist purely to deal with motorised vehicles what alternative method would you advocate to allocate/switch right of way to other road users in the absence of traffic lights?

Well, there's:

or:

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just noticed the other day how many motorists reverse out of their driveway onto the main road. I think this is illegal, isn't it?

Came across something like this the other day. Cyclist being given out to for cycling on the path by a driver who was reversing out of driveway across said path into rush-hour traffic...