One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 2

[anonymous-user]

ETA Tank:

Cyclist with mega-strobe on the front of his bike was riding along, an Audi was in the wrong lane and stopped just shy of a signal controlled box junction, causing the cyclist to slow. He gobbed off at the driver, then carried on his way. Whilst he was slowed by the Audi, the traffic lights had changed, and presented the peds at the crossing with a green man before cyclo-dick had crossed. A small boy, about 4 or 5 walked out in front of the cyclist, who made no effort to stop and clattered the lad. Lance wkstrong then turned his bike round and rode back to the boy and parent, strobing them in the face, and blamed the car driver.

The time between the car incident and Bradley wkins hitting the kid was several seconds, long enough for the Wheeled Warrior to get back up to speed and for the incidents to be completely unrelated.

[Hol]

smithyithy said:

Oh, and people trying to police the roads.

Now this one might split opinions...

Driving up the M6 from Birmingham. Rush hour traffic but surprisingly it's moving quite well..

The gantry says 50mph. I'm in the outside lane as I don't need to get off for a while.

Lane 1 is doing 50-55mph. Lane 2 is doing 55-60mph. Us (lane 3) are doing 47mph.

Yes, the gantry says 50, but lanes 1 and 2 are effectively undertaking us, because the little red 107 2 cars in front of me HAS to travel at 47mph. There's a 20+ car gap in front of him while the other 2 lanes are passing us. Why not just move over?

Fair enough, he didn't want to speed, but everyone else was more than willing to, I don't see what he was gaining by (IMO) being a jobsworth and holding us all up. I know on paper he wasn't doing anything wrong, but a bit of common sense would say that if everyone else wants to go faster, just move over to a slower lane..

Am I being an arse or can you see my point? It wasn't even like he was going slightly slower, he was holding it 2-3mph below the gantry sign and a good 10-15mph below the 'slower' 2 lanes, it was just kinda obnoxious..

I notice this a lot in 'starter cars' like the 107/Aygo/C1. Always travelling just under the quoted speed limit and never speeding up, even to safely pass a hazard in the raod.


I WONDER, if it is something to do with the black boxes that insurers insist on more and more for new drivers.
Its a given that the box would know a 50mph limit and I would bet money that next years premium will not go down if it shows 51mph in the box history.


I am NOT, saying it is that, but I nhave just noticed more of a trend this last year.

[Europa1]

OpulentBob said:

Cyclist with mega-strobe on the front of his bike was riding along, an Audi was in the wrong lane and stopped just shy of a signal controlled box junction, causing the cyclist to slow. He gobbed off at the driver, then carried on his way. Whilst he was slowed by the Audi, the traffic lights had changed, and presented the peds at the crossing with a green man before cyclo-dick had crossed. A small boy, about 4 or 5 walked out in front of the cyclist, who made no effort to stop and clattered the lad. Lance wkstrong then turned his bike round and rode back to the boy and parent, strobing them in the face, and blamed the car driver.

The time between the car incident and Bradley wkins hitting the kid was several seconds, long enough for the Wheeled Warrior to get back up to speed and for the incidents to be completely unrelated.

Was the cyclist by any chance one of the ones who treats the ride to work as an alternative to going to the gym and must therefore ride flat out all the time and stop for nothing because that will interrupt his workout?

[anonymous-user]

I don't know, but he's the type that thinks a Cree T6 should be set on Max Strobe for road riding...

[Europa1]

I have to say the cyclist last night who sailed out of a side street in front of me last night was quite special. Dark bike, no lights, black jeans, black top. In the unlikely event I ever feel the need to accessorise my car with a bonnet ornament, I'd prefer something small and discreet. Not the mangled, bloodied corpse of a total f%^*tard.

[smithyithy]

Hol said:

I notice this a lot in 'starter cars' like the 107/Aygo/C1. Always travelling just under the quoted speed limit and never speeding up, even to safely pass a hazard in the raod.


I WONDER, if it is something to do with the black boxes that insurers insist on more and more for new drivers.
Its a given that the box would know a 50mph limit and I would bet money that next years premium will not go down if it shows 51mph in the box history.


I am NOT, saying it is that, but I nhave just noticed more of a trend this last year.

Is that true? The black boxes track the variable speed cameras on gantries? Flipping heck..

[Cliftonite]

OpulentBob said:

Cliftonite said:

Having the crossing so far away from the traffic light that controls vehicular traffic over it seems crazy to me, notwithstanding the 'protection' that should, in theory, be given by the yellow box.

A traffic light 'repeater' at the crossing itself would help prevent this sort of fkwittery putting people's lives at risks.

To all intents and purposes, this is a pedestrian crossing with green lights for pedestrians with no corresponding red light for vehicles.

Whoever designed +/or signed off that crossing installation should have much on his conscience.

I redesigned a slip road on a fairly major Trunk Road a few years ago, and someone was killed there in a high speed crash a couple of years later. It was speed and booze, according to the Police, but maybe if I hadn't resurfaced, widened and lit the slip, he wouldn't have been encouraged to put his foot down. The old bumpy dark slip road was horrible and kept speeds down.

Should I feel guilty?

(ETA I don't, by the way.)

A traffic light "repeater" would mean people stopping in the box junction, which presumably is there for a reason, a(n) historic problem at that junction. A secondary signal would need to be seen from the main junction stop line, and judging by that video the geometry doesn't work.

It's the cyclists fault, pure and simple.

You should NOT feel guilty. Of course. I guess you did a good job.

The crossing where the child was run into by the cyclist is a junction designed to kill someone. Seriously. I think you know this. Someone please tell me exactly where this is located so that I can make my feelings known to the local authority (once I have had a good study of Google StreetView, of course, to confirm my fears).

Stopping in the box is less of an evil than running someone down.

(If it is not possible to see the needed repeater signal, is it even possible to see the end of the yellow box junction from the main stop line? A vital requirement, I would have thought!).)?

Pedestrians tend to just cross when the green man appears. They could then be run down by a red-light jumper who believes he has cleared the junction controlled by the lights, or even an innattentive slow driver who has dawdled over the crossing after passing an amber (or even a green?).

And . . . breathe.

[Swanny87]

Hol said:

smithyithy said:

Oh, and people trying to police the roads.

Now this one might split opinions...

Driving up the M6 from Birmingham. Rush hour traffic but surprisingly it's moving quite well..

The gantry says 50mph. I'm in the outside lane as I don't need to get off for a while.

Lane 1 is doing 50-55mph. Lane 2 is doing 55-60mph. Us (lane 3) are doing 47mph.

Yes, the gantry says 50, but lanes 1 and 2 are effectively undertaking us, because the little red 107 2 cars in front of me HAS to travel at 47mph. There's a 20+ car gap in front of him while the other 2 lanes are passing us. Why not just move over?

Fair enough, he didn't want to speed, but everyone else was more than willing to, I don't see what he was gaining by (IMO) being a jobsworth and holding us all up. I know on paper he wasn't doing anything wrong, but a bit of common sense would say that if everyone else wants to go faster, just move over to a slower lane..

Am I being an arse or can you see my point? It wasn't even like he was going slightly slower, he was holding it 2-3mph below the gantry sign and a good 10-15mph below the 'slower' 2 lanes, it was just kinda obnoxious..

I notice this a lot in 'starter cars' like the 107/Aygo/C1. Always travelling just under the quoted speed limit and never speeding up, even to safely pass a hazard in the raod.


I WONDER, if it is something to do with the black boxes that insurers insist on more and more for new drivers.
Its a given that the box would know a 50mph limit and I would bet money that next years premium will not go down if it shows 51mph in the box history.


I am NOT, saying it is that, but I nhave just noticed more of a trend this last year.

I imagine the insurance company would also like to know that the driver was sat in the wrong lane making themselves a rolling hazard by blocking the lane...

Oh wait sorry I was away in ideal world. It's perfectly fine in the eyes of insurance to do the above BUT FOR THE DEAR LOVE OF THE CHILDREN THEY'RE DRIVING AT 51 MILES AN HOUR NEXT YEARS PREMIUM ONE MILLION POUNDS!!!!

[Cliftonite]

[anonymous-user]

Cliftonite said:

The crossing where the child was run into by the cyclist is a junction designed to kill someone. Seriously. I think you know this.

Mumsnet is that way ---->

"Designed to kill". Jesus Christ. Think of the children, the kittens, etc etc.

How fking offensive to professional engineers.

[Tyre Tread]

Cliftonite said:

Ah, she may be on the phone but she's under the speed limit and driving a Volvo so she's fine.

[Silverbullet767]

yellowjack said:

Silverbullet767 said:

doogz said:

yellowjack said:

I WON'T pull over to allow 'faster' traffic to pass if I'm travelling at the speed limit, or at a "reasonable speed for the prevailing conditions".

You shouldn't need to. It should be impossible. You should never find yourself in the position where there is a space to pull over into the lane on your left, that you're not pulling into. Any lane that's not the left lane of the particular carriageway you're driving on, is for overtaking. Once you're finished overtaking, you move back in.

Unless you're the sort of knob that sits in the middle/outside lane for no good reason.

I'll go with this, self righteous white knight of the speed gods. Do us all a favour and keep left unless overtaking. There's a good lad.

Do us a favour, and keep up at the back, there's a good lad.

No-one in this little discussion is talking about a road upon which there are multiple lanes in opposing directions...

Oops, hands up! As you were!!

[Cliftonite]

OpulentBob said:

Cliftonite said:

The crossing where the child was run into by the cyclist is a junction designed to kill someone. Seriously. I think you know this.

Mumsnet is that way ---->

"Designed to kill". Jesus Christ. Think of the children, the kittens, etc etc.

How fking offensive to professional engineers.

A pedestrian crossing with a green man for pedestrians and no corresponding, effective red light for traffic is designed to kill.

If the design of this junction is really as bad as it looks on the video (I have asked for its location (please? - you know it?) so I can check this out for myself) the "professional engineers" have much to be ashamed of.

Had the idiotic cyclist instead been driving a car, the situation would have been very different. And remember, he did not pass a red light.

(By the way, did your mummy not tell you that swearing is naughty?)

[fatboy69]

People who ask for advice, get given it by 'experts' & then proceed to either do what they want to do or do exactly the opposite of what the 'experts' have told them to do,

Knobs.

[anonymous-user]

Cliftonite said:

OpulentBob said:

Cliftonite said:

The crossing where the child was run into by the cyclist is a junction designed to kill someone. Seriously. I think you know this.

Mumsnet is that way ---->

"Designed to kill". Jesus Christ. Think of the children, the kittens, etc etc.

How fking offensive to professional engineers.

A pedestrian crossing with a green man for pedestrians and no corresponding, effective red light for traffic is designed to kill.

If the design of this junction is really as bad as it looks on the video (I have asked for its location (please? - you know it?) so I can check this out for myself) the "professional engineers" have much to be ashamed of.

Had the idiotic cyclist instead been driving a car, the situation would have been very different. And remember, he did not pass a red light.

(By the way, did your mummy not tell you that swearing is naughty?)

I believe you accused road designers of fkwittery earlier, Mr Kettle.

Again, "Designed to kill" emotive guff. Yeah, because we all come in to work to design junction improvements to kill people.

He didn't pass a red light, agreed, but you are STILL OBLIGED to proceed with caution. You cannot just drive/ride, and fk whoever's in front of you, because "I'm RIGHT, MY RIGHT OF WAY". What if the kid had walked out on a red light? Would that make it OK that the cyclist made no attempt to slow down? Because that's proven in the video. At no point before hitting the kid did he reach for his brakes or take avoiding action. The cyclist would have also heard the audible chirping of the pedestrian crossing. I can hear it from inside a car, so Glands Armstrong would have easily been able to.

And if the cyclist had been in a car, then he would have hit the brakes, or he would have had YouTube evidence of (very likely) dangerous driving.

Stop trying to defend the cyclist. Did a highway engineer run off with your wife or something?

(Oh, I've never said I know where the junction is. But, if you find it, then I look forward to your assessment of how it doesn't meet the design standards. I'll provide you links and log-ins to all the relevant manuals.)

[yellowjack]

Without the now removed video for reference, I cannot be sure, but I think this may be it...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.9650871,-1.08284...

[anonymous-user]

Not sure. I thought there were ped railings on the nearside.

[Europa1]

Cliftonite said:

A pedestrian crossing with a green man for pedestrians and no corresponding, effective red light for traffic is designed to kill.

This sort of comment makes me think it. It may be badly designed or executed but I would be extremely surprised if it had been "designed to kill".

[Cliftonite]

OpulentBob said:

I believe you accused road designers of fkwittery earlier, Mr Kettle.

I did, Mr Black. Guilty as charged. Sorry!

OpulentBob said:

Again, "Designed to kill" emotive guff. Yeah, because we all come in to work to design junction improvements to kill people.

Again, a bit naughty of me, attention seeking! (And it worked)!

Expanded to read: A pedestrian crossing with a green man for pedestrians and no corresponding, effective red light for traffic is as if it were designed to kill.

OpulentBob said:

He didn't pass a red light, agreed, but you are STILL OBLIGED to proceed with caution. You cannot just drive/ride, and fk whoever's in front of you, because "I'm RIGHT, MY RIGHT OF WAY". What if the kid had walked out on a red light? Would that make it OK that the cyclist made no attempt to slow down? Because that's proven in the video. At no point before hitting the kid did he reach for his brakes or take avoiding action. The cyclist would have also heard the audible chirping of the pedestrian crossing. I can hear it from inside a car, so Glands Armstrong would have easily been able to.

And if the cyclist had been in a car, then he would have hit the brakes, or he would have had YouTube evidence of (very likely) dangerous driving.

Stop trying to defend the cyclist. Did a highway engineer run off with your wife or something?

Nowhere and in no way have I defended this prat of a cyclist. Indeed, I hope that one of my (this time, short, pithy) comments against his YouTube upload went some way towards his realizing the error of his ways!

OpulentBob said:

(Oh, I've never said I know where the junction is. But, if you find it, then I look forward to your assessment of how it doesn't meet the design standards. I'll provide you links and log-ins to all the relevant manuals.)

You seemed to have expressed knowledge that vehicles stopping in this specific box had been an historic problem. Sorry if I misunderstood this to mean that you knew where it was.

I do not have the knowledge and ability to design junctions. Or, indeed, anything! . But I do have opinions as to when and where designers have fouled up.

I would like to have a closer look at this junction to confirm whether or not my fears are justified.

Hope this helps!

(I think actually that we may be the same side, here, really! We both know the cyclist is a prat, and hope that the junction is actually fit for purpose)!

[anonymous-user]

Ha ha wait a minute...

(checks name)

Did you write "squoze" in his comments? I lol'd at that. I even commented on your comment...

I think we probably are on the same side. I get very defensive of roads and junctions. They do a bloody good job for the 99.999pc of people who use them.

Anyway, peace.