Promenade - Megathread

[WTF]

4 hours ago, Itsmeee said:

That doesn’t apply here yet as far as I am aware. 

the old one didn't seem to apply either going by the standard of driving.

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Banker said:

Cyclists 

I can't believe that. I am surprised. I have been in cycle clubs and cycled for 50 years and never known a real cyclist want nor need to cycle on the pavement. 

[Annoymouse]

10 hours ago, WTF said:

the whole idea behind this is so that daydreaming earbud wearing tossers wandering along with their faces in their phones don't get run over .  move the  responsibility and liability away from the pedestrian onto the driver so they can get the blame in the event of someone getting skittled.

I don’t agree with the changes, but I don’t think it’s just to protect the daydreamers, people just aren’t as courteous any more, coupled with drivers that seem heavily distracted by in car gadgets, I think the intention is to make drivers responsible because they’re the ones in control of a 1.5+ ton machine.

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, Annoymouse said:

I don’t agree with the changes, but I don’t think it’s just to protect the daydreamers, people just aren’t as courteous any more, coupled with drivers that seem heavily distracted by in car gadgets, I think the intention is to make drivers responsible because they’re the ones in control of a 1.5+ ton machine.

That's absolutely correct. 

[Bandits]

10 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I don’t agree with the changes, but I don’t think it’s just to protect the daydreamers, people just aren’t as courteous any more, coupled with drivers that seem heavily distracted by in car gadgets, I think the intention is to make drivers responsible because they’re the ones in control of a 1.5+ ton machine.

The guy I saw was riding a Yamaha. He was not distracted by in car gadgets or anything else. He was distracted by a fake zebra crossing which should not be on that stretch of road as it’s dangerous. 

[Annoymouse]

12 minutes ago, Bandits said:

The guy I saw was riding a Yamaha. He was not distracted by in car gadgets or anything else. He was distracted by a fake zebra crossing which should not be on that stretch of road as it’s dangerous. 

But the responsibility is still on the rider/driver, at any crossing they should be prepared to stop, informal or otherwise.

[Banker]

11 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I can't believe that. I am surprised. I have been in cycle clubs and cycled for 50 years and never known a real cyclist want nor need to cycle on the pavement. 

What’s a real cyclist? There’s loads of them who seem to see it as a right to cycle where they want including pavements, going up bray hill from QB is another place you will encounter them on the pavements.

[Bandits]

26 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

But the responsibility is still on the rider/driver, at any crossing they should be prepared to stop, informal or otherwise.

It doesn’t really matter does it? Unless you think it’s acceptable for the DOI to install something that is dubiously legal as a crossing and downright dangerous and waiting for an accident to happen but then go ‘tough shit’ it’s other peoples fault for not working out what’s going on. That’s exactly what they did in St Johns where someone was actually killed. 

[Annoymouse]

1 minute ago, Bandits said:

It doesn’t really matter does it? Unless you think it’s acceptable for the DOI to install something that is dubiously legal as a crossing and downright dangerous and waiting for an accident to happen but then go ‘tough shit’ it’s other peoples fault for not working out what’s going on. That’s exactly what they did in St Johns where someone was actually killed. 

I don’t know how it’s going to pan out, but the recent Highway Code changes reflect that this is what to expect in future, with the level of vulnerability indicating priority. Historically I’ve always given way to a HGV where possible, but in this new system they are expected to give way to everyone else, it’s a huge shift and will take years to get fully accustomed to the changes, we should become more courteous as a result.

Its not as dangerous as the crossing at St. John’s because visibility is good for everyone involved and it’s a 20mph speed limit, the real risk will be people following to close to a vehicle in front and possibly rear ending the vehicle as someone is crossing infront, if someone does get hit on the prom it will amount to driving without due care and attention or careless driving I would imagine.

 

[WTF]

11 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I don’t agree with the changes, but I don’t think it’s just to protect the daydreamers, people just aren’t as courteous any more, coupled with drivers that seem heavily distracted by in car gadgets, I think the intention is to make drivers responsible because they’re the ones in control of a 1.5+ ton machine.

 drivers are always  required to drive with due care and attention regardless of their vehicle weight,  pedestrians should only expect right of way at a regular crossing that drivers can identify as such.   proper zebra crossings intermixed with fake ones every 50 feet just isn't a good idea.   do we really need 2 crossings so close together just so someone doesn't have to cross a side street with almost no traffic using it?

[Bandits]

50 minutes ago, Youaintseenme said:

It’s not waiting for an accident to happen if people check it is safe before they step out into the road.

I like them.  It encourages everyone to take a bit of responsibility for themselves.

 

 

More low quality trolling 

[Annoymouse]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

pedestrians should only expect right of way at a regular crossing that drivers can identify as such.   proper zebra crossings intermixed with fake ones every 50 feet just isn't a good idea.

You can either fight against these changes or just adapt to them and move on, it’s made very title difference to my journey along the prom, I really don’t like the crossings on the roundels but if a pedestrian walks out in front of me could I stop? Absolutely and if you can’t you need to look at your own speed and awareness.

[Bandits]

8 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

You can either fight against these changes or just adapt to them and move on, it’s made very title difference to my journey along the prom, I really don’t like the crossings on the roundels but if a pedestrian walks out in front of me could I stop? Absolutely and if you can’t you need to look at your own speed and awareness.

So we wait for someone to die then just like everyone said was inevitable at St Johns? It doesn’t seem to be a particularly good strategy to me. 

[Two-lane]

14 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

but if a pedestrian walks out in front of me could I stop? Absolutely

To be sure you do not hit a pedestrian who steps out into the road, you must drive several feet away from the kerb, and the higher the speed the further the distance from the kerb. Also do not look anywhere else but ahead - the time of one second it takes to check you mirrors is significant in these situations.

In the case of the prom. where it is possible to be several feet away from the kerb and speeds should be low, it may be possible to believe you will be accident-free - but only possibly.

In places like Bowring Road in Ramsey you would need to drive at walking speed to avoid hitting someone who steps out.

[WTF]

30 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

 if a pedestrian walks out in front of me could I stop? Absolutely 

but can the vehicle behind you that didn't expect you be stopping at a non crossing stop too ?  when your car is in dale and colvin or autocrash having the rear end redone you may reconsider.  the lack of belisha beacons or traffic lights makes the non crossings hard to spot if you're in  a queue of traffic .

Edited June 4, 2022 by WTF