Only one EV charger at home?!

Even in those days (35 years ago) most drivers didn't exercise their rights, but used common sense. This was IIRC the Belgian equivalent of a wingnut in a morris minor.

I didn't have time to examine him closely

That was the original rule in the Highway code. Some anti-car bureaucrat changed that to it being illegal to cross them

AS a mark of priority they are excellent,. As a thing you must drive around it is almost EU like in its petty bureaucratic enforcement of stupid rules, just because you can.

OTOH, on very light traffic, where more than one car waiting is a rarity, they are fine

I was on a fast straight cross country road near here, when I saw a vehicle coming on a road at right angles. Assuming I had right of way I kept going until I finally saw the dreaded triangle of 'give way' I only just stopped in time.

At leats with a 4 way stop you know you have to stop

By the time I passed my test in the 60s, it was well drilled into you as part of the highway code. Prior to that and indeed prior to 1956, roundabouts existed but there were no formalised rules

I remember hitching on the exit to a roundabout in the West country and seeing a small family car drive onto the roundabout without slowing and get hit by a substantial l big saloon that had it up on two wheels and nearly flipping..

Not as bad as the car that I saw roll over twice, who was obeying the speed limit but failed to notice that concrete piece of 'traffic calming' placed directly in his path.

Road rules have moved from 'keep cars moving, give them hazard warnings and clear simple rules' to 'if possible f*ck the motorist up at every possible turn, stop them for no reason at traffic lights that have no traffic, tax him, fine him and wreck his car for him'.

I have seen outlets screwed onto power poles.

I have seen outlets screwed onto power poles.

The two new ones were built to support housing developments that are still in the process of being constructed. The road where a elementary school is located tends to be backed up and when they started construction I thought they were going to fix that problem. If anything the rotary made it worse.

The map sucks but the roundabout is at Mary Jane, not Flynn where the school is located. The 'completed by the end of summer (2022)' was a bit optimistic.

Last month a woman was killed about a half mile past the new roundabouts. She blew a stop sign and was t-boned by a pickup but that may be used as an excuse to build yet another. Got to protect the stupid.

Ours aren't. the kerbs are redone for the new mini roundabout and most of the mini roundabouts are in fact done when the new roads are done in the new housing subdivision, what you lot call an estate.

No Australia does not and NZ doesnt either.

In message snipped-for-privacy@pvr2.lan, Rod Speed snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

I practice, I expect that that rule simply evolved in the days when the traffic was all horse and carts and coaches, there few major roads in the sense we know them today.

I certainly hope not! However, I'd accept proof, if supplied.

Although I used to go to Europe frequently, I haven't been for 20 years. However, as I've said, my recollections are that 'Priorité à droit' was only surviving in areas of minor roads and urban back-streets.

I'm evidently wrong. I'm sure I've read about a rule that has caught out drivers from other RHD countries (eg UK) because the priority is the opposite way round. But I've just looked now and Google doesn't find any reference to it. I'm beginning to doubt my sanity or my memory ;-) But if the rule *had* been true, it would have been a very stupid one.

I gather that Australia is one of the countries which allows cars to turn left at a red traffic light if it is safe to do so, which catches out pedestrians who aren't aware of this and thing that nothing will by turning because it's got a red light and so start to cross.

If it’s anything like America the pedestrians will still have right of way over cars turning on red. You do need to be a bit more on your toes and alert for cars though.

Tim

There was a NZ rule about priority of turning traffic north bound car turning west had to wait for a south bound car turning west. Apparently this started in Victoria (AU), SFAIK Vic. dropped that a long time ago and NZ dropped it about 12 years ago (now north bound has priority)

Here's a write-up.

I'm pretty sure turning cars have to wait for pedestrians.

In this state bicycles theoretically have all the rights and obligations of motor vehicles. Enforcement is spotty although there is an annual campaign to enforce proper lighting as the days get shorter.

The problem is when a dedicated off-road cycle track exists (eg a pavement/sidewalk that is marked with a white line and icons for pedestrian and bicycle) but cyclists still insist on using the road, making it harder for faster vehicles to get past them. When I was on a cruise that went to Amsterdam, we went on a coach tour and the guide pointed out how many roads had a segregated cycle track alongside the road, and she said that in the Netherlands it is the law that cyclists must use a cycle track and not a road if a track exists. We could do with that law here.

In the UK, bikes are *required* to obey many of the same rules that cars have to. But with no numberplate for witnesses to report or for cameras to photograph, and with very few police to catch them at it, they get away scot free. I saw a TV documentary about the work of the police and they had a campaign to catch cyclists (mainly couriers) who were riding through pedestrian crossings and traffic lights at junctions. The main reaction of the cyclists was indignation and anger that they had been stopped: there seemed to be a feeling that it was wrong and "discriminatory" for cyclists to have to obey those rules. Some cyclists want to be treated as part of the traffic (fair enough) but at the same time want all sorts of exemptions and special treatment.

I've personally witnessed two occasions when cyclists rode straight through zebra crossings with people on, narrowly escaping injuring people.

The first was when I was walking to a laboratory session at university along a road with a long gentle hill (Blackboy Hill / Whiteladies Road in Bristol, for those that know it). At a junction there was a zebra crossing in two halves with illuminated keep-left bollards in the middle of the road. I heard some hooting so I turned round and saw a cyclist overtaking all the cars and weaving onto the wrong side of the road at times. Several cars were queued at the crossing to let some pedestrians cross: one was a woman pushing a pram. The cyclist tried to squeeze between the leading car and the bollards, and swerved violently to avoid (by a hair's breadth) the pram. He skidded and came off his bike, sliding across the road and very nearly going under the wheels of an oncoming bus. Covered in blood, he ran towards the woman, yelling abuse at her for "daring" to get in his way. My mate, who was a big burly chap, decided to intervene because it looked as if the cyclist was about to attack the woman. My mate restrained him until the police arrived (he even got the copper's collar ID as proof of why he was late for the lab). I hope the police the book at that cyclist; a car driver who did something similar would probably face a big fine and points on his licence.

The second was a bit more recent. I was cycling through Oxford, along St Giles. There is a long zebra crossing which spans the road which is very wide at that point because it's where two roads converge in a Y. I could see a large group of people approaching the crossing, with someone at the front carrying a raised umbrella. Ah, tour guide with tourists. They started to cross. I slowed down and waited - wrily thinking that I may be there for a little while because there were a lot of people crossing. Fair enough, frustrating but it's one of those things. Suddenly I heard a yell from behind me "Out of my f-ing way" and a cyclist came bombing past me, riding as if he was pursued by an angry bear, as the queue of Japanese tourists scattered left and right in panic.

I've also had a cyclist narrowly escape running into the side of me as I was driving through a green traffic light. I was not the first or last car through the lights, so I presume they'd been red for some time for the road at right angles that the cyclist was on.

Cars tend to go through red lights just after they've changed from amber to red or just before they change from red-and-amber to green. At those times, they *may* get way with it because the cars that had a green light may not have set off yet or may have already stopped. Cyclists (from my observation) seem to go through lights no matter how long they have been red, hoping that cars will stop for them.

It is those cyclists who need to be identified (by registration number?) and face the full weight of the law. OK, they will cause very little damage (compared with a car) if they hit something, but if something which is in the right hits them, they will scream blue murder.

As an occasional cyclist (for pleasure and exercise, rather than as a means of transport) I try to be as considerate as possible. I am well aware that I am usually the slowest vehicle on the road, so I try to make it as easy as possible for cars, lorries, buses to overtake me, while still keeping clear of the kerb and manholes. If I'm in a double-white line section of road where nothing is allowed to overtake me, I will sometimes put on a brief spurt of power to get as soon as possible to the nearest place where I can pull off for a second (I probably need a rest anyway!). Likewise if I'm on a single-track road: I look for passing places and am prepared to pull into the nearest one - just as I would if I was driving my car. There's a single-track road near me which is signed as a "scenic route" and attracts a lot of cyclists (and cars). I'm well aware that the onus is on both me and the oncoming vehicle to pull in to let the other past: whoever is closer to a passing place pulls in. But you rarely see cyclists pull in, even if they were closer to a place where they could pull over and I (as a car driver) didn't have a place for some distance ahead.

So I'm not anti-cyclist. I'm anti the inconsiderate cyclist who thinks that they are exempt from the normal rules and courtesies of using roads.

I;m not sure who hates cyclists more: car/lorry drivers or pedestrians. I remember I was out for a walk with a friend on the Ridgeway Path which is an off-road route which is open to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. We were walking two abreast, but if I heard a cyclist coming up behind me or saw one coming towards me, I tried to move behind my friend so as to create a gap for the cyclist to pass. Almost every cyclist passed as wide and slow as possible. And yet my friend started yelling at me: "Why are you making it easy for them? Don't let them come past. They can stay behind us." It was a very strange bloody-minded reaction: I saw a side to her that I'd never seen before in the several years I'd known her. I could understand it if the cyclists had been riding dangerously fast/close to us, but I didn't see any of that. But you get that: groups of people who walk n-abreast across the whole width of the track or the pavement alongside a road, and moan if anyone coming towards then (even another pedestrian) wants to get past.

We have the road rules online.

NY snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote

The road rules are online, for learner drivers who have to pass a road rules test at the motor registry office on a machine before actually being tested with human tester in their own car or the driving school car in person on real roads.

Or someone claimed that and didnt have a clue.

Yeah, completely stupid.

No. But the rules do vary a bit state by state.

Most of ours do have a separate light for the pedestrians, mainly so they dont end up half way across the road when the lights change with clear indication that the light is for the pedestrians with a little picture of a person that changes color and an audible signal for blind people.

The pedestrians and bike riders get along pretty well around here. Even on the single track for MTBs there is very little conflict. I usually hear them coming and get out of the way.

There is one trail where I've been waiting for a conflict. It leads up a gulch with a small creek and is steep in parts so a bicyclist can get up a good speed on the downhill run. It is also frequented by black bears. Someday I expect to see a bear coming off the trail riding a bike.

The worst feature are what are know locally as bulb-outs.

All of ours are poorly designed afaik.

They're still sorting out eBikes. They are banned on some of the single track trails but so far there hasn't been a major problem in town. The potential is still there.

In the summer months the police have bike patrols. It gives them a presence at the twice weekly concerts in the park, the farmers market, and other events that would be difficult with a car or motorcycle.

In message snipped-for-privacy@pvr2.lan, Rod Speed snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

I talk to an Australian (in Australia) every morning. When I asked him about this rather strange rule, he was pretty vague about it, and thought that it might sort-of exist, but no one obeys it.

If there's a long string of traffic following you, easing off your speed monetarily to let someone turn right 'across your bows' (or to pull out from a side-road) is simply considerate driving, but it obviously has its dangers if it's an enforceable law.

In the Netherlands where such dedicated tracks exist they are generally of a much higher quality than the ones here in the UK. Cyclists will generally use whichever route is fastest, safest or most convenient. Often dedicated cycle paths here here are none of those. A common problem with simple painted lanes at the side of roads is that they accumulate all the debris and broken glass etc swept aside from the main traffic lanes. They’ve been designed to demote cyclists to second class road users and to keep them out of the way of cars.

A well designed and maintained cycle path is a joy to use. Sadly they’re few and far between. We need properly designed and maintained lanes

Tim

He is wrong and it is trivial to check that because the road rules are online in all states.

That isnt what is being discussed.

Read the first para again.