Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

naim_nymph posted:

What those 2015 statistics don't say is how many deaths and casualty figures are reduced due to the many roads becoming so obviously dangerous they have become no-go places for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why those casualty figures report lower than previous years....  

Yes, it is a complicated game. Government action to discourage active transportation is definitely a thing. New South Wales is the shining example of this bastardry, where the current transport minister is trying to fine cyclists off the road altogether. And succeeding.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cycl...20170801-gxn311.html

Innocent Bystander posted:

naim_nymph posted:

What those 2015 statistics don't say is how many deaths and casualty figures are reduced due to the many roads becoming so obviously dangerous they have become no-go places for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why those casualty figures report lower than previous years....  

What roads are those? I'm not aware of any, other than those where cycling is prohibited by law, mostly motorways: how would I know to avoid If cycle touring anywhere unfamiliar? At present if I were to go cycle touring I'd just look at a map and plan a route.

There are lots of increasingly busy roads with no shoulder or other accommodation for cyclists; where cyclists are forced to scurry along in the gutter like frightened squirrels. Worse still, are roads that allow on-street parking, and where to avoid the door zone, cyclists must risk the wrath of impatient and entitled motorists. Sure, cycling can take place on quiet streets. But do you know why those streets are quiet? Because, they don't go places that most people want to go.

winkyincanada posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

winkyincanada posted:

By my mathematics, at a fatality rate of about 32 per billion miles, if I cycle 10,000 miles (16,000km - about what I do) every year for 70 years I have a 2% chance of being killed by a motorist over my lifetime Not great odds, but if, at the age of 20 you offered me those odds against a choice to not be a cyclist, I'd still choose to cycle. Now, at the age of 56, I've only got about another 35 years of cycling in front of me, so I have a about a 1:100 chance of dying at the hands of a motorist. I'll take those odds, too.

Interesting.. the lifetime odds of being killed in a car by another motorist in the U.K.  is 1:200; i.e. 0.5% chance... of those 0.5%, 77% of them are men, and approx 50% of all car deaths occur with speeds above 55mph...... perhaps we ought to reduce speed limits to 55mph or lower and even ban men from driving.. they can perhaps cycle instead.. wearing their crash helmets of course...

[Source: Autonet Insurance Group]

Does "killed in a car by another motorist" include killing yourself? Car driving (like gun ownership) is statistically more likely to result in our own death (or the deaths of our loved ones) than it is to result in the death of a stranger. Cycling is worse in this regard, of course.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

winkyincanada posted:

By my mathematics, at a fatality rate of about 32 per billion miles, if I cycle 10,000 miles (16,000km - about what I do) every year for 70 years I have a 2% chance of being killed by a motorist over my lifetime Not great odds, but if, at the age of 20 you offered me those odds against a choice to not be a cyclist, I'd still choose to cycle. Now, at the age of 56, I've only got about another 35 years of cycling in front of me, so I have a about a 1:100 chance of dying at the hands of a motorist. I'll take those odds, too.

Interesting.. the lifetime odds of being killed in a car by another motorist in the U.K.  is 1:200; i.e. 0.5% chance... of those 0.5%, 77% of them are men, and approx 50% of all car deaths occur with speeds above 55mph...... perhaps we ought to reduce speed limits to 55mph or lower and even ban men from driving.. they can perhaps cycle instead.. wearing their crash helmets of course...

[Source: Autonet Insurance Group]

Interestingly the UK office for national statistics quotes the chance of dying by unintentional injury in a transport accident as 1 in 422, and that clearly includes deaths other than being killed in a car by another motorist, so the chance of dying by that particular cause would be lower. This would suggest that either the Autonet Insurance Group figure is incorrect (and therefore possibly the cost of insurance higher than it should be), or the overall risk in Scotland and/or Northern Ireland is considerably worse skewing the UK figure conpared to E&W , or considerably more than half the deaths of people in cars are caused by another motorist are not unintentional - i.e. murder.... 

Regardless, it would be interesting to know the statistic for death or permanent maiming of cyclists killed by head injuries that would have been prevented by wearing a cycle crash helmet:  I suspect it is trivial compared to all other deaths caused by motorists.

Innocent Bystander posted:

In some 45 years of cycling (55 years since I learnt, less about 10 'wilderness years when I first left home as a young adult), I have come off my bike 6 times. In none of them did my head/helmet contact the ground. Two were motor vehicle related:

The first, at the age of 16, was at least partly my fault : cycling down the outside of slow/stationary traffic on a busy town high street (unsafe on the inside due to pedestrians stepping in the road), I failed to maintain awareness of gaps in the cars and my they might be, didn't see the emerging right-turning vehicle  until too late and hit it. Damage to my front wheel, not to me, and no apparent damage to the car - a learning exercise for me.

the second was a year ago, when a box van pulled onto a mini roundabout in my path, my evasive action causing the wheels to slide out from under me and a slide along the road - torn clothing, cuts and bruises, and some damage to bike, but nothering very serious - I caught enough of the van's identity for the police to trace, but failed to get witness details from the other vehicle waiting to entrr the roundabout who checked I was OK - police took seriosly, and threatened van driver with prosecution, and would have followed through if I did have a witness.

the point of all this? car-bike related incidents are not actually very frequent in relation to the volume of car and bike traffic. Also, the serious ones tend to be serious bue to the speed and mass of the car, and whilst a helmet affords a certain amount of head protection in some instances, it will not be effective in all and will not protect against other injuries, which also can be life-changing or ending. In terms of motor vehicle-bicycle accidents what is needed is not helmets, but segregation, or some means of enforcing unfailing due care and attention by motorists.

Six accidents, one about 50 years ago, then 5 in the past year.

Is it indicative of something serious ?

The first and second I cited were of the two involving cars, not the first and second of the six occasions coming off my bike.

One way of looking at it is that represents one every 50 years  - however I am only too well aware that the next could be any time, and there are probably about 2 incidents a week where a car causes me to have to change my course or speed as a consequence of thoughtless behaviour.

Interesting takes here on risk perception, cause and causality, and just the general attitudes to it all.

Like IB I'll claim about 45 years of cycling but losing only about 5 as a young man when having a car did become a necessity.

I don't count my accidents but there've been a handful; minor tumbles, full on slides down the road and one face plant that ripped all the skin off my left cheek from lip to eyebrow. Never had a tumble when I've been wearing a helmet, never had a tumble without one that would have been improved by the presence of one, not even the face plant. Neither have any of my cycling acquaintances so I'm quite relaxed about the actual risk esp compared to some people on here who just won't cycle as it's "too dangerous". It palpably isn't, the stats prove it.

As far as wearing a helmet or not goes, I choose not to based partly on my attitude to risk and the experience of 45 years of me & various friends & acquaintances falling off our bikes in various ways. My riding is mainly rural on roads that amazingly aren't full of blind bends and sharp corners - UK lanes tend to go in fairly straight lines to get one from one village to another in my experience, so as a minimum doing a speed that's enough to be visible to following traffic for long enough to be spotted prior to a bend but fast enough to be a good way past it when the car gets there is a good way of maximising the chances of being seen, with the contrary requirement to be able to stop if needed if there is a hazard round the corner. But generally lanes don't present an issue. Neither do main roads - there's more space on them to start with. I assume the contributor who announced deregulated roads as having no limit earlier was being ironic. The NSL sign is just that - it indicates that the road is subject to the national speed limit for that type of road, in these cases usually [but not always] a single carriageway road with no regular street lighting hence subject to a 60mph limit. The NSL sign did mean 'no limit' many many years ago but an NSL road is now subject to the default speed limit - it'll always be either 60 or 70, unless otherwise indicated.

Back to helmets; I had a spell of wearing one a few years ago. It felt v uncomfortable and 'in the way'; it constantly fell forward limiting my forward vision to a narrow angle from eyebrows to not v far ahead of the bike. I like to see where I'm going, it was a bind having to keep re-positioning it, or developing neck-ache & shoulder ache with it on whilst peering out from underneath its front rim. I'm sure there are people even now mentally typing out a response about adjusting it, or getting a better fit - did that, but gave up. At £70 a pop for a bit of polystyrene in a plastic shell I'd expect them to work and mine never did whatever I did with the bands, the pads and the sizing. And as my view is that I can happily fall of without and come out unscathed at low speeds, and if anything hits me at high speeds a helmet isn't going to help much when a lorry smashes into my lower back, rupturing vessels and arteries, dislodging internal organs and breaking probably my spine and many other bones, so a helmet never seemed much of a defence against that. For the time I did wear one [including the requirement to wear one in organised events] it wasn't a big issue, but then after when I stopped for a short time after it did feel odd - naked was a word someone used earlier here. Maybe so; it didn't take long to get back to the default of neither needing one, wanting one or feeling obliged to wear one just because people with no real grasp of how much use a helmet actually is in an RTA thought or think I should wear one. So I'm happy not to wear one. If people who think cycling is dangerous feel the need to shout insults at non-wearers that's not a big issue to me. 

I liked the piece in The Guardian not so long back, where the reporter idly wondered if helmet enthusiasts are ever in a pub and on seeing someone start their 4th pint snatch it away shouting "don't you realise how dangerous this is? It's killing you", or doing the same trick to smokers gathered outside office doorways. It's what helmet fans seem to like doing, instructing others in risk perception and aversion.

I reckon another 20 years of beetling around on the bike at increasingly slower speeds should see me through. The odds are with me, esp if I continue to take care and be alert and aware. 

Just for clarity, I did mean that where I live the black diagonal on white disk  'nsl' sign does indeed have its original meaning, not the 'nsa' meaning that IIRC was introduced in UK at the time of fuel crises round about the beginning of the 1970s.

I always wear a crash helmet when cycling.

I don't cycle on the highway. My assessment is that the risk of life-changing or life-threatening injury is too great and, more importantly, outside of my control.

Off-road cycling is different. I have much more control over the risk of an accident. And my assessment is that the greatest life-threatening and life-changing injury would come from a head injury. My assessment is that a crash helmet will reduce/eliminate the consequences of such an injury.

Don Atkinson posted:

I don't cycle on the highway. My assessment is that the risk of life-changing or life-threatening injury is too great and, more importantly, outside of my control.

I understand your reasons, Don, but I wish you did. It has its own pleasures.

Best, Chris

Christopher_M posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I don't cycle on the highway. My assessment is that the risk of life-changing or life-threatening injury is too great and, more importantly, outside of my control.

I understand your reasons, Don, but I wish you did. It has its own pleasures.

Best, Chris

Hi Chris,

For the most part, we go hiking or play golf. This helps us keep active.

This week we confined ourselves to day hikes. Bow glacia falls; Tent ridge; Rae lake and Paradise valley/Sentinal pass/Larch valley.

You can't do these on a bike. The views are incredible.

This week we will probably ride some of the Kettle Valley railway. This is an off-road ex railway with trestle bridges and great views. It is a shared route with walkers so we will give way on the trestles and be sure to pass well clear when overtaking.

The risks and constant noise of traffic on the highways, even here in Canada, is enough to put me off cycling on the highway. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the views and nor would Mrs D.

But, each to his own. I take great care as a car driver to give pedestrians and cyclists a wide berth. And I don't begrudge them occupying the highway. But I don't envy them either.

Enjoy (as ken c would say !)

Cheers, Don

naim_nymph posted:

What those 2015 statistics don't say is how many deaths and casualty figures are reduced due to the many roads becoming so obviously dangerous they have become no-go places for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why those casualty figures report lower than previous years....  

Yep, the report seems to subtlety promote roads for toads sake.

it clearly excludes the real danger and fear people feel . Also excludes 'near misses' and of course minor incidents where folks haven't been motivated to report.

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

Saw a different one this morning on the uphill section of the fairly narrow shared-use path on the bridge. A fast jogger caught up with a cyclist who had slowed and wobbled while he fumbled with something (phone?) in his pocket. At the last minute, the jogger screamed at the cyclist to "get left" so he could pass. The jogger then simply ran into the back of the cyclist who was understandably totally confused and unsure what to do. Faster traffic always passes on the left on this section. Slower traffic keeps right. It generally means walkers on the right and cyclists on the left but the vast majority of cyclists keep right (when there are no pedestrians) to allow faster cyclists to pass. Passing on the right is virtually never done. The jogger had it wrong.

No new laws are required to protect pedestrians from cyclists. It is already illegal to ride in a dangerous manner, on footpaths and without brakes. Cyclists are already subject to road rules. In spite of the current levels of hysteria, cyclists kill nearly no-one. What is needed is enforcement of existing laws to protect all vulnerable road users from motorists who do nearly 100% of the killing and maiming. Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are only resolved by removing cyclists from shared use facilities. Pedestrians should not have to contend with cyclists for walking space.

Some nice new signs have been put up on the other short shared use path I use every day. They say "Cyclists yield to pedestrians". It is seemingly good advice, and advice that I follow regardless of signage. However, as it is usually the cyclist doing the overtaking it is arguably meaningless. For an overtaking cyclist to NOT yield to the pedestrian basically means that the cyclist would just run into the back of the pedestrian (like this morning's angry jogger). To avoid the pedestrians, the cyclist MUST yield. How else could it work? To have the cyclist ring a bell (or some such) and expect the pedestrians to yield would be idiotic. I also note that there have been no new signs erected reminding people to keep their bloody dogs leashed, though. I see loose dogs on this busy section nearly every day. It drives me nuts.

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

Interesting and agree that. behaviour should change before dispoperoate laws.

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

And no-one has suggested how to encourage motorists to be more considerate towards cyclists.

Jude2012 posted:

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

 

I resent any suggestion that I should be banned from crossing the road when ipsafe to do so where it is convenient to me - if that is what jaywalking means.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

And no-one has suggested how to encourage motorists to be more considerate towards cyclists.

Jude2012 posted:

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

 

I resent any suggestion that I should be banned from crossing the road when ipsafe to do so where it is convenient to me - if that is what jaywalking means.

Your choice what you want to resent, best to check out what drivers  and the relatives of the pedestrians and cyclists involved resent 

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

And no-one has suggested how to encourage motorists to be more considerate towards cyclists.

Jude2012 posted:

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

 

I resent any suggestion that I should be banned from crossing the road when ipsafe to do so where it is convenient to me - if that is what jaywalking means.

Your choice what you want to resent, best to check out what drivers  and the relatives of the pedestrians and cyclists involved resent 

I don't believe that the majority relatives of victims resent the fact that their loved ones were free to cross the road when they judged it safe to do so, but they do resent car drivers who do not take dipue care and attention, and use excessive speed on roads where there are pedestrians.

And as a motorist I dont expect the law to ban people crossing roads when it is safe to do so.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

Saw a different one this morning on the uphill section of the fairly narrow shared-use path on the bridge. A fast jogger caught up with a cyclist who had slowed and wobbled while he fumbled with something (phone?) in his pocket. At the last minute, the jogger screamed at the cyclist to "get left" so he could pass. The jogger then simply ran into the back of the cyclist who was understandably totally confused and unsure what to do. Faster traffic always passes on the left on this section. Slower traffic keeps right. It generally means walkers on the right and cyclists on the left but the vast majority of cyclists keep right (when there are no pedestrians) to allow faster cyclists to pass. Passing on the right is virtually never done. The jogger had it wrong.

the "root" cause was the cyclist fumbling with his phone ! Idiot ! The jogger was also a prat ! 

No new laws are required to protect pedestrians from cyclists. It is already illegal to ride in a dangerous manner, on footpaths and without brakes. Cyclists are already subject to road rules. In spite of the current levels of hysteria, cyclists kill nearly no-one.

Well, I agree, but UK Gov is thinking otherwise.

What is needed is enforcement of existing laws to protect all vulnerable road users from motorists who do nearly 100% of the killing and maiming. Conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are only resolved by removing cyclists from shared use facilities. Pedestrians should not have to contend with cyclists for walking space.

We are discussing bad cyclists, not motorists.

Some nice new signs have been put up on the other short shared use path I use every day. They say "Cyclists yield to pedestrians". It is seemingly good advice, and advice that I follow regardless of signage. However, as it is usually the cyclist doing the overtaking it is arguably meaningless. For an overtaking cyclist to NOT yield to the pedestrian basically means that the cyclist would just run into the back of the pedestrian (like this morning's angry jogger). To avoid the pedestrians, the cyclist MUST yield. How else could it work? To have the cyclist ring a bell (or some such) and expect the pedestrians to yield would be idiotic.

looks like we are agreed.

I also note that there have been no new signs erected reminding people to keep their bloody dogs leashed, though. I see loose dogs on this busy section nearly every day. It drives me nuts.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

And no-one has suggested how to encourage motorists to be more considerate towards cyclists.

Jude2012 posted:

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

 

I resent any suggestion that I should be banned from crossing the road when ipsafe to do so where it is convenient to me - if that is what jaywalking means.

Your choice what you want to resent, best to check out what drivers  and the relatives of the pedestrians and cyclists involved resent 

I don't believe that the majority relatives of victims resent the fact that their loved ones were free to cross the road when they judged it safe to do so, but they do resent car drivers who do not take dipue care and attention, and use excessive speed on roads where there are pedestrians.

And as a motorist I dont expect the law to ban people crossing roads when it is safe to do so.

Believes are interesting.  Would be interesting to hear from folk in countries where there are jay walking rules in operation.  I am aware that certain town and cities ban cycle use in city centres - not too different

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Jude2012 posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The PM has said that new laws should be considered to protect pedestrians from dangerous cyclists. 

Based on my opening post for this thread, I can understand this point of view. Nobody here has yet come up with any ideas of HOW to encourage cyclists to be more condierate towards pedestrians. Perhaps now would be a good time if we are to avoid further draconian rules ?

And no-one has suggested how to encourage motorists to be more considerate towards cyclists.

Jude2012 posted:

Based in the stats in the report I posted further up, there's definitely a case of jay walking to be banned to prevent pedestrian and cyclists from diving in front of cars in urban areas.

 

I resent any suggestion that I should be banned from crossing the road when ipsafe to do so where it is convenient to me - if that is what jaywalking means.

Your choice what you want to resent, best to check out what drivers  and the relatives of the pedestrians and cyclists involved resent 

I don't believe that the majority relatives of victims resent the fact that their loved ones were free to cross the road when they judged it safe to do so, but they do resent car drivers who do not take dipue care and attention, and use excessive speed on roads where there are pedestrians.

And as a motorist I dont expect the law to ban people crossing roads when it is safe to do so.

Believes are interesting.  Would be interesting to hear from folk in countries where there are jay walking rules in operation.  I am aware that certain town and cities ban cycle use in city centres - not too different

And there are other towns and cities that positively encourage cycling and ban or heavily restict cars in their centres, which seems to me to be a more enlightened approack, and certainly more sensible as the distances are small and pollution issues big.

As for Jaywalking, Hong Kong introduced such a law a few years ago - but I am not a sheep, and exercise my free will to cross where and when it suits me, to enable maximum progress and efficiency of travel. But please note, as stated in my previous posts, my argument is only for crossing when safe to do so, and I conside myself sufficiently aware of traffic to be able to judge its speed and mine to be sure that I can cross without risk to myself and without causeing traffic to alter speed or direction because of me. 

We don't have jay walking laws in th UK.

we teach our children how to pick a safe place to cross a road and also how to cross safely at such a place.

What I find strange is that some people seem to consider it is their right to simply walk out onto a Zebra Crossing without bothering to look at the traffic situation. Some people even seem to do it as a deliberate challenge to a motorist. I sure the Coroner will state they were legally entitled to make such a move,........

Don Atkinson posted:

What I find strange is that some people seem to consider it is their right to simply walk out onto a Zebra Crossing without bothering to look at the traffic situation. Some people even seem to do it as a deliberate challenge to a motorist. I sure the Coroner will state they were legally entitled to make such a move,........

For pedestrians...

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk...rians-crossings.html

For drivers / cyclists and other road users...

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk...trian-crossings.html

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

What I find strange is that some people seem to consider it is their right to simply walk out onto a Zebra Crossing without bothering to look at the traffic situation. Some people even seem to do it as a deliberate challenge to a motorist. I sure the Coroner will state they were legally entitled to make such a move,........

For pedestrians...

"Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped."

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk...rians-crossings.html

For drivers / cyclists and other road users...

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

• look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
• you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
• allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads
• do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching
• be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.

http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk...trian-crossings.html

Thanks Eloise. That's exactly why I find it "strange".

The bit about "You MUST give way...." is the bit that some pedestrians seem to rely upon !

Don Atkinson posted:

The bit about "You MUST give way...." is the bit that some pedestrians seem to rely upon !

Not for long......

Well the sheep and education aspects are interesting.  Whilst we are not sheep, we certainly don't seem to be able to co-operate like ants or bees to achieve a common aim.

As for legislation Public Space Protection Orders are being used by a number of Councils for control or dogs, and I believe for bicycle in centres in some cities. So, no reason why it cannot be applied to specific hot spots where the interaction between cars, pedestrians and cyclists is dangerous.