Traffic islands
Those lumps of concrete in the middle of the road to enable fat people to not have to walk 50 yards to a pedestrian crossing whilst simultaneously creating a squidge fest when cars try to overtake and realise (too late) that there is insufficient room and beep when i move into the centre of the lane to prevent the aforementioned pickle.
I hate them.
<sigh>
I hate them.
<sigh>
0
Comments
-
I don't have a problem with them. They also allow the less spry, the old, the infirm and the disabled to cross the road without the inconvenience of spending half an hour hobbling / shuffling the extra 50 yards (and back).bluecow wrote:Those lumps of concrete in the middle of the road to enable fat people to not have to walk 50 yards to a pedestrian crossing whilst simultaneously creating a squidge fest when cars try to overtake and realise (too late) that there is insufficient room and beep when i move into the centre of the lane to prevent the aforementioned pickle.
I hate them.
<sigh>
Pinch points and chicanes are a different matter.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
They effectively create pinch points and chicanes because cars are allowed (or do anyway) to park within 20 feet either side of them so if you're not in the middle of the lane and a car comes by you're screwed.
Id rather see more pedestrian crossings than these things.
Some riders may not have a problem with them, but to my commute they're just one more way to get splatted.
Anyway, just a rant. As you were.0 -
As a road user, I really hate them.
On the road out of Edinburgh towards Peebles, there are so many of them, they have put up signs to say "Do not overtake cyclists at traffic islands" and painted the road so that the cycle lane converges with the car lane at each one.
As a pedestrian, I do not feel much safer using them than just crossing sensibly.
As a driver, I find these things confusing to everyone and difficult to negotiate.
As a cyclist, I deeply resent being used as a human traffic calming device.
If, Heaven forbid, I were ever to be knocked off my bike at one of these, I would try to persuade my insurers to claim both from the motorist and the local authority roads department.
BAN THEM NOW!0 -
Crapaud wrote:I don't have a problem with them. They also allow the less spry, the old, the infirm and the disabled to cross the road without the inconvenience of spending half an hour hobbling / shuffling the extra 50 yards (and back).
I agree. They are designed to be "refuges" - also on some semi-urban roads with busy traffic all travelling at around 30mph, they are often the only way for a pedestrian to cross safely.
The only alternative would be more pelican crossings which would hold up both cyclists and drivers more (unless you go in for RLJ that is)0 -
As a pedestrian they can be a saving grace, as a cyclist they can be a nightmare.
My current pet hate is priority single lane sections and sadly they appear to becoming more popular around here. I hate them with a passion as oncoming traffic, regardless of my road positioning, even if I've made eye contact with the driver of the stationary/on-coming vehicle, doesn't seem to consider a bike as traffic they need to give way too.
I've managed to catch partial plates and I've had pedestrians approach me willing to act as witnesses but is it worth pursuing?0 -
Oh for Gods sake, just take the primary position when approaching a traffic island and stop anything behind you from trying to squeeze past before it does.
If you ride like you belong in the gutter you 'll get treated like you belong in the gutter.0 -
dynohub wrote:Crapaud wrote:I don't have a problem with them. They also allow the less spry, the old, the infirm and the disabled to cross the road without the inconvenience of spending half an hour hobbling / shuffling the extra 50 yards (and back).
I agree. They are designed to be "refuges" - also on some semi-urban roads with busy traffic all travelling at around 30mph, they are often the only way for a pedestrian to cross safely.
The only alternative would be more pelican crossings which would hold up both cyclists and drivers more (unless you go in for RLJ that is)
I personally dont ever RLJ. I prefer to get to where im going safely rather than quickly. If i can manage both then thats a bonus, but lets face it, i'm never in a genuine hurry to get to work.0 -
I agree. The most valuable thing I've learned whether driving or cycling, is to scan the road ahead for problems and take action before I reach them. This is probably why I've not noticed a prob with traffic islands.Gavin Gilbert wrote:Oh for Gods sake, just take the primary position when approaching a traffic island and stop anything behind you from trying to squeeze past before it does.
If you ride like you belong in the gutter you 'll get treated like you belong in the gutter.
Bluecow, nice avatar.
4/5
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
It is not the pedestrian that is the problem, one should ask why they should travel a distance to cross a road.
Suppose a cycle path detoured half a mile rather than cross a road - would you cross at that point, or cycle the half mile?
The problem is the motorists who lack common courtesy and are arrogant enough to believe their need to get past is greater then the need of cyclist to pass safely through.
Always use the Primary and if cut up report it!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
beverick wrote:Cunobelin wrote:.....
Always use the Primary and if cut up report it!
Although if you insist on always trying to use the 'primary position' you probably won't be around long to report anyone.
Bob
Worked for me for 35 years!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0
