Team BKool CycleChat

[Daddy Pig]

This will come as a surprise Lee, once a pedestrian is on the road in front of you, the pedestrian has priority over the vehicle. The vehicle has to give way. This applies to turning corners, if the pedestrian steps, the car has to stop and let me cross. Only once the pedestrian has crossed then vehicle can move off. It also applies to cyclists giving them an element of safety that cars must no turn left whilst there is a cyclist near the vehicle.

Now it doesnt stop the odd idiot wanting to exit the gene pool early, but legally pedestrians have priority on the road

Sorry but that’s not actually correct. You have to give way to a pedestrian if they walk out when you are turning onto that road such as at a junction. Obviously if they are walking along the road they have as much right as any other vehicle, but they don’t have the right of way if they walk out into the road in front of you.

 

[BILL S]

I assume you're supposed to try and stop if you can if there's a pedestrian right in front of you whether its your right of way or not. Otherwise

 

[berty bassett]

Its a defined area to pass across the road. The UK doesn't have J walking laws, once a pedestrian steps out to cross the road in front, priority changes in favour of the pedestrian, you wouldn't want to mow them down. For insurance and police, if someone literally stepped out in front of your car travelling along the road, and you had no time to stop, you would not be at fault. The pedestrian has been negligent in their actions, but legally pedestrians have priority over vehicles. It should be that way, it offers some protection to all vulnerable road users.

Rule 170 of the Highway Code advises that if a pedestrian has already started to cross the side road into which you’re turning from a main road, you must give way to them

are you related to Bob ?

 

[CXRAndy]

are you related to Bob ?

in my earlier life I spent many an hour learning a bit about the RTA, fighting Nips.

Once I got into cycling, I became a reformed '''smoker" so to speak. Vehicles are the scourge on society, we must use them less and with alot more care. That's why I like the idea of driverless vehicles, takes emotion from the actions and will make them safer.

 

[berty bassett]

i liked but although i have just found out wot nips are i haven't got a clue about rta ! first thoughts were fighting in the east in the territorial army !

 

[CXRAndy]

Road Traffic Act

 

[Daddy Pig]

I assume you're supposed to try and stop if you can if there's a pedestrian right in front of you whether its your right of way or not. Otherwise

No... and you can reverse over them to ensure the jobs been done properly...

 

[bobinski]

are you related to Bob ?

 

[bobinski]

Its a defined area to pass across the road. The UK doesn't have J walking laws, once a pedestrian steps out to cross the road in front, priority changes in favour of the pedestrian, you wouldn't want to mow them down. For insurance and police, if someone literally stepped out in front of your car travelling along the road, and you had no time to stop, you would not be at fault. The pedestrian has been negligent in their actions, but legally pedestrians have priority over vehicles. It should be that way, it offers some protection to all vulnerable road users.

Rule 170 of the Highway Code advises that if a pedestrian has already started to cross the side road into which you’re turning from a main road, you must give way to them

We should move to a system of presumed liability depending on risk/vulnerability road users present as they have in most Europe.

 

[AAAC 76C]

We should move to a system of presumed liability depending on risk/vulnerability road users present as they have in most Europe.

It's mostly common sense, e.g. you obviously should slow should you see a hazard such as a pedestrian who shows intent to cross.
The one thing I remember well about driving in Germany is that if you rear end someone you will 99.9% be found liable.
At junctions cycles and pedestrians had right of way and if there are no priority markings you give way to the right.
Best rule though was the lack of a speed limit on the Autobahns all be it traveling faster than 130 kph was advised against and you were at high risk of being liable for any accidents even if you were the only vehicle involved which meant that your insurance could be void.

 

[bobinski]

It's mostly common sense, e.g. you obviously should slow should you see a hazard such as a pedestrian who shows intent to cross.
The one thing I remember well about driving in Germany is that if you rear end someone you will 99.9% be found liable.
At junctions cycles and pedestrians had right of way and if there are no priority markings you give way to the right.
Best rule though was the lack of a speed limit on the Autobahns all be it traveling faster than 130 kph was advised against and you were at high risk of being liable for any accidents even if you were the only vehicle involved which meant that your insurance could be void.

I don’t think we can rely on the common sense of most vehicle users! Cycle chatters apart from Lee excepted Presumed liability would likely have a huge impact on road users behaviour not least because it would affect the approach taken by insurance companies.

 

[Daddy Pig]

... if you rear end someone you will 99.9% be found liable.

Thats the problem with DNA...

 

[AAAC 76C]

I don’t think we can rely on the common sense of most vehicle users! Cycle chatters apart from Lee excepted Presumed liability would likely have a huge impact on road users behaviour not least because it would affect the approach taken by insurance companies.

Not saying all folk have good common sense, just saying most traffic regulations are just common sense written into a rule.
Those with the wrong DNA would not understand the context of presumed liability anyway.

As for the way motoring is going it is ideal for travel but bad for those that enjoy driving.
However as the primary purpose of the family car is for travel those of us that drive for 'fun' will need to understand that plus with the ecology being high on the agenda driving for 'fun' should almost be outlawed.

 

[AAAC 76C]

Got an e-mail from BKool about the new update and they asked for comments.
Mine was quite tame but I am sure they will get worse:

Since the update I am having to pair my trainer, cadence sensor and HRM every time I enter a new session.
Most of us on the UK Cycle Chat website are not interested in high definition graphics as you don't even notice them when you are racing hard and those that want a 'view' ride using the video.
What we all want is a BSim that works well and applies resistance correctly and above all equally for all Turbo Trainers.
It's too early to tell but unless you have changed your algorithms in the latest update your 'inertia' simulation is way off of the mark.
The above all said we still like the all round abilities of BSim however those that are a little more serious about accurate statistics are migrating to Zwift.

i liked but although i have just found out wot nips are i haven't got a clue about rta ! first thoughts were fighting in the east in the territorial army !

Road Traffic Accident

 

[<Tommy>]

You boys getting the party started early this week eh!

What shall we talk about next? Tax codes or the state of the rail network?!