Coryton

Portsmouth to Cardiff? If so, even a five car set is probably overkill.

I believe that it's also a term used in fencing (the sport, not installing fences) and I imagine it's been in use for a fair while.

Not impressive. At all. It seems to me (any traffic planners reading this feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that the design brief on road junctions with pedestrian crossings is generally: 1) Minimise the waiting time for road traffic. 2) Make it possible for pedestrians to cross the junction using a series of pedestrian crossings. I would cynically add: 3) Make sure that for most pedestrian routes across the junction there is a point at which you stare at a green man the other side of a traffic island which then goes red just before you get a green man to reach the island. But I'm sure that's just a natural consequence of 1) and 2) and not a deliberate feature. I do wonder whether it would be possible to re-sequence such junctions when traffic flow is light to give more priority to pedestrians even if that would cause gridlock if used in the rush hour. This presumably has the safety risk of drivers and pedestrians anticipating the wrong sequence. But we allow people to cross roads with a "tidal" flow arrangement and traffic islands in the wrong place, which seems rather more dangerous to me. And (many years ago) I did live near a junction which had different sequences at different times of day.

Must be. Otherwise people would be making off-topic posts....and that could never happen....

I believe that in the Highway Code giving way to crossing pedestrians when turning into a side road is a "should", not a "must", i.e. failing to do so is a breach of the Highway Code (and could therefore be used to attribute blame in a collision) but not a legal requirement. I think some drivers either aren't aware of this or don't feel it appropriate to follow the Highway Code. I think the Highway Code and law are both silent as to the behaviour of traffic when turning out of the side road, though walking between waiting cars does go against the Highway Code admonition to never walk in front of or behind a car with the engine running (tricky one to avoid if you want to get anywhere in most towns or cities). The problem when crossing a side road is that a pedestrian has to look three ways - forwards and backwards along the main road, and also sideways down the side road. And there is plenty of time while they cross for a car to turn in when it wasn't apparent that it was going to turn when the pedestrian started. Roads are generally designed so that drivers of motor vehicles don't have to look three ways at once. It's rather like cycleways on pavements which may sound like a good idea but mean that every time a side road is crossed the cyclist has to give way to traffic coming from three directions, whereas if they were on the road itself traffic coming out of and turning into the side road should all give way to them.

I've come across the "I pay road tax argument" being used towards cyclists, but I was somewhat taken aback recently to have this used against me as a pedestrian to explain why I had been wrong to cross a road at a junction between cars 2 and 3 waiting to turn onto the main road, delaying car 3 because by the time car 2 started to move I was still in front of car 3. This seems particularly odd to me because, unlike a cyclist, I was only a "road user" because somebody put one in my way and I had to get across it. Presumably by that logic a driver who doesn't use the train shouldn't object to waiting indefinitely at a level crossing because the train users have paid towards the maintenance of the railway and he hasn't? I do wonder how drivers can tell whether someone owns a car and thus pays "road tax" or not from the way they ride a bike...

I was nearly hit once by a van which passed me as I was walking along the pavement and then turned across the pavement into a driveway ahead of me. I carried on walking and crossed the driveway just as it suddenly reversed back towards the road without any warning and nearly went over me. Driver's justification: "I didn't see you". It wouldn't have taken much effort to predict that the pedestrian he'd just overtaken might continue along the pavement. I realise that vans have blind spots behind them, but given that perhaps it might have been prudent to give a bit more warning and then reverse slowly?

The link at http://www.policewitness.com/which-camera/choosing-the-right-dash-cam/ suggests that the main thing that matters is the video quality, and in particular whether you can read number plates. No mention of GPS...

Seems an very odd requirement. If you have evidence of - for example - someone pulling straight out in front of you causing a collision I wouldn't have thought a GPS location (or timestamp) would contribute much.

As they run across the tracks, it looks possible that that's what's going on. But as they go through the gate they look as if they get close enough that the adult could have (and - if chasing the child, presumably would have) stopped them.

I don't think I have ever seen so many women at Cardiff Central as I did on the afternoon of the Beyonce concert at the Millenium Stadium. Rather the reverse of the train to Bristol on the day of the St Phillip's Marsh open day.

They certainly do, and I think the law is somewhat ambiguous as to whether they are permitted to do that or not. But that is not the same as starting to move while the bit of road in front of them is still occupied by a pedestrian. As opposed to walking round the bus? Works for me... At least you can get onto the roundabout. I used to live in a village where coaches above a certain length couldn't come off the bypass, through the village and back onto it heading north because the rear end would foul the southbound carriageway while waiting to turn north. A bit frustrating given that the dual carriage wayonly started a few metres from the crossing. A bit of white paint and some hatchings would have sorted it all out. At first it was only a problem when they put a bendy-coach on the route and they didn't have many. Then they started buying rigid 3 axle coaches that were too long... If they did put the wrong coach on the route it had to head south a few miles to a roundabout where it could turn north again. Not just cyclists that have to put up with stupid design then... (Edited because I can't count)

Well I'd agree, but as our country has been reconfigured to make large parts of it (even in towns and cities) impractical to live in without a car, you can see why people might think this way.

Usually what happens is that a car stops well short of the zebra crossing, either because somebody is already on it, or because the driver has seen someone who wants to cross. The car then slowly moves towards the crossing, accelerating once the pedestrian is no longer in front of them. I've never had one come so close that it felt they were trying to push me out of the way. I'm fairly sure it's not because they're trying not to fully stop. I can only speculate as to what is in the driver's mind (I've never stopped to ask). However, I suspect that in most if not all cases it's just impatience. They're sitting there, waiting for someone to get out of the way before they can move, and (possible unconsciously) they start to move forwards. I have no explanation however as to why this tends not to happen at red traffic lights. Maybe it is intended as intimidation then? However, even if the intention isn't to intimidate, it does come across rather like that, and in any case I would feel safer crossing in front of a potentially lethal machine if it were stationary with the hand brake on when I'm in front of it.

Ah well there's another one...drivers who edge slowly forwards towards you while you're crossing in front of them at a zebra crossing. I imagine it is just impatience and not generally an attempt to intimidate the pedestrian into moving faster, but I still don't like it. And somehow it rarely seems necessary at crossings with traffic lights. A red light seems to offer more authority than someone on a zebra crossing. Of course if the car was a non-transport related machine capable of moving forwards with lethal force, nobody would be allowed in front of it unless it was locked out of action. But Health and Safety law works differently for transport, particularly on roads. And going back to the law, I don't know what law if any says that drivers shouldn't drive slowly towards crossing pedestrians, but if the hypothetical pedestrian deliberately slows down while crossing in protest then they are breaking the law.

Interesting. There are a lot of "shoulds" in the Highway code but not as many "musts". I find it very annoying when drivers fail to leave a zebra crossing clear when queuing. I sometimes wonder if they are deliberately doing it to avoid the chance of being stopped when the car in front moves because someone is crossing, or whether they just aren't thinking about what they're doing. Anyway I temper my annoyance with the fact that so far as I can make out, legally there is no difference between the zig-zag markings and the crossing itself - you mustn't stop on either unless in queuing traffic in which case it is perfectly legal to stop on the crossing itself even though, as you point out, it's against the highway code. I've never tried to walk into the side of a car on a zebra crossing, but when I was at school a friend did claim to have walked over the bonnet of one. On one crossing I use regularly a vehicle much longer than a car has no choice but to block the crossing if the driver wants to actually see when it's safe to pull out of the junction. Hard to see what else they could do there.

I think the "logic" is more apparent if you think of it from the point of view of pedestrians who do indeed need to cross there. Crossing immediately by a roundabout is generally not pleasant. There are no enforced pauses in traffic as there are with traffic lights. Vehicles aren't turning through 90 degrees so they tend to turn off at a greater speed and without the 'cues' you get at crossroads which warn you that a driver will be turning even if they aren't indicating. Indicating on roundabouts tends to be a rather personal choice so does not give much of a guide to the driver's intent. While the construction of a roundabout means that none of these issues are much trouble for other road traffic, they mean that a pedestrian crossing a roundabout exit is faced with a flow of traffic round the roundabout and little way of knowing which vehicles are going to turn off. Crossing near some roundabouts can be a nerve-racking experience. Pedestrian crossings round a roundabout may not be ideal, and nor is waiting on a crossing (though perfectly legal, I think) but there's not much you can do to make roundabouts reasonable for pedestrians apart from getting rid of them (the roundabout, not the pedestrians.) I've never had any trouble using the crossings round the Whitchurch Library roundabout, though I don't think I've ever been there in the rush hour. Of course at the other end of the scale for roundabouts is the nearby junction 32 on the M4, which is about 1 mile in circumference.

I can't imagine they would do that. But then I couldn't imagine throwing passengers off Eurostars at Lille on a regular basis to go through security screening.... But as has been pointed out, there are plenty of examples in the UK where loaded trains are coupled...though on Southern they treat it very seriously with announcements to make everybody remain seated and hang onto their coffees as an "attachment" is going to take place. This is usually followed by the very lightest of shudders as the trains are very slowly brought together.

Quite. A while ago I got sidetracked by a blog written by a delivery truck driver. I was somewhat appalled when he described how good his new job was because he made a mistake with reasonably trivial consequences and he wasn't dismissed on the spot because of it...

The US (at least some states) has a give way to pedestrians when turning on crossroads rule. I'm fairly sure that happens even when there is a walk/don't walk sign. Works so long as everyone knows the rules, even if it can be a bit disconcerting.

Pedestrian crossing on crossroads I used to use a lot. Shows green man while traffic at right angles has a forwards only filter arrow. Fine in principle. BUT: the left hand lane is shared by straight ahead and left turning traffic. So - first car is going straight ahead and moves off on the filter arrow. So do a few cars behind. The next car behind is turning left - driver isn't paying attention to the traffic light, sees the car ahead move, and goes straight through the crossing. Nearly every time! For some reason putting up a sign saying something like "No left turn with straight ahead filter light" didn't help - if you're not looking at the traffic light you're not looking at the sign. They have finally (after maybe 30 years) re-phased the lights so that the filter doesn't come on while the crossing is on green. I wonder if someone had to get hit first?

In Canada, I believe that extra stops had/have to be booked in advance so a perfectly normal phone ought to do. I don't think trackside phones are very common in North America. As for bridges, it's certainly not always the case that trains have to slow for bridges in the US. I imagine it depends on the construction of the bridge. And possibly other factors. In New York State there is a park with a high rail bridge over a gorge. It seems to be common for people to wander out over the bridge to look at the view (no fences, poor understanding of rail safety among the general population). There is a curve beyond the bridge but I'm sure the crews know to slow down and expect trespassers. Some years ago I was hiking in upstate New Work following a route in a book, which turned out to involve crossing a river by trespassing over a railway bridge. I think there were even trail markers on the sleepers of the bridge. I was not very happy about this but there was enough visibility to manage it safely. But I digress from an already somewhat off-topic response... The Alaska Railroad is "dark" - i.e. no lineside signals, with dispatching done by radio, which in the US (but not Canada) means a limit of 60 mph. I don't know if they even go that fast in Alaska. Well I made the trip back by air so didn't see for myself (itself an interesting trip, on a combi freight/passenger plane). I have a vague memory that intending passengers were to stand by the track and wave a white flag, and a quick look at the ARR website provides the following: "Mostly homesteaders, but also fishermen and backcountry hikers, passengers who travel the route on a regular basis are able to connect with civilization quite easily, flagging a train using white cloth that often comes right off their backs in the form of a t-shirt." The official term appears to be a "whistle-stop". I imagine the drivers also have a reasonable idea where they are expected to stop and I suspect that were they to overshoot it would be acceptable to back up, probably with the conductor standing at the back using his walky-talky. It is an amazing journey, and I would probably count it as my top railway journey out of many I have done in many countries. I believe in summer the train is very long and full of tourists. In September it consisted of a baggage car and a seated coach. You could stand at the back and look out over the open gangway connection, or in the baggage car looking through the large open door (with a net across for safety). Catering was a fridge with sandwiches in and a jar with a slot in the top to put your money in. Highly recommended if you ever find yourself in the area.

True. Though if this all results in Scotland leaving the UK and they paint all their pillar boxes blue, I suppose someone will be able to sell models of them...

In any period of uncertainty there is usually someone who benefits...even if at the expense of the majority...

I would have thought turning right onto a roundabout was the norm in Spain...?