People stupidly running in the pitch black on the major roads!

[Carlos]

You could do something some places, but have a look at the DfT's guidance on dynamic overtaking envelopes and see how wide it would have to be to meet those....

[shetlandpeat]

When I brought my cycle up, I was a little put off by the edges of the road, much of it is covered by the aggregate loosened from the tar mix, on some downhill stretches where a bend was involved, it became reasonably exciting to stay in those areas and the main part of the carriage way was used. This, even though I was doing, according to my GPS over 30mph was still an annoyance to those motorist who would cross the solid white line to over take. (I remember, there is a maximum speed you can do this with slow moving vehicles, either 10 or 15 mph).

However, even when driving, there is this MUST GET PAST AT ALL COSTS attitude by some drivers, and this is a national issue.

There are restrictions on Motorways that prevent general usage, alas there are no motorways on Shetland, so, as long as folk who use the highways abide by the Highway code, and of course, a respect for other road users, there should be little problem. Has anyone found out yet how many pedestrians are hurt or killed on the highways on Shetland?

Edited January 18, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[Aaron Foord]

 Be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Expect to find people/livestock/anything on the road. At ANY time.

 

If drivers can't carry out this simple task, then they should get the bus.

 

Or runnners could take responsibility? I have not checked the highway code recently but I always thought that the pavement was for pedestrians and the road was for vehicles?

 

Many runners do not wear bright or reflective clothing. Many 'runners' wear headphones and listen to music and cannot hear road traffic approaching, so again presuming that the road motorised traffic should take full responsibility to miss them, as opposed to them having to take any care. I have even seen cyclists wearing headphones but at least most cyclists are lit or are easily seen compared to runners in the dark.

 

is sounded a bit worrying to me too, but then I remembered that drivers are required to be able to stop in the distance that they can see is clear, so no worries eh?

 

 

But thats the point - being able to see runners. Being able to allow for them stepping in and out of the road as they decide to dodge potholes/posts/dead rabbits etc. No amount of headlamps in an unlit road will pick out a runner in dark conditions until the last minute.

[JustMe]

Another point about hearing traffic approaching is that it is sometimes impossible in the sort of winds we are having at the moment.  This is something drivers rally need reminding about from time to time.

 

As for Aaron and his comment about pavements perhaps he could remind me exactly where there are pavements in Yell.  Maybe a few short stretches in Cullivoe and Mid Yell but most of the distance between me and my shop has no pavement which is why I have not gone to the shop today.  Too dangerous in the wind as I cannot hear traffic approaching from behind.

[shetlandpeat]

To walk on the highway does not require any formal test, however, there is one to drive, one of the things you are told about, especialy during todays training is the fact you should expect folk to be in the road. As for the road/pavement comment, even in your area Aaron, there are few footpaths, if we did adhere to your suggestion, then it would than be mandatory to own a car to avoid that rule, though I would prompt the use of cycles.

Walking should be encouraged, it is a very cheap way of getting fitter, living longer and reduces the burden on our already struggling services.

 

Walking can do so much good.

 

LINK

 

Perhaps attidudes should change.

 

I do agree with the headphones and music bit, something I have mentioned before, though, in hand with that are drivers who use "gadgets" when they are driving or have the music too high that it reduces their reaction times.

 

Be careful of using the word "many" a cute looking dog will take offense and chastise you.

Edited January 18, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[Aaron Foord]

As for Aaron and his comment about pavements perhaps he could remind me exactly where there are pavements in Yell.

 

The situation in Unst is exactly the same, with single track roads and no street lights. However, people who run up here are always wearing reflective gear, the roads are a lot quieter ad I doubt many of them are out in the early hours. Walking on the roadside is a whole lot different to running, as a runner can step out a lot quicker - obviously.

 

My point being that if runners want to run on a road - a surface area designed for vehicles - then they should take equal responsibility. I mean, you would not drive in the dark without lights on so runners should make sure they can be seen.

[JustMe]

If I am expecting to walk even on a minor road at night I do take a torch to make me more visible to drivers and I have a high vis jacket for days with limited visibility.  But perhaps the SIC could spend a bit of money on pedestrians on minor roads to create a verge that can be walked on.  I have to walk on the single carriageway road which is why I am worried about hearing traffic approaching.

[john smith]

I was driving my car one dark rainy night when it broke down, I had to join the runners that night no torch or hi vis jacket .

[Ghostrider]

It never ceases to amaze that when safety advice is being handed out that the glaringly obvious is ignored.

 

Pedestrians/Joggers/Cyclists are repeatedly told to wear hi-viz jackets, vests, sash etc when on the road, and its a help in making one's self seen by drivers. However, consider this, the average car driver's line of vision falls somewhere between a Pedestrian's/Jogger's/Cyclist's waist and knees, headlights are aimed at the road surface, exceptionally so when on dip beam. A Pedestrian's/Jogger's/Cyclist's legs typically move in to the hundreds of percent more than their torso and arms, whatever a cyclist is wearing on their torso and arms is virtually invisible to a driver behind them if they are leaning forward on to the handlebars, and lastly, and most importantly, legs are going to be what take the impact should one occur - common sense surely dictates that you make the potential initial point of impact the most obvious to see.

 

However much good a hi-viz jacket, vest, sash etc will do, hi-viz trousers and footwear will do countless times more good, they will be picked up by headlights far sooner and be more obvious as leg movement creates a "flashing" effect especially from any reflective areas.

[Scorrie]

 

 Be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Expect to find people/livestock/anything on the road. At ANY time.

 

If drivers can't carry out this simple task, then they should get the bus.

 

Or runnners could take responsibility? I have not checked the highway code recently but I always thought that the pavement was for pedestrians and the road was for vehicles?

 

Many runners do not wear bright or reflective clothing. Many 'runners' wear headphones and listen to music and cannot hear road traffic approaching, so again presuming that the road motorised traffic should take full responsibility to miss them, as opposed to them having to take any care. I have even seen cyclists wearing headphones but at least most cyclists are lit or are easily seen compared to runners in the dark.

.........

 

If runners choose not to make themselves seen, or decide to run whilst listening to music on headphones, then as far as I'm concerned that is Darwinism at its finest. I just hope they don't take anyone else out with them when a Tulloch truck full of aggregate mashes them into the tarmac.....

Everyone has a role to play in keeping folk safe when they are out and about, agreed. But there's always one dick wandering about in basically night camouflage or driving in fog with no heid lights on, rathers spoils it for everyone then.

That's why the caveat 'always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear' covers just about all situations.

 

I'm more bothered by the attitude of some drivers that appears to be that roads are for cars. Not cyclists, not pedestrians/joggers where there's no pavement and not for horses. Just cars. And everyone else should just stay the hell off the roads so that cars can travel as fast as possible.

 

Putting my pedant hat on:

 

The road is for 'road users'. This includes pedestrians where there is no constructed pavement. And 'pedestrian' just means travelling by walking, whether it is on a pavement, on a road or across the Red Sea. It is not a classification of road user that is restricted to using a pavement.

 

 

 

Beep beep.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Scorrie

[Carlos]

I'd agree with the comments about making an effort to be seen, regardless of how you are using the road, but remember the OP was commenting that it "did not matter if you were lit up like a Christmas tree".
As Scorrie says, the onus is on all road users to follow the guidance, not to label others an inconvenience and act as if they should not be there. In my own experience I do not think there have been any times when a driver at night has not seen me, but there have been plenty when they saw me and then did not pass safely.....