Cycling wrong way up one way street
TimB
days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
position, it's unacceptable.
If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
caught doing this?
Dervin
> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
> caught doing this?
Probably nothing. A telling off if the PC is over zealous.
Graculus
news:ee1705fb-4419-4fe8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Cycling on the pavement is illegal, whether in the direction of the traffic
on the road or not (unless signed otherwise, e.g. shared cycle/pedestrian
path).
If on the roadway itself, then cycling the wrong way down a one-way street
is just as illegal as if done in a car.
Dervin
> Cycling on the pavement is illegal
Royal Mail would be stuffed if that law was enforced.
naked_draughtsman
> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
> would be the best route to take to report these officers?
Either write a letter to the local police farce making a complaint (print
out and attach the pictures if you can)
or
Send the photos and a report/letter to the local paper.
Hopefully the embarrasmment would be enough to make them change their
behaviour and convince them challenge others doing it in the area.
peter
OG
"TimB" <stok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee1705fb-4419-4fe8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Was it particuarly inconsiderate to anyone?
PK
news:ee1705fb-4419-4fe8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
have you thought that they were patrolling, as opposed to travelling
pk
Brimstone
PK
news:FpSdnZ3KMtFVc7TV...@bt.com...
> PK wrote:>>
>> "travelling at a very leisurely pace"
>>
>> have you thought that they were patrolling, as opposed to travelling
>>
> Does being on patrol allow them to break the law?
>
No emergency vehicle can legally go thorough a red light, should they be
prosecuted?
none of the information given by the OP suggests any issue, other than
someone trying to make/score points
pk
Tom Crispin
<brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> "travelling at a very leisurely pace"
>>
>> have you thought that they were patrolling, as opposed to travelling
>>
>Does being on patrol allow them to break the law?
Perhaps they were afraid to use the road.
Paul Boatang, as Home Office minister said,
"'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users when
doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle in the road... "
Neil Williams
<brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Does being on patrol allow them to break the law?
The ones I witnessed today running a red light, then the same two
later cycling on the pavement, obviously thought so. It is a pity
they don't carry obvious identification plates so this action could
have been reported, especially given that the City of London Police
seem to be very hot on cycling offences, particularly the two they
themselves committed.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>No emergency vehicle can legally go thorough a red light, should they be
>prosecuted?
If they do so when not using blues and twos and when not attending an
emergency, certainly, of course they should.
greyprimer
"Graculus" <ReplaceWit...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:68u3a8F...@mid.individual.net...
I am sick to the back teeth of people riding on the pavement, mostly these
idiots with the little bikes that they stand on, as the seat is too low to
sit on, this seems to be the norm now, and they look at you as if you
arefrom the moon if you say anythingto them, if I was a copper I would book
them
greyprimer
picture and sendit to the paper, asking is this the way to enforce the law
Nick Finnigan
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
Whatever the traffic order says.
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
Quite possible to have an exemption for emergency vehicles.
Colin McKenzie
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
> way system, on the pavement.
I expect you know it's illegal. It's not especially dangerous, if you
do it on the road. But to many cyclists it seems less illegal, or at
least safer, to use the pavement. It isn't, despite some drivers
intimidating illegal on-road contraflow cyclists.
But before condemning too much, consider
- the one-way was introduced without any consideration of its effects
on cyclists, and very possibly despite objections by local cyclists
- the alternative route is almost certain to be longer and contain
more junctions, which make it more dangerous
- the alternative route may be a fast gyratory or dual carriageway,
which many cyclists will not cycle on, because they're frightening and
may be dangerous.
One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
John Wright
Does that particularly matter? If you drive a car past a speed camera at
times a few mph over the speed limit when it won't particularly be
inconsiderate to anyone - e.g. at 2 in the morning, you will still get a
ticket.
--
John Wright
I feel like an insane person with the ability to mimic sanity
Neil Williams
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
>returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
>restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
for cycles only. Seems a good idea.
OG
"John Wright" <jo...@pegasus.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ptCdna999aw...@pipex.net...
But would you shop someone who you spotted doing it if there wasn't a
camera?
In law, no it doesn't make a difference, but whether the full power of the
law should be applied in every case is an interesting civil liberties
question.
Ian D Henden
"Dervin" <Der...@Dervin.Dervin> wrote in message
news:kGkWj.40470$JE4....@newsfe11.ams2...
Or they might shoot you.
John Wright
I wouldn't. I think the only time I might was if someone was way over
the speed limit in a sensitive place, like outside a school at chucking
out time.
> In law, no it doesn't make a difference, but whether the full power of the
> law should be applied in every case is an interesting civil liberties
> question.
It is indeed. I suspect that's why a lot of people don't like speed
cameras - they show no discretion.
OG
But cameras are pretty obvious, so if people were really bothered you think
they would take more care not to get caught.
Daniel Barlow
> There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
> for cycles only. Seems a good idea.
Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
you to be there.
-dan
TimB
> TimB wrote:
>
> I expect you know it's illegal.
Actually, it did have me second guessing myself. Of course, it's
illegal to go the wrong way down a one way street, but does that mean
the one-way restriction extends to the pavement?
> It's not especially dangerous, if you
> do it on the road. But to many cyclists it seems less illegal, or at
> least safer, to use the pavement. It isn't, despite some drivers
> intimidating illegal on-road contraflow cyclists.
>
> But before condemning too much, consider
> - the one-way was introduced without any consideration of its effects
> on cyclists, and very possibly despite objections by local cyclists
For the record, this is the location (watch for wrapping).
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=53.027168~-2.175057&style=r&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=7613498&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
The one way street in question is Marsh Street North leading to York
Street - this is treated as a single road. The officers rode along
this before turning left onto Trinity Street and rejoining normal
traffic flow.
The 'alternative' route would be along Hope Street and Foundry Street,
which is both legal and considerably safer. The part of Trinity Street
at the end of Foundry Street is incorrectly marked on the map as one
way - it is in fact a two way street. Yes, it is about 50 yards or so
longer, but it's also legal - a point I would have expected to have
been quite high on the list of priorities for the police when choosing
a route.
> - the alternative route is almost certain to be longer and contain
> more junctions, which make it more dangerous
There is one more junction on the legal route, controlled by traffic
lights. It also has a shared cycleway/footpath with cycle crossing
areas if you'd prefer that (although that takes you onto Stafford
Street and adds another 50 yards or so to your journey)
> - the alternative route may be a fast gyratory or dual carriageway,
> which many cyclists will not cycle on, because they're frightening and
> may be dangerous.
The route they took was a fast dual carriageway. The legal route was
considerably safer.
> One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
> returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
> restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
As utopian as your idea sounds, the fact is that roads are primarily
built for cars - the 'equal road user' stance only holds up until you
find yourself playing chicken with a bus.
TimB
> "TimB" <stokef...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There were a number of pedestrians using the pavement, which is not a
shared cycleway. The officers passed from behind without giving any
indication that they were there. Compared to many other cyclists,
nothing out of the ordinary. Considering that they should know better
- yes, they were being inconsiderate.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
>you to be there.
Most of the ones I've seen have a clearly marked cycle lane (yes, I
know).
Doug
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
> way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
> Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
>
> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
> would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
> cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
> from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
> inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
> position, it's unacceptable.
>
> caught doing this?
Maybe a fine.
Of course police are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and
are rarely prosecuted, even when they kill someone.
The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
scared to ride on our very dangerous roads, where almost anyone is
allowed to loose control of their lethal machine in a so-called
'accident'.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Alan Braggins
>TimB wrote:
>
>> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
JNugent
> Colin McKenzie <n...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>> TimB wrote:
>> I expect you know it's illegal.
> Actually, it did have me second guessing myself. Of course, it's
> illegal to go the wrong way down a one way street, but does that mean
> the one-way restriction extends to the pavement?
Of course it does - for vehicles.
If it didn't, it would be legal to drive a lorry the wrong way along the
street - as long as it was on the footway.
>> It's not especially dangerous, if you
>> do it on the road. But to many cyclists it seems less illegal, or at
>> least safer, to use the pavement. It isn't, despite some drivers
>> intimidating illegal on-road contraflow cyclists.
>> But before condemning too much, consider
>> - the one-way was introduced without any consideration of its effects
>> on cyclists, and very possibly despite objections by local cyclists
And?
Do they have some sort of veto?
joe
> Of course police are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and
> are rarely prosecuted, even when they kill someone.
Yes they are subject, however the second part seems true.
> The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
> scared to ride on our very dangerous roads, where almost anyone is
> allowed to loose control of their lethal machine in a so-called
> 'accident'.
Who is 'allowed to loose control?(sic)
--
John Wright
They should be, but not always, especially in rural areas. There is one
I can think of on the A43 which was hidden behind a direction sign. Then
the government said "all cameras must be visible and painted yellow so
people can see them" but this one seemingly was unaffected, it stayed
grey and hidden. This is why people think they are just there for
revenue raising. Also see lots of other posts in uk.transport about what
are known as scamera vans or talivans - these pop up in all sorts of
places often without any warning at all.
John Wright
I've never yet seen a frightened policeman. Talking out of your arse
again I see.
Ivan
|| On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:31 +0100, Colin McKenzie
|| <ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
||
||| One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
||| returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
||| restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
||
|| There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
||
|| Neil
||
I well remember 50 years ago actually being lectured the by a cop for
'pushing' a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street as a shortcut, I've
never been absolutely certain, but was that, is that illegal?
Steve Firth
> They should be, but not always, especially in rural areas. There is one
> I can think of on the A43 which was hidden behind a direction sign. Then
> the government said "all cameras must be visible and painted yellow so
> people can see them" but this one seemingly was unaffected, it stayed
> grey and hidden. This is why people think they are just there for
> revenue raising. Also see lots of other posts in uk.transport about what
> are known as scamera vans or talivans - these pop up in all sorts of
> places often without any warning at all.
I can't think of any 'hidden' caneras on the A43. They're all signposted
with the applicable speed limit at a reasonable distance from the camera
with plenty of time to brake down to 70mph even if one is travelling at
Warp 9.
OTOH the cameras on the A41 are all deliberately hidden behind road
signs and in one instance the trees on the verge have been allowed to
grow over the camera, to obscure it, but the branches in front of the
lens have all been neatly trimmed away.
Conor
> Was it particuarly inconsiderate to anyone?
>
Irrelevent. Thr RTA applies to bicycles.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Jon
> On 13 May, 18:09, TimB <stokef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
> scared to ride on our very dangerous roads,
Nonsense. Lots of the pathetic pavement peddlers ride on the footways
of roads which are perfectly safe to cycle on properly, when there is
not a car in sight, and sometimes even where motor vehicles are
banned. I frequently see them doing it along roads where I have been
cycling for years and never had any alarming incidents or near-misses.
While I agree that there will be some who do it out of fear of the
rest of the traffic, most are doing this for other reasons, such as:
- sheer hooliganism - enjoying being a nusiance to pedestrians.
- being part of the car-culture and wanting to show support for its
fantasy that the
bicycle is not a real vehicle (and so does not belong on the
carriageway).
- a feeling that they are being big bad rebels by breaking a rule.
- refusal to grow up - adults ride on carriageways, little kids play
with toys on
the footway.
Jon
JNugent
Only in the ultimate nit-picking sense (in the same way as it might be
unlawful to push a pram the wrong way down a one-way street).
Bart
To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!
It might be an idea to keep on the driver's left, but on a single lane
one-way road, cyclists can of course be on either side.
Main problem is pedestrians looking the wrong way when crossing the
road.
--
Bartc
JNugent
> On May 13, 11:55 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
>> wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:
>>> There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
>>> for cycles only. Seems a good idea.
>> Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
>> you to be there.
>
> To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
> actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
> cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!
The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
> It might be an idea to keep on the driver's left, but on a single lane
> one-way road, cyclists can of course be on either side.
>
> Main problem is pedestrians looking the wrong way when crossing the
> road.
You surely mean "pedestrians looking the right way, and therefore not
spotting cyclists coming from the wrong direction".
Daniel Barlow
> On May 13, 11:55 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
>> wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:
>> > There are, in London, quite a lot of one-way streets that are two-way
>> > for cycles only. Seems a good idea.
>>
>> Until you meet a vehicle coming the other way which is not expecting
>> you to be there.
>
> To a driver encountering a cyclist on a one-way street, it doesn't
> actually make that much difference which way the cyclist is going! A
> cyclist takes up the same space whichever way he's pointing!
To a driver pulling out of a T-junction and not bothering to check
both ways because he "knows" the road he's joining is one-way, it may
make a significant difference to the cyclist coming from the other
side. As for example
Last time I used that road (it may have changed since) there was a
contraflow cycle lane on the section between Swallow St and City Road.
-dan
Cynic
>The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
rearview mirrors).
2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
Which I believe is a sensible rule.
--
Cynic
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
[on the topic of cycling - or, for that matter, driving - the wrong way
along a one-way street]
>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).
If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
without hard shoulders.
That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
really mean it).
> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
He can do that *anyway*.
> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
So I see.
It takes all sorts.
PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>
Cynic
>>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.
>> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>
>> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
>> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
>> rearview mirrors).
>If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
>the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
>without hard shoulders.
Yes. Far more sensible *especially* where the speed differential is
extremely high.
>That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
>really mean it).
Not only that, but I have seen it in operation and so know that it
works.
>> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>He can do that *anyway*.
But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
>> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
>> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
>Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?
I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
normal use on public roads.
>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>So I see.
>It takes all sorts.
Don't knock it till you've tried it. What side of a road that does
not have a pavement do you believe is the safest for a pedestrian to
walk?
>PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
--
Cynic
Ian Smith
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:09:49 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:42:49 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>
> >He can do that *anyway*.
>
> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
defer to everyone else.
Some news for you:
Cyclists are traffic.
Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).
> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>>>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>> Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>> others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
> If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
> the expectations of other road users.
But it isn't, so it is.
>>> Cycling against the flow of traffic achieves 3 things:
>>> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
>>> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
>>> rearview mirrors).
>> If that were the case, cyclists should always cycle on the wrong side of
>> the road - even on a two-way street. Even on a fast dual carriageway
>> without hard shoulders.
> Yes. Far more sensible *especially* where the speed differential is
> extremely high.
>> That's just as logical as your position (and unbelievably, you appear to
>> really mean it).
> Not only that, but I have seen it in operation and so know that it
> works.
>>> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>>> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>> He can do that *anyway*.
> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
Perhaps he should be. That would solve that problem.
>>> 3) The cyclist will not need to glance over their shoulder every time
>>> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
>> Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?
> I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
> normal use on public roads.
That's you saying that, not I.
>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>> So I see.
>> It takes all sorts.
> Don't knock it till you've tried it. What side of a road that does
> not have a pavement do you believe is the safest for a pedestrian to
> walk?
You mean a pedestrian travelling (typically) at less than three miles an
hour and able to stop and/or change direction immediately?
Or some other sort of pedestrian?
>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
Citation, please?
And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?
Steve Firth
Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
wrong side of the road for the same reason.
Daniel Barlow
>>Fit a mirror if it's a problem. It's not illegal or something, is it?
>
> I doubt that a mirror on a bicycle has a very long life expectancy in
> normal use on public roads.
Why's that? Because arrogant fuckwits like you will drive into it
instead of pulling out to overtake?
You haven't actually ridden a bicycle, have you, "Cynic"? Not since
you were nine and you fell over and grazed your knee.
> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
South Africa has an enviable road safety record, of course.
-dan
_
> Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
> roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).
>
Drivers of motor vehicles have no right at all. They have a licence, which
is a very different thing. Cyclists need nothing - their right to use the
roads exists ab initio. Drivers must fufill a number of conditions, pay
fees, etctera.
Francis Burton
Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>>
>>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of
>>others, collisions are more, not less, likely.
>
>If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to
>the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between
>motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little
>difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user
>is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the
>cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.
I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends:
"If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road
so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care
and
* be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads
or in poor light
* keep close to the side of the road
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand
bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you.
Cross back after the bend."
Francis
TimB
>
> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?
Tim
Francis Burton
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
>Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
>wrong side of the road for the same reason.
You're right - there's only one reason for anything being done,
which applies in all situations.
Francis
Cynic
>> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
>> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>> >He can do that *anyway*.
>> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
>So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
>cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
>regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
>defer to everyone else.
Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users.
>Some news for you:
>Cyclists are traffic.
Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and
not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting
out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so.
I have the same attitude toward any slow-moving vehicle - tractors for
example.
>Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all
>roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right).
And are just as obliged to treat other users with respect (some would
argue they have a greater obligation).
>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?
You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be. I can't say I'm a big fan
of apartheid, no. But it would appear to be better than the
alternative has repeatedly proven to be.
Sauce for the goose may well be sauce for the gander, but not
necessarily the best sauce for a duck. If you have never eaten duck,
you may of course be completely ignorant of that fact.
--
Cynic
JNugent
It gives that guidance to pedestrians.
Not to cyclists.
Cynic
>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>Citation, please?
>And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?
My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
years ago?
--
Cynic
Ian Smith
> On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> >> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
>
> >> >He can do that *anyway*.
>
> >> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so.
>
> >So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges
> >cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you
> >regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should
> >defer to everyone else.
>
> Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users.
They generally have a lower unconstrained top speed, yes.
Are you saying any vehicle should get out of the way of a following
vehicle, if the following vehicle has a potentially greater speed?
That would be a very silly (and completely unworkable) traffic law,
in my opinion.
Over most of my commute, I travel faster than the cars on the same
stretch of road. You presumably propose that they pull off the road
as I approach?
> >Some news for you:
> >Cyclists are traffic.
>
> Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and
> not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting
> out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so.
No, it does not mean that (unless you are adopting a meaning of
'whenever practical' that includes 'at no inconvenience or detriment
to the cyclist', but I doubt that you are).
_Do_ you think the cars should pull off the road as I approach on my
commute?
> >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
> >As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too?
>
> You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
> place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be.
No, I will not.
> I can't say I'm a big fan of apartheid, no. But it would appear to
> be better than the alternative has repeatedly proven to be.
You appear to be saying that you believe apartheid South Africa was
better than current South Africa. Is that so?
Cynic
wrote:
>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>>
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
>Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the
>wrong side of the road for the same reason.
Well, in most countries that's exactly what they do!
--
Cynic
Jon
A pram in law is a 'natural accompaniment of a pedestrian' not a
carriage and so can be taken on footways and footpaths.
The point at issue is that the footway is as much a part of the road
as is the carriageway (hence people raising the 'no road tax = should
not be on road' stuff are talking nonsense when they reply to the
point that peds pay no so-called 'road tax' by saying they do not use
the road, they use the pavement).
Theoretically, taking a carriage onto the footway cannot therefore
justify doing anything which cannot be done on that road, as it is
still in the road.
(However in practice someone walking with a cycle is to all intents &
purpose a pedestrian, and could probably win an arguement that they
were so, perhaps by comparing themselves with a person pushing a
faulty or semi-dismantled cycle along - they are clearly a ped.).
Jon
Cynic
wrote:
>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
>cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?
IIRC most cyclists were either black or under the age of 18. Car
drivers were about 50/50 black & white, and most HGV drivers were
black.
--
Cynic
Francis Burton
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>> cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming.
>>
>> I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends:
>>
>
>It gives that guidance to pedestrians.
>
>Not to cyclists.
I was specifically addressing the mention of pedestrians.
However, I think the same principle could reasonably be
applied to cyclists too (as long as they didn't take up
much space in the lane, by sticking to single file).
Francis
Francis Burton
TimB <timbu...@onetel.net> wrote:
>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
>In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and
>cyclists were black and deemed to be less important?
So would it have been safer for black pedestrians to walk with
their backs to the passing cars?
Francis
Jon
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
should "get out of the way" of other traffic. In fact the law is the
opposite: peds. should walk on the right of roads without footways,
but oncoming vehicles should move over out of their way.
What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn
vehicles? Where do they go?
Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless
road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two?
What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds
down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the
norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the
'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams,
reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very
complex task observing all of the streams.
Jon
Cynic
<jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn
>vehicles? Where do they go?
I have no idea. I was too young to drive a motor vehicle, and did not
encounter either horses or animal drawn vehicles on the highways.
>Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless
>road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two?
The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
cyclist in this country. The difference being that (1) it is less
likely that a cyclist will fail to see a pedestrian than a car driver
will fail to see a cyclist and (2) the consequence of a collision
betweeen a cyclist and a pedestrian is usually less serious than a
collision between a car and a cyclist.
>What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds
>down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the
>norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the
>'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams,
>reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very
>complex task observing all of the streams.
My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
alternating directions.
--
Cynic
Andy Leighton
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
><jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
>
> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
Name those laws then. Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
although that may be a difficult task for some laws.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Steve Firth
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:43 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
> ><jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
> >>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
> >
> > You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> > cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> > Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> Name those laws then.
They would be Newton's laws.
Ian Smith
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:43 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
> ><jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
> >>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
> >
> > You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> > cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> > Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> Name those laws then. Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
> although that may be a difficult task for some laws.
I assume that:
1: he is being an arse
2: he is referring to the 'laws of physics'
You could possibly argue that pedestrians should get out of the way of
trucks if you were an absolute anarchist, but he clearly isn't - he's
not proposing absolute 'might is right' on the roads - he wants
motorised traffic to remain on a predictable side of the road, and
does not seem to suggest that HGVs should be permitted to shunt cars
out of their way.
Cynic
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>>>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>Name those laws then.
Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
collisions between objects constructed of different strength
materials.
> Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
>although that may be a difficult task for some laws.
I was unaware that they had such power. Revoking the law of gravity
could give us an advantage in space research.
--
Cynic
Clive George
news:slbm24d1utbm8qgta...@4ax.com...
> My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
> where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
> side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
> alternating directions.
You do know that where that rule is in place, there are more crashes, don't
you? Ie it's less safe than our current rules.
clive
Cynic
>You could possibly argue that pedestrians should get out of the way of
>trucks if you were an absolute anarchist
I'll *definitely* get out of the way of anything that could kill me.
You can insist on your right-of-way if you like.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
>> where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
>> side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
>> alternating directions.
>
>You do know that where that rule is in place, there are more crashes, don't
>you? Ie it's less safe than our current rules.
No, I was unaware of that. Is the difference due to that rule or
possibly other factors that are different in the countries in question
(e.g. a higher volume of bicycle traffic in general)?
Do you have a cite?
--
Cynic
Nick Finnigan
> In article <g0cvha$4dm$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>>TimB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>>>cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
>>>travelling at a very leisurely pace
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Quite possible to have an exemption for emergency vehicles.
Yes, I know. Any traffic order with such an exemption is unlikely to
specify that the emergency vehicles has to be rushing to an incident.
Nick Finnigan
>
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
In this country cyclists and pedestrians don't, and in many instances
can't, get out of the way of motorised traffic. But they could at least
stop some distance away from the vehicles which have had to stop.
JNugent
If you say it was the law - yes.
Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.
Lord Turkey Cough
He was probably in hot pursuit.
"TimB" <stok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee1705fb-4419-4fe8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
> way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
> Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
>
> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
> would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
> cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
> from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
> inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
> position, it's unacceptable.
>
> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
> caught doing this?
Dave Larrington
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Cynic wrote:
>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>> way.
>
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
> So I see.
>
> It takes all sorts.
>
> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
of other road users.
It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
there.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.
Andy Leighton
Are you seriously suggesting that might is right?
Will you get out of the way of artics and other massive vehicles then?
After all if they didn't follow the rules of the road and just drove
straight through you and your car you would most likely be killed. How
is that supposed to work - do you pull over onto the hard shoulder or
grass verge?
percrime
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 15:49:53 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> The closing speed is increased, with the threat of more severe outcomes
>> to collisions which are themselves more likely in such circumstances.
>
> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely.
>
>
> 1) The cyclist will see traffic that could affect them rather than be
> taken by surprise by a car coming up from behind. (Few bicycles have
> rearview mirrors).
> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than
> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up.
> they need to move out more into the road due to potholes etc.
>
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.
>
> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
Jon
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
>
> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
> cyclist
Read those two points again.
Jon
.
Jon
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:50:15 -0500, Andy Leighton
> >> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> >> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
> >Name those laws then.
>
> Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
> collisions between objects constructed of different strength
> materials.
>
greater than that between that of a cycle + rider and of a car, are
you also proposing that cars and HGV's should be on opposite sides of
the road?
Jon
Ian D Henden
"percrime" <da...@idontwantyoutoknow.com> wrote in message
news:482c034c$1...@news.mel.dft.com.au...
No thanks, not while there are dogs on the street....
;o)
Adrian
were saying:
>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>>
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist
> Read those two points again.
They don't contradict each other, unless you're forgetting about the
sentence at the end of the first paragraph.
Palindrome
In the general case, drivers do try very hard to avoid hitting anything,
including pedestrians and cyclists. As do cyclists. For all sorts of
reasons, including that there could be legal and financial implications.
However, in a situation where a collision appears inevitable,
pedestrians do have the unique ability to almost instantaneously
accelerate orthogonally to the collision vector. They are not usually
legally required to do so - the law of self-preservation may not be on
the statute book, but applies never the less. Cyclists, too, can execute
manoeuvres not available to other wheeled vehicles which can remove
them from the collision vector, usually involving "falling off". Again,
the law of self-preservation applies, even if the other participant is
the one legally in the wrong.
The idea of cyclists travelling against the traffic flow would certainly
reduce cyclist accident rates. After a short blip removing almost all of
them from the roads, the rate would fall to an all-time low..
--
Sue
As a pedestrian I can achieve something that few road vehicles can
manage - an almost instantaneous acceleration orthogonal to my current
direction of motion.
IanAl
<smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>In news:-K2dnR8n2arolbbV...@pipex.net,
>JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Cynic wrote:
>
>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>> way.
>>
>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>>
>> So I see.
>>
>> It takes all sorts.
>>
>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>
>Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
>ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
>of other road users.
>
>It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
>there.
It's recommended for pedestrians in the Highway Code.
Cynic
Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
proving something that was common knowlege at that time.
I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
>> collisions between objects constructed of different strength
>> materials.
>Given that the differential between the mass of an HGV and of a car is
>greater than that between that of a cycle + rider and of a car, are
>you also proposing that cars and HGV's should be on opposite sides of
>the road?
Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
*mass* of the vehicles?
The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
of its relatively low visibility.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<jonatha...@wlc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist
>Read those two points again.
The difference is in the probability that the "see and avoid" action
will take place successfully.
It is more likely that a cyclist facing a car will see it than a car
driver will see a cyclist up ahead.
--
Cynic
Alan Braggins
If it specifies emergency vehicles, it specifies emergency vehicles.
Having a POLICE badge on doesn't make it an emergency vehicle if there
is no emergency.
Ian Smith
Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
responding to an emergency. Hence the recent case of the lying copper
who was caught out by his mates - he had to find an emergency to
pretend to be responding to, it wasn't good enough that he was just
driving a police vehicle.
Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.
Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.
I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
orders would, I'd think.
Ian Smith
>
> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
> *mass* of the vehicles?
>
> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
me by?
Palindrome
A driver should not have to expect to encounter some lunatic on a bike
trying to use the remaining width of a lane to scrape* by. If the lane
has a car or larger in it - the lane is occupied and the cyclist should
wait, use a different lane or get off and push the bike up the pavement.
*Often literally.
However, in the real world, drivers are forced to the edge of the lane
in order to allow determined cyclists through with as little damage as
possible. Not quite "pull off the road" - but significantly decreasing
the margin of safety between themselves and drivers coming the other way.
--
Sue
_
> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
> and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
> of its relatively low visibility.
Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
There - fixed.
Steve Firth
Cyclists certainly seem to think so. Maximum stupidity points given to
the pair in heavy traffic yesterday who cycled between lanes of traffic
on a dual carriageway swerving between the moving vehicles (i.e. through
the space between the bonnet of one car and the boot of the next) as
they did so. I was ever so impressed when they chose to do that to me
and one of them caught his foot on the pedal somehow and came to a halt.
How fortunate one of us was paying attention and driving well within the
capabilities of his vehicle, so I didn't turn him into twatburger as he
deserved.
Steve Firth
BTW, setting follow ups without mentioning the fact is plain rude.
> Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
> responding to an emergency.
I think that's wishful thinking on your part. The actual phrase used is
about not hindering a policeman in the execution of his duty. No mention
of responding to an emergency. So police officers can ignore traffic
restrictions without necessarily responding to an emergency.
Examples include training where police officers in cars and on
motorbikes routinely exceed the speed limit and ignore other traffic
restrictions. There's no emergency.
> Hence the recent case of the lying copper who was caught out by his mates
> - he had to find an emergency to pretend to be responding to, it wasn't
> good enough that he was just driving a police vehicle.
He could have availed himself of the "training" or "familiarising myself
with the vehicle" defence. However I believe in the case that you refer
to he was in his own vehicle, not a police car.
> Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
> hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.
>
> Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
> he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
> about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.
>
> I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
> requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
> orders would, I'd think.
The case of PC Mark Milton shows that the courts treat police drivers
very differently from other motorists even when the police driver's
behaviour seems far outside what is regarded as acceptable. He was
(IIRC) found to be not guilty, then guilty but given an absolute
discharge and then found to be not guilty again.
So even if he had been guilty of dangerous driving he would have
received an absolute discharge.
Me
jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com says...
lights and no reflectors, on a rainy evening?
Conor
the well publicised blindspot of my lorry?
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Alan Braggins
>Ian Smith wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>>> *mass* of the vehicles?
>>>
>>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>>
>> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
>> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
>> me by?
>
>A driver should not have to expect to encounter some lunatic on a bike
>trying to use the remaining width of a lane to scrape* by. If the lane
>has a car or larger in it - the lane is occupied and the cyclist should
>wait, use a different lane or get off and push the bike up the pavement.
i.e. you want cyclist to have to wait for slower cars, but for them
to get out of the way of faster cars.
*plonk*
JNugent
> In news:-K2dnR8n2arolbbV...@pipex.net,
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Cynic wrote:
>
>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>> way.
>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>> So I see.
>>
>> It takes all sorts.
>>
>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>
> Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
> ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
> of other road users.
Used to have?
> It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
> there.
Exactly.
JNugent
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:07 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
>>>> Citation, please?
>>>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?
>>> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
>>> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
>>> journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
>>> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
>>> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
>>> years ago?
>> If you say it was the law - yes.
>> Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.
> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.
Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
his position but cannot reference it.
> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
> local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.
OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.
Cynic
>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>> *mass* of the vehicles?
>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
>teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
>me by?
Yes of course, if it is practical for them to do so - usually there is
space for a cyclist to get past without the car pulling *right* off
the road. If I am stuck in slow moving traffic I will almost always
position so as to allow motorcyclists and bicycles to get past me
safely. I see no justifyable reason to unnecessarily impede the
progress of any other road user.
Of course, there is the danger that a car driver you are overtaking on
your bicycle will not see you approaching from behind, and may turn
off left or right into a side street or to perform a U turn or open a
door etc. IIUC quite a few accidents of that sort occur.
If the cyclist was passing the row of cars from the opposite
direction, there is a far greater probability that the car driver will
see the cyclist approaching and not turn in front of him. The cyclist
can also better see the drivers for warning signs.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>> and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
>> of its relatively low visibility.
>
>Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>
>There - fixed.
You must be a New Labour supporter who thinks that simply making up a
new rule will immediately stop the thing happening.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>> Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
>> taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
>> proving something that was common knowlege at that time.
>Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
>the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
>his position but cannot reference it.
Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
from the past. I do so IRL all the time. You'll hear many people
discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
find documentary proof of what they say.
Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
their life some years before you were born?
>> I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
>> local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.
>OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
>at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.
If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything.
--
Cynic