Re: OT, Cyclists, please go away.
Doug
> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>
> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>
> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
> new bikes – proper cyclists in the minds of the public – giving scant
> regard to the laws of the road.
>
> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>
> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
> Greenside launderette thinking that the red light didn’t apply to him as
> he cycled along the bus lane.
>
> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
> machines out of the shed.
>
> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
> Every time I see this standard of cycling it makes me angry so what it’s
> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
>
> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
> road users understand how to behave.
>
> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
>
Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
the time spent travelling from A to B.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Adrian
saying:
>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar
How?
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>
>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>
>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>
>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>
>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>
>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>> machines out of the shed.
>>
>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
>> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
>>
>> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
>> road users understand how to behave.
>>
>> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
>>
> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
> break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
> cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
> in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
> the time spent travelling from A to B.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
--
Tony Dragon
The Wanderer
> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>> new bikes 嚙碾 proper cyclists in the minds of the public 嚙碾 giving scant
>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>
>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>
>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>> Greenside launderette thinking that the red light didn嚙踝蕭t apply to him as
>> he cycled along the bus lane.
> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar
That is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with this particular
discussion.
> and plenty of motorists
> break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
> cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
> in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
> the time spent travelling from A to B.
Oh ho ho! A motorist *might* save a few seconds on a journey if he jumps a
red light. The density of traffic in any town will be sufficient to give
the lie to your argument.
It's the lycra louts who pedal furiously through red lights, wrong way up
one way streets, on and off pavements with a complete disregard for their
own safety and that of pedestrians because they've worked out that by doing
so they can complete a journey in x minutes *regardless* of traffic
conditions. And protest loud and long because motorists don't think anybody
could actually be so stupid as to do such things so consequently don't make
allowances for such stupidity.
My maxim happens to be 'Drive as though everybody else on the road,
especially cyclists, are idiots'. Seems to work for me.
--
The Wanderer
It pays to buy things you dislike. They last much longer.
Martin Milan
news:1d1qj0dlq1lnw.1...@40tude.net:
> My maxim happens to be 'Drive as though everybody else on the road,
> especially cyclists, are idiots'. Seems to work for me.
Where as I prefer "Ride mindful of the fact that everyone else on the road
is bonkers, and watch out for the pixies that seem to be stealing the eyes
of drivers turning out T junctions..."
Martin.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
> >> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
> >> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>
> >> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
> >> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
> >> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>
> >> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
> >> regard to the laws of the road.
>
> >> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
> >> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>
> >> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
> >> he cycled along the bus lane.
>
> >> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
> >> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
> >> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
> >> machines out of the shed.
>
> >> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
> >> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
>
> >> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
> >> road users understand how to behave.
>
> >> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
>
> > Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
> > break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
> > cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
> > in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
> > the time spent travelling from A to B.
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns
> >www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>
and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
Mrcheerful
but statistically the percentage of red light jumping cyclists is much
higher than car drivers.
Every time I am at lights I will see a cyclist or two break one or more
laws. I might be at 20 sets of lights before seeing a motorist break a law.
So it is something near 100 percent of cyclists regularly break laws
compared with less than a quarter of a per cent of motorists. So which are
worse?
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>>>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>>>> machines out of the shed.
>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
>>>> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
>>>> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
>>>> road users understand how to behave.
>>>> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
>>> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
>>> break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
>>> cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
>>> in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
>>> the time spent travelling from A to B.
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns
>>> www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
>> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>>
> No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
> and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
> motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
> cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
I can't remember the last time I saw a motorist drive up to a red light
that had been red for well over a minute & then just drive through it,
every day, I see a cyclist do just that.
--
Tony Dragon
The Wanderer
Ah, but yours seems to be from the PoV of the cyclist - mine takes account
of all other road users. Perhaps that's where you're going wrong.
--
The Wanderer
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
The Wanderer
> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>
>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>
>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>>>> new bikes 嚙碾 proper cyclists in the minds of the public 嚙碾 giving scant
>>>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>
>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>
>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>>>> Greenside launderette thinking that the red light didn嚙踝蕭t apply to him as
>>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>
>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>>>> machines out of the shed.
>>
>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
>>>> Every time I see this standard of cycling it makes me angry so what it嚙踝蕭s
>>>> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
>>
>>>> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
>>>> road users understand how to behave.
>>
>>>> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
>>
>>> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
>>> break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
>>> cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
>>> in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
>>> the time spent travelling from A to B.
>>
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns
>>>www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
>> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>>
> No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
> and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
> motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
> cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
We were talking about cycling to work, in heavy city or twon traffic. Your
logic is fatally flawed.
--
The Wanderer
Usenet is like a troupe of performing elephants with diarrhoea:
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining perhaps,
but a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it.
Mike Ross
>On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>
>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>
>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>> new bikes � proper cyclists in the minds of the public � giving scant
>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>
>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
<snip>
>Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
>break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
>cyclists?
The schemes aren't remotely similar; scrappage is designed to get old bangers
off the road, this scheme is designed to get *new* cyclists *on* to the road.
These new cyclists are being singled out because it appears too many of them
haven't the faintest idea how to ride a bike! And remember, it's an experienced
cyclist singling them out...
>Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
>in a very hostile environment
By running red lights and committing the other listed sins?
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Paul Weaver
> >Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
> >in a very hostile environment
>
> By running red lights and committing the other listed sins?
Often positioning yourself 2 metres beyond a stop line at a red light
is the only safe place to be -- when you've travelled up a cycle lane
to the front of the queue, where an advanced stop line is, and found a
motor vehicle unexpectedly occupying it (especially when said vehicle
wasn't occupying it before, but has a broken handbrake and has edged
forward a car length or two while the light is on red)
steve robinson
Whats a broken handbrake got to do with it cars have footbrakes
Mrcheerful
passing the stop line (when the lights are red) is an offence (usually) ,
both for car and cycle
thirty-six
wrote:
automatic drivers dont think
John Clayton
>>> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>>>
>> No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
>> and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
>> motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
>> cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
>
> but statistically the percentage of red light jumping cyclists is much
> higher than car drivers.
>
> Every time I am at lights I will see a cyclist or two break one or more
> laws. I might be at 20 sets of lights before seeing a motorist break a
> law. So it is something near 100 percent of cyclists regularly break laws
> compared with less than a quarter of a per cent of motorists. So which
> are worse?
I know this bit of road and the reason few motorists jump lights is because
some have cameras.
All other nearby roads have serial light jumpers in cars.
Your final paragraph is absolute fiction, utter rubbish and does not
remotely reflect the facts.
Why do you make such an untruthful assertion?
John
Michael Swift
.com>, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> writes
>Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
>break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out cyclists?
>Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety in a very
>hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise the time
>spent travelling from A to B.
I agree that cyclists are exposed, my sons used to cycle to work and
used to come home often saying they'd been cut up, almost hit by opening
car doors etc.
I like to think I treat them with respect when I'm driving but they do
whinge a lot about their means of transport, the roads are pretty
dangerous places, if they're not confident dump the bike and get four
wheels not put others at rise riding on pavements and jumping red
lights.
The latest kite flying about anyone having an accident with a bike being
the guilty party is pure lunacy, I've seen as many bad cyclists as bad
driver and if this comes to pass it's not going to make their life any
easier.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Mrcheerful
I am not speaking of the particular piece of road mentioned (Thornton
Lodge to Aspley)
I speak of roads local to me and my assertions are my observations, there
is no fiction.
Judith M Smith
>grosvenor <gros...@elitist.net> wrote in
>news:Usenet.nqmbjncs@localhost:
>
>> Far too much credence has been afforded to the cyclist in the form of
>> cycle lanes and rights of way, all at the expense of the poor old
>> motorist who has to foot the bill..
>
>Well, firstly if I you seriously think your road tax is spent on highway
>maintenance, then I have this bridge I would like to sell you lol...
>
>Road Tax goes into the general coffers of the Treasury.
>
>Oh - and as I also drive, I happen to be paying VED, petrol etc as
>well... I used to drive 25000 miles a year - but a change in my job
>means I know do perhaps 4000 - because the bike and train are now more
>practical for me...
>
>> it's about time all members of this
>> cycling brigade were brought to book, my suggestion would be a form of
>> registration requiring number plates plus compulsory insurance.. maybe
>> then they would tow the line with regard to the highway code thus
>> making the roads safer for us all..
>
>Any form of numberplate, certainly one wide enough to contain a useful
>amount of text, would actually be a safety risk on a bike.
Solution: Every cyclist over sixteen to have compulsory test. They
then get a licence to ride on the public road once they have passed
it.
Pay for test, pay for annual licence, compulsory insurance.
Followed by compulsory wearing of hi-viz vest which has their
registration number on the back.
Illegal to ride without hi-viz, illegal to loan hi-viz to someone else
......... etc
Break law - lose license.
job's a good 'un
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
Doug
to red. Strange how no one seems to notice them, just the cyclists.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
> >>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
> >>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
> >>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
> >>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
> >>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
> >>>> regard to the laws of the road.
> >>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
> >>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
> >>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
> >>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
> >>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
> >>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
> >>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
> >>>> machines out of the shed.
> >>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
> >>>> doing to the other already angry road users I cannot imagine.
> >>>> Perhaps the Government could issue some form of guide book to help all
> >>>> road users understand how to behave.
> >>>> Oh, that would be the Highway Code.
> >>> Yes but the car scrappage scheme is similar and plenty of motorists
> >>> break the law, in a fact a majority of them, so why single out
> >>> cyclists? Cyclists usually break the law to improve their own safety
> >>> in a very hostile environment while motorists mainly do so to minimise
> >>> the time spent travelling from A to B.
> >>> --
> >>> UK Radical Campaigns
> >>>www.zing.icom43.net
> >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> >> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
> >> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>
> > No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
> > and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
> > motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
> > cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
>
>
> that had been red for well over a minute & then just drive through it,
> every day, I see a cyclist do just that.
>
you wouldn't notice them would you. Also what about all the car chase
programs on TV that show motorists running red lights and what about
those special cameras used just to catch all those drivers running red
lights?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Nov, 10:38, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase
>>>>>> a bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work
>>>>>> while saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major
>>>>>> flaw.
>>>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on
>>>>>> giving scant regard to the laws of the road.
>>>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist
>>>>>> running every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing
>>>>>> apply to him as he cycled along the bus lane.
>>>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this
>>>>>> manner. Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of
>>>>>> which they were a part before they donned their bright new kit and
>>>>>> wheeled their shiny new machines out of the shed.
>>>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
>>>>>> Every time I see this standard of cycling it makes me angry so
How many motorists have you seen that arrive at a red light that has
been red for a long time, and just drive through that red light?
--
Tony Dragon
Keitht
>
> Every time I am at lights I will see a cyclist or two break one or more
> laws. I might be at 20 sets of lights before seeing a motorist break a law.
> So it is something near 100 percent of cyclists regularly break laws
> compared with less than a quarter of a per cent of motorists. So which are
> worse?
>
>
Please don't confuse what you think you see with what actually happens.
I can also watch traffic and see most drivers breaking the law.
Even the 'only just' over the white line at traffic lights is an
offence. As is 'they've only just turned red'.
We won't go into box junctions at this point (unless the exit is clear)
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Keitht
>
> The schemes aren't remotely similar; scrappage is designed to get old bangers
> off the road, this scheme is designed to get *new* cyclists *on* to the road.
them out...
>
Scrappage has bugger all to do with getting old cars off the road.
It's there to try and get people to take out loans to buy new cars.
The other aspect, that the car firms have hiked their prices has also
been overlooked.
Even Jeremy Clarkson has agreed with the greens that building new cars
does not reduce pollutants and energy usage but increases it.
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Nov, 10:58, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>>>>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>>>>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>>>>>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>>>>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>>>>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>>>>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>>>>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>>>>>> machines out of the shed.
>>>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
Just to get thing straight at the start, I don't run red lights, and I
think that anybody who does is an idiot & should be prosecuted.
Now to your logic, as I run red lights I would not notice a motorist
doing it, if this is true how would I notice a cyclist doing it.
Well for that to happen I must notice cyclists more than motorists & you
say that as a motorist I don't notice cyclists.
This is a paradox.
As to the car chase programmes, these are criminals not normal drivers
(don't even bother to post the 'all drivers are criminals' bit)
Red light cameras are a good idea if they save accidents, but they wont
catch cyclists.
Oh and just as matter of interest, I have tripped a red light camera, I
was getting out of the way of an ambulance at the time.
--
Tony Dragon
Martin Milan
I drive as well...
I do genuinely think there is a problem with drivers not taking enough
care at junctions - just as I accept there is also a problem with idiot
cyclists jumping red lights... I just call it as I see it rather than
staying loyal to a particular camp...
And by "Assume everyone else is bonkers", just to be clear, I *was*
including other cyclists...
Martin.
Martin Milan
news:iiduf5d21lrpsstk2...@4ax.com:
You're kidding right? You're not? No I'm scared...
Tony Dragon
Don't mention box junctions to a 'bendy bus' driver, you would confuse him.
--
Tony Dragon
steve robinson
so thats about 500 drivers i the world then
steve robinson
> Mike Ross wrote:
>
> >
> > The schemes aren't remotely similar; scrappage is designed to get
> > old bangers off the road, this scheme is designed to get new
> > cyclists on to the road.
> them out...
> >
>
>
> Scrappage has bugger all to do with getting old cars off the road.
> It's there to try and get people to take out loans to buy new cars.
> The other aspect, that the car firms have hiked their prices has
> also been overlooked.
>
> Even Jeremy Clarkson has agreed with the greens that building new
> cars does not reduce pollutants and energy usage but increases it.
Whats wrong with polluting the world , its starting a whole new
industry in cleaning it up
Mrcheerful
certainly there are many offences committed every moment. But the car that
goes over just as they change to red, or stops just over the line cannot
really be compared to the cyclist that wobbles up the inside of a stationary
line of traffic and goes straight over the red light regardless of any
crossing traffic, pedestrians etc.
Happi Monday
> Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in
>>
>> Solution: Every cyclist over sixteen to have compulsory test. They
>> then get a licence to ride on the public road once they have passed
>> it.
>>
>> Pay for test, pay for annual licence, compulsory insurance.
>>
>> Followed by compulsory wearing of hi-viz vest which has their
>> registration number on the back.
>>
>> Illegal to ride without hi-viz, illegal to loan hi-viz to someone else
>> ......... etc
>>
>> Break law - lose license.
>>
>> job's a good 'un
>
> You're kidding right? You're not? No I'm scared...
Why? For Judith, that's a pretty good idea. In fact, it's not a bad idea
at all. And while we're at it - re-testing of all road users every five
years.
AND no driving/riding licence for those that don't get 100% in their
highway code test - I believe new drivers today can get their licence
with around 75%(?) accuracy in the HC. That's total nonsense, as it
means they don't understand 25% of signs etc!
Happy Happi
Peter Grange
wrote:
>
>certainly there are many offences committed every moment. But the car that
>goes over just as they change to red, or stops just over the line cannot
>really be compared to the cyclist that wobbles up the inside of a stationary
>line of traffic and goes straight over the red light regardless of any
>crossing traffic, pedestrians etc.
>
I doubt very much whether he/she does it "regardless". I'm fairly sure
he/she has a pretty good "regard" first.
--
Pete
Peter Grange
<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I can't remember the last time I saw a motorist drive up to a red light
>that had been red for well over a minute & then just drive through it,
>every day, I see a cyclist do just that.
I can help you there! Gillingham, last week. Straight through without
the brake lights even showing. I was in the car behind & I was slowing
down for the lights already.
--
Pete
Fredxx
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:985dfc9d-95d9-4095...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>
No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
*********************
Perhaps speed limits ought to be set at more appropriate levels. Given that
safety is down to a perceived level of danger, perhaps it's not surprising
that more pedestrians are killed in a 30 than a 40 mph limit.
It's rare to see a motorist to jump a red light, yet an every day occurrence
for a cyclist.
Peter Grange
No it's Judith. Anything to get a response, she gets points in a
one-person game she plays. Best ignored.
--
Pete
The Wanderer
Whilst the little bit I've seen of her, so to speak, has confirmed she's a
right PITA, an ad hominem attack in the face of what is a perfectly valid
suggestion does you no credit.
If you don't like the idea that she's put forward, attack that, not her.
--
The Wanderer
Faith is a gift from your God
Religion is a gift from the Devil
bartc
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iiduf5d21lrpsstk2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:11:04 GMT, Martin Milan <I8...@m.i.do> wrote:
>>Any form of numberplate, certainly one wide enough to contain a useful
>>amount of text, would actually be a safety risk on a bike.
>
> Solution: Every cyclist over sixteen to have compulsory test. They
> then get a licence to ride on the public road once they have passed
> it.
>
> Pay for test, pay for annual licence, compulsory insurance.
>
> Followed by compulsory wearing of hi-viz vest which has their
> registration number on the back.
>
> Illegal to ride without hi-viz, illegal to loan hi-viz to someone else
> ......... etc
>
> Break law - lose license.
So I (and many others) would just give up cycling altogether and drive a lot
more instead. We need a lot more traffic on the roads.
BTW, how would you catch someone not wearing their vest who rides on the
pavement or deliberately runs a run light?
Whatever the answer is to that, why can't that be done now, without
introducing these new silly regulations?
> Followed by compulsory wearing of hi-viz vest which has their
> registration number on the back.
That would actually be a good idea if applied to everyone including
pedestrians. For a start, 'cyclists' needn't feel self-concious about
wearing them, as so would everyone else. And kids would not be exempt.
Then we could catch and fine all those pedestrians who cross pelican
crossings without waiting for their green light, or who drop litter or
chewing gum etc etc.
--
Bartc
The Wanderer
Ah, so you think there's some merit in her suggestion, even if you belittle
it because you don't fancy it applying to you?
--
The Wanderer
It pays to buy things you dislike. They last much longer.
Tony Dragon
So you mean the make a decision to break the law & put others in danger,
so that's all right then.
--
Tony Dragon
bartc
"The Wanderer" <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13ndbpecc2om1$.1erxxbfp6ze9u$.dlg@40tude.net...
The logical extension would be to have identity cards but with the details
emblazoned across everybody's back, kids included (as they can be
troublemakers too, difficult to believe I know).
And at that point, I would emigrate.
--
Bartc
The Wanderer
> "The Wanderer" <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13ndbpecc2om1$.1erxxbfp6ze9u$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:22:59 GMT, bartc wrote:
>>
>>> "Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:iiduf5d21lrpsstk2...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:11:04 GMT, Martin Milan <I8...@m.i.do> wrote:
>
>>>> Followed by compulsory wearing of hi-viz vest which has their
>>>> registration number on the back.
>>>
>>> That would actually be a good idea if applied to everyone including
>>> pedestrians. For a start, 'cyclists' needn't feel self-concious about
>>> wearing them, as so would everyone else. And kids would not be exempt.
>>>
>>> Then we could catch and fine all those pedestrians who cross pelican
>>> crossings without waiting for their green light, or who drop litter or
>>> chewing gum etc etc.
>>
>> Ah, so you think there's some merit in her suggestion, even if you
>> belittle
>> it because you don't fancy it applying to you?
>
> The logical extension would be to have identity cards but with the details
> emblazoned across everybody's back,
I'd favour a tattoo across the forehead.....
--
The Wanderer
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
steve robinson
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> considered Sun,
> What, who go through just after the red?
> You must travel around with your eyes closed.
No, too many idiots on pushbikes trying to commit suicide .
Peter Grange
If it had been put forward for any purpose other than
ant-hill-kicking, I might enter into a debate. But it wasn't.
--
Pete
The Wanderer
> (even an Amber means STOP),
Close, but not accurate. You missed out this bit:-
You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop
line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
--
The Wanderer
Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool
Than to open it and remove all doubt (Mark Twain)
steve robinson
> "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> considered Sun,
> So I can come and shit in your kitchen then?
Yes if you want , where would you like your remains sent after the
dogs have finished playing with you
Trevor A Panther
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:sad0g5h8ge389vljt...@4ax.com...
> "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> considered Sun, 15 Nov 2009
> an accident by doing so, and presents very little risk to anyone but
> themselves.
hey,
I cycle daily -- mostly along a very busy road.
So I have my problems with -- mainly car drivers -- who take risks with my
safety
But
But
BUT
the majority of "cyclists" that I see on this area are on the pavement. And
I am not talking about the kids in bikes ( who, as we all know, are
immortal!)
It is the commuter, the guy going to or from work. They are all on the
pavement -- even the local police on bikes ( if they are ever seen) are on
the pavement as well ( and with the police they are inevitably riding 2
abreast on a none shared pavement ).
if I suggest that such riders should be on the road the best reaction is
often abusive. The police were a bit anti to me when I suggested that they
should walk their bikes in a large crowded pedestrian precinct ( as I was
doing) as a good example. There are often "cyclists" weaving their perilous
way (to others) through crowed walkways.
Don't dare to criticise them -- you might guess the responses!
So I am a firm supporter that motorists should be aware of their heavy
responsibilities But there aint 'alf some w*nkers on bikes. In this area
they are certainly in a majority.
Today I even had a very "sportif" "kerb hugger" who told me to get out of
the way ( I was doing my normal trundle -- about 1.5 metres from the very
rough gutter) and continued on his bumpy way on the verge of the gutter.
I am a very positive cyclist on the road.
But I am not blind to POB's who think they are outside the law!
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sun, 15 Nov 2009
> 17:55:29 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:22:32 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (even an Amber means STOP),
>>
>>Close, but not accurate. You missed out this bit:-
>>
>>You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop
>>line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
>
> But that qualification (by it's absence on the rules for the red
> light) means that no such defence can be used after the amber phase.
>
> The red has no grace period at all.
> It is absolute.
Did I say otherwise?
--
The Wanderer
Meditate! It's better than sitting doing nothing.
Judith M Smith
I am not kidding.
Many other people I have spoken to are getting really pissed off with
cyclists riding on the pavement, jumping red lights, banging on the
roof of a car the cyclist thinks is too close.
My suggestion is considered a good one by many people I discuss such
matters with.
What is wrong with it?
--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Judith M Smith
Of course - just ignore the sensible suggestion - if you have no
arguments against it, that is.
--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
Peter Grange
As I said in another response it might be worth debating if it wasn't
posted entirely as an anthill kicking exercise, and wasn't posted by
someone who doesn't cycle and has absolutely no idea what she's
talking about.
Well done, you provoked a response. Now go away.
--
Pete
Doug
> think that anybody who does is an idiot & should be prosecuted.
>
> Now to your logic, as I run red lights I would not notice a motorist
> doing it, if this is true how would I notice a cyclist doing it.
> Well for that to happen I must notice cyclists more than motorists & you
> say that as a motorist I don't notice cyclists.
> This is a paradox.
>
> As to the car chase programmes, these are criminals not normal drivers
> (don't even bother to post the 'all drivers are criminals' bit)
>
> Red light cameras are a good idea if they save accidents, but they wont
> catch cyclists.
>
> Oh and just as matter of interest, I have tripped a red light camera, I
> was getting out of the way of an ambulance at the time.
>
Do you also never exceed speed limits, unlike 80% of your fellow
motorists.
Why do you notice cyclists and not motorists running red lights?
Probably because firstly cars in front tend to block your view of
what's happening and secondly you hate cyclists anyway and are always
on the lookout for them.
BTW I was very nearly run down yesterday during the Sunday rush-day,
due to the fact that drivers usually ignore cyclists' 'I am about to
turn right' hand signals.
"What, slow down to let a cyclist turn right and loose my place in the
queue, aka convoy, of cars and pile almost second onto my journey?"
Oh yes and I saw SEVERAL drivers running red lights. It was one of
those days when it was obvious why cyclists prefer to use pavements
and I was almost tempted myself.
Tony Dragon
> On 15 Nov, 10:04, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 10:58, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>>>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>>>>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>>>>>>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>>>>>>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>>>>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>>>>>>>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>>>>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>>>>>>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>>>>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>>>>>>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>>>>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>>>>>>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>>>>>>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>>>>>>>> machines out of the shed.
>>>>>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
I certainly try not to exceed speed limits & succeed most of the time &
certainly never exceed them in urban areas.
>
> Why do you notice cyclists and not motorists running red lights?
> Probably because firstly cars in front tend to block your view of
> what's happening and secondly you hate cyclists anyway and are always
> on the lookout for them.
As I have pointed out in the past many times (you seem to have
forgotten)I have seen motorists RLJ.
If cars block my view, how do I notice cyclists?
Go back on my posts & quote me where I have said I hate cyclists. you
will find many comments that say the opposite.
>
> BTW I was very nearly run down yesterday during the Sunday rush-day,
> due to the fact that drivers usually ignore cyclists' 'I am about to
> turn right' hand signals.
Now there is a novelty, a cyclist giving hand signals.
>
> "What, slow down to let a cyclist turn right and loose my place in the
> queue, aka convoy, of cars and pile almost second onto my journey?"
>
If a cyclist gives a clear indication that he wants to turn right & it
is safe to do so, why would I stop him?
> Oh yes and I saw SEVERAL drivers running red lights. It was one of
> those days when it was obvious why cyclists prefer to use pavements
> and I was almost tempted myself.
Did you see many cyclists running red lights?
Or is it that you hate motorists anyway and are always
on the lookout for them.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Dragon
thirty-six
> BTW I was very nearly run down yesterday during the Sunday rush-day,
> due to the fact that drivers usually ignore cyclists' 'I am about to
> turn right' hand signals.
I don't know that signal, it is not recognised in the highway code, I
think that is probably why you were ignored. There are four hand
signals that are recognised for cyclists which are documented in the
Highway Code, I suggest you stick to them and not confuse other road
users. It would be better for all.
Eleanor Blair
Um, the highway code describe sticking out your arm to the right as "I
intend to move out to the right or turn right". In what way do you
think Doug's signal was not one of the ones in the highway code?
And what's the fourth signal? (Other than left, right and
slowing/stopping). The highway code doesn't distinguish between arm
signals given by a cyclist and those given by a motorcyclist.
Ian Jackson
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>The 4th is the "I intend to go straight ahead", which is the hand held
>in front of the shoulder with the palm facing forward.
That's absurd. (I haven't checked the HC so I assume that you're
accurately representing it.)
That gesture is understood by everyone as "stop". I sometimes use it
if I'm approaching a situation where an oncoming road user (usually a
car) is about to pull out around an obstacle on their side into my
path.
To indicate "straight on" I simply point my arm and hand in the
direction I intend to go (palm vertical, fingers together and towards
the intended movement). This usually seems to work just fine.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
I'm standing for the UK Usenet committee; see uk.net.news.announce for info.
Eleanor Blair
>
>The 4th is the "I intend to go straight ahead", which is the hand held
>in front of the shoulder with the palm facing forward.
>you intend going when you are at the front of the queue they are
>holding.
Interestingly I do think I remember seeing that in the Highway Code in
the past, but it doesn't seem to be in the current version! [Wot, you
mean I'm not supposed to have checked my facts before I posted?].
Brother Jack
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> banging on the
> roof of a car the cyclist thinks is too close.
>
Yes just let the ignorant fuckers drive into you.
thirty-six
The suggestion "I'm about to" is he will turn right come what may.
There is no official signal for this as decisions may be made to
abandon the manouveur at any time, possibly due to, but not
exclusively to safety concerns. Loss of vehicle control also. The
recognised hand signal is correctly interpreted as 'I intend'. It is
not absolute and unchanging.
Th 4th signal is the indication given to a police officer or traffic
warden when controlling traffic at a junction that you /intend/ to go
straight on. He may direct you another way. The signal is a raised
palm above the shoulder facing forward, this enables it to be seen in
sillouette. If you use the public roads using any type of carriage
you should know and practise these signals.
Trevor A Panther
news:r423g5h2n7a3dn1ld...@4ax.com...
> Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> considered 16 Nov 2009
> in front of the shoulder with the palm facing forward.
> It is intended to be used to tell policemen on point duty which way
> you intend going when you are at the front of the queue they are
> holding.
>
> seem particularly relevant these days.
I use it often -- especially when I am at a cross roads with restricted
access to the exits! (eg bus/bike only lanes where other traffic has to turn
left)). And when I am entering round abouts where I intend to go straight on
and I am in a lane which allows right turns as well..
Not only does it tell traffic behind me what I intent to do but it also lets
approaching traffic know as well.
I think it is a clear and obvious signal which aids in my safety
S
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
> >>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
> >>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
> >>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
> >>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
> >>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
> >>>> regard to the laws of the road.
> >>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
> >>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
> >>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
> >>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
> >>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
> >>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
> >>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
> >>>> machines out of the shed.
> >>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
Is it by any chance a light that only turns green if activated by a
motor vehicle? If you omit the "for well over a minute" part, I see
plenty of motorists go through red lights. In some places 3-4 cars
after the light turns red is normal.
S
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:11:04 GMT, Martin Milan <I...@m.i.do> wrote:
> >grosvenor <grosve...@elitist.net> wrote in
Why stop there. As cars cause a lot more accidents and a lot more
damage per accident on average, there should be much more stringent
rules for motorists. The identity of the driver should be displayed on
all sides of the car so that there is never any doubt who was speeding
or who ran the red light, drove in the bus lane, or parked on private
property without permission. I suggest chipped driving licence
coupled with facial recognition technology to make sure that only
licenced drivers can drive, and checks against the DVLA and the
insurers' database to make sure that the VED has been paid and the
driver is insured to drive that car. I trust you have nothing against
this.
> "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
>
> A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
>
> Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
It is not law, unlike, for example, red lights that motorists like to
go through, or the speed limits, which they consider to be optional
recommendations. The Highway Code also recommends "You should not get
too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake", yet many drivers
fail to obey this. Care to explain why?
S
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:985dfc9d-95d9-4095...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
> > Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>
> No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
> and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
> motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
> cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
>
>
> Perhaps speed limits ought to be set at more appropriate levels. Given that
> safety is down to a perceived level of danger, perhaps it's not surprising
> that more pedestrians are killed in a 30 than a 40 mph limit.
>
> It's rare to see a motorist to jump a red light, yet an every day occurrence
> for a cyclist.
I see *buses* run red lights more or less daily. A bus running a red
light hundreds if not thousand times more dangerous than a bicycle.
thirty-six
<ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > The 4th is the "I intend to go straight ahead", which is the hand held
> > in front of the shoulder with the palm facing forward.
> > It is intended to be used to tell policemen on point duty which way
> > you intend going when you are at the front of the queue they are
> > holding.
>
> > Since I don't think I've ever been in a position to use it, it doesn't
> > seem particularly relevant these days.
>
> I use it often -- especially when I am at a cross roads with restricted
> access to the exits! (eg bus/bike only lanes where other traffic has to turn
> left)). And when I am entering round abouts where I intend to go straight on
> and I am in a lane which allows right turns as well..
>
> Not only does it tell traffic behind me what I intent to do but it also lets
> approaching traffic know as well.
>
> I think it is a clear and obvious signal which aids in my safety
This is unusual. With a group of cyclists numbering more than six, it
is useful to quickly advise of the route should the group
inadvertently become spilt when negotiating a difficult and large
junction. To routinely use it with regular traffic is a new one on
me. I have used the signal to indicate to drivers who have their
vehicle part way across a junction but are awaiting to proceed for
safety. When this is a long vehicle, the indication can make for
amore speedy progress because the driver will hold back because it is
quicker for you to proceed than to stop, for which ghe would need to
ensure there was no collision.
Do you find that the routine use of the signal makes for expeditous
negotiation of a junction overall?
thirty-six
> It is not law, unlike, for example, red lights that motorists like to
> go through, or the speed limits, which they consider to be optional
> recommendations. The Highway Code also recommends "You should not get
> too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake", yet many drivers
> fail to obey this. Care to explain why?
It is not an offence to pass a red light. Speed limits are
mandatory and it is an offence to exceed them. If a charge comes to
court for speeding, it may be dismissed on a number of counts even
though technically a crime had been committed. As for overtaking: It
is good practice to get close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
when on a single carriageway. When you decide your intent to
overtake, move close (less than a car length) when road conditions
permit a safe overtake, sight along the road, move out, keep
reassessing the road ahead and accelerate if there is sufficient room
to complete the manouveour, else fall back into a following
position. This is the safe way to overtake. Road conditions must
permit the close following which may be necessary for a few seconds.
And remember there's always the suicidal leatherman who'll be doing
110 over your right shoulder.
Steve Firth
> It is not law, unlike, for example, red lights that motorists like to
> go through,
<wipes tears of laughter from his eyes.>
Tony Dragon
> On Nov 14, 10:58 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Nov, 08:52, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Nov, 01:37, Michael Swift <mike.sw...@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> A letter taken from the Huddersfield Examiner, because you see
>>>>>> yourselves as 'Green' doesn't mean you're above the law.
>>>>>> THE excellent Government initiative whereby employees can purchase a
>>>>>> bicycle and all the required kit to enable them to cycle to work while
>>>>>> saving up to 50% on retail value seems to have one major flaw.
>>>>>> The rush hour now seems to be filled with well equipped riders on shiny
>>>>>> regard to the laws of the road.
>>>>>> One morning I witnessed one such well-turned out new cyclist running
>>>>>> every red light from Thornton Lodge to Aspley.
>>>>>> Another nearly flattened a girl using the pedestrian crossing outside
>>>>>> he cycled along the bus lane.
>>>>>> I have no idea why new cycle-to-work converts behave in this manner.
>>>>>> Maybe they think this is the way to beat the queues of which they were a
>>>>>> part before they donned their bright new kit and wheeled their shiny new
>>>>>> machines out of the shed.
>>>>>> I have been cycling to work through Huddersfield for over 18 years.
I stand by what I posted.
--
Tony Dragon
thirty-six
> "Brother Jack" <cortinamk...@ford.org> considered Mon, 16 Nov 2009
>
> I sometimes think that drivers would be better behaved if the law
> allowed "open season" for cyclists to damage passing motor vehicles.
> Nobody driving properly would be affected, since they would not pass
> within reach.
carry a U-lock on your right wrist, you can alway make a right turn
signal followed by a slowing down signal.. An upright position may be
more beneficial.
steve robinson
and you really think the car driver wont pay back the favour , at the
end of the day the car will always win
Steve Firth
> If it's close enough to bang on the roof, it is much too close.
Odd how cyclists get so worked up about cars being "too close" until
they decide to cycle down the side of a vehicle intending to turn left
at the next junction. They don't mind being "too close" then. Well not
until they get trapped against the railings.
thirty-six
wrote:
You signal before conflict. They do tend to see you and give room
when your waving a U-lock about. You really though I meant smash the
window and do a little panel-beating? How did that occur?
Keitht
> Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in
> news:iiduf5d21lrpsstk2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:11:04 GMT, Martin Milan <I8...@m.i.do> wrote:
>>
>>> grosvenor <gros...@elitist.net> wrote in
>
> You're kidding right? You're not? No I'm scared...
We been here before.
It seems O.K. for cyclists to be personally registered and show it by
wearing a yellow vest but not O.K. for drivers to do the same.
Two-faced is all.
Don't be scared --- just laugh at those who demand parity yet don't
want it when it comes back at them.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Keitht
> Keitht wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> Every time I am at lights I will see a cyclist or two break one or
>>> more laws. I might be at 20 sets of lights before seeing a motorist
>>> break a law. So it is something near 100 percent of cyclists
>>> regularly break laws compared with less than a quarter of a per cent
>>> of motorists. So which are worse?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Please don't confuse what you think you see with what actually
>> happens.
>> I can also watch traffic and see most drivers breaking the law.
>> Even the 'only just' over the white line at traffic lights is an
>> offence. As is 'they've only just turned red'.
>>
>> We won't go into box junctions at this point (unless the exit is
>> clear)
>
> certainly there are many offences committed every moment. But the car that
> goes over just as they change to red, or stops just over the line cannot
> really be compared to the cyclist that wobbles up the inside of a stationary
> line of traffic and goes straight over the red light regardless of any
> crossing traffic, pedestrians etc.
>
>
Is it or is it not an offence?
Or is 'I only just' a fair plea in court?
Keitht
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
> news:985dfc9d-95d9-4095...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> I wonder how many motorists have jumped every red light from Thornton
>> Lodge to Aspley in one journey?
>>
> No instead a majority of motorists treat speed limits with contempt
> and put other people's lives in danger, including cyclists. Some
> motorists also go through red lights and as motorists vastly outnumber
> cyclists probably as many go through red lights as cyclists.
>
>
> Perhaps speed limits ought to be set at more appropriate levels. Given that
> safety is down to a perceived level of danger, perhaps it's not surprising
> that more pedestrians are killed in a 30 than a 40 mph limit.
>
> It's rare to see a motorist to jump a red light, yet an every day occurrence
> for a cyclist.
>
>
Rubbish - you are just looking for cyclists and not looking any further.
It is so damn common it has become the norm.
The sound of a car accelerating coming up to a set of lights is an
everyday occurrence, not a rarity.
Keitht
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>>> so thats about 500 drivers i the world then
>> What, who go through just after the red?
>> You must travel around with your eyes closed.
>
> No, too many idiots on pushbikes trying to commit suicide .
>
>
So, how come there are still so many out there?
They are either crap cyclists or crap at suicide - which is it to be?
Keitht
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:22:32 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>
>> (even an Amber means STOP),
>
> Close, but not accurate. You missed out this bit:-
>
> You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop
> line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
>
>
And it's that sound of the engine getting quicker that gives the game away.
Keitht
>
> Many other people I have spoken to are getting really pissed off with
> cyclists riding on the pavement, jumping red lights, banging on the
> roof of a car the cyclist thinks is too close.
>
> matters with.
>
> What is wrong with it?
>
>
>
>
I get pissed off with the drivers that decide they can't be arsed to to
a three-point turns but do U turns that use the pavement on both sides
of the road.
They don't give a toss if anyone is trying to use the pavement.
There is even one place near me where bollards were installed to stop
this practice, it had become so common.
I'm not kidding.
Keitht
>
>
> Of course - just ignore the sensible suggestion - if you have no
> arguments against it, that is.
>
You refuse to accept that driver should also have the same
identification method tp prove they are personally registered.
Why? It's a logical extension.
Keitht
> On 16 Nov, 07:35, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> BTW I was very nearly run down yesterday during the Sunday rush-day,
>> due to the fact that drivers usually ignore cyclists' 'I am about to
>> turn right' hand signals.
>
> I don't know that signal, it is not recognised in the highway code, I
> think that is probably why you were ignored. There are four hand
> signals that are recognised for cyclists which are documented in the
> Highway Code, I suggest you stick to them and not confuse other road
> users. It would be better for all.
I was under the impression that 'indicators' - whether manual or
electric - display an intention to turn, rather than the actual moment
that one turns.
Yes, I realise that this seems at odds with most road users as it's a
case of indicate and move at the same time but indicators signal intent
not action.
Keitht
> Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> considered 16 Nov 2009
> 14:00:50 +0000 (GMT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> [cross-post to uk.legal removed]
>>
>> thirty-six wrote:
>>> On 16 Nov, 07:35, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW I was very nearly run down yesterday during the Sunday rush-day,
>>>> due to the fact that drivers usually ignore cyclists' 'I am about to
>>>> turn right' hand signals.
>>> I don't know that signal, it is not recognised in the highway code, I
>>> think that is probably why you were ignored. There are four hand
>>> signals that are recognised for cyclists which are documented in the
>>> Highway Code, I suggest you stick to them and not confuse other road
>>> users. It would be better for all.
>> intend to move out to the right or turn right". In what way do you
>> think Doug's signal was not one of the ones in the highway code?
>>
>> And what's the fourth signal? (Other than left, right and
>> slowing/stopping). The highway code doesn't distinguish between arm
>> signals given by a cyclist and those given by a motorcyclist.
>
> in front of the shoulder with the palm facing forward.
> It is intended to be used to tell policemen on point duty which way
> you intend going when you are at the front of the queue they are
> holding.
>
> Since I don't think I've ever been in a position to use it, it doesn't
> seem particularly relevant these days.
Used similar at junctions when cycling and driving to indicate intended
direction of travel.
"I'm going over there -- you're going that way, O.K. thanks."
Keitht
As they angle in towards the kerb having forgotten the use of mirrors, a
gentle slap on the roof with a flat hand leaves no damage but stops the
buggers in their tracks.
It's what track mitts are for.
Keitht
Nah, it's all to do with personal risk assessment.
If you feel in control of a situation you are more likely to do things
that you wouldn't otherwise.
Looking out for those little signs that indicate someone is likely to
move to the left a bit before turning right (and in a small car, not in
one of Conor's Polish multi-wheelers) is not always easy. Nor is when
the driver panics at a big vehicle alongside them and moves over
(despite a reasonable gap).
Same goes with drivers and those games of 'two lanes in to one'. Who
will bottle out first? (usually the ones who are good at driving fast in
a straight line and nowt else).
Tony Dragon
And the sight of a cyclist going through a red light after all the other
traffic has stopped is an everyday occurrence.
The most common RLJ round my way is a cyclist cycling up to a red light
& without even bothering to look makes a left turn, any traffic passing
the lights on the green then either have to
1) Brake suddenly (not always a good idea)
2) Swerve so as not to hit the cyclist (which may mean heading for
oncoming traffic)
3) Hitting the cyclist (not in anyone's interest)
I have never seen a car do this.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Could not agree more if they use the pavement, in fact I try to avoid
doing either U's or three points, much prefer to drive 'round the block'
but it depends on the volume of traffic & location.
--
Tony Dragon
steve robinson
Little thing on the back of the car called a number plate , on the
front a tax disc and insurance to boot all on HM database
The Wanderer
Or could it be that there are crap motorists and crap cyclists, both of
whom consistently ignore the requirements of the RTA's and Highway code,
and who shouldn't be on the road. Alright, the crap cyclist is in much
greater danger, but it doesn't alter he fact that he or she is a crap
cyclist.
But I do suspect it's the crap cyclists who protest loudest and longest
about crap drivers. Crap drivers just get to run down cyclists.
Methinks thou doth protest too much......
--
The Wanderer
Life is a catastrophic success.
Clive George
news:1bpm3wycy4400.eshtv7jp5i4s$.dlg@40tude.net...
> But I do suspect it's the crap cyclists who protest loudest and longest
> about crap drivers.
Don't think so. The crapper cyclists don't know what to complain about.
The crap cyclists may be more loudly asking for facilities, but that's a
different problem.
Keitht
> Keitht wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems O.K. for cyclists to be personally registered and show it
>> by wearing a yellow vest but not O.K. for drivers to do the same.
>>
>
> Little thing on the back of the car called a number plate , on the
> front a tax disc and insurance to boot all on HM database
Nope, that's not what she's on about.
It's the identification of the operator of the vehicle, not the vehicle
itself.
Keitht
noise.
Personally, I think it's just crap behaviour from people who will behave
like that anyway -- the type who are walking and talking on a mobile as
they exit a shop, walk in to you and expect you to apologise.
thirty-six
I know someone prosecuted for that. Dont know what he was charged
with, but I think considering his size, he did leave some damage. It
was many years ago and he would go out of his way to make his point.
No thinking back, he used a clenched fist to hammer the roof just
behind the driver. I cant believe he did no damage, it is reasonable
to assume he was prosecuted for criminal damage if there were no
highway laws broken.