Ouch @ Feltham
elyob
passenger opens a door. There was a police car and ambulance in attendance,
but the cyclist was up and about. The passenger door was a complete mess,
the whole of the window frame was bent right down and glass everywhere. Hope
he's still got his teeth.
I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly re-instated
my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
judith
wrote:
Assuming the car was stationary and the cyclist was "filtering" -
(what a fine term) - it sounds like the cyclist was at fault.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
Pete Biggs
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:42:25 +0100, "elyob" <newsp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hope it wasn't someone from here, but I saw the damage I cycle makes
>> when a passenger opens a door. There was a police car and ambulance
>> in attendance, but the cyclist was up and about. The passenger door
>> was a complete mess, the whole of the window frame was bent right
>> down and glass everywhere. Hope he's still got his teeth.
>>
>> I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly
>> re-instated my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
>
> Assuming the car was stationary and the cyclist was "filtering" -
> (what a fine term) - it sounds like the cyclist was at fault.
The cyclist may have been able to avoid the sitaution, but the car occupant
was wrong to open the door without first checking that no one was coming.
I know that it is a criminal offence if a driver does it. Not sure about a
passenger.
~PB
spindrift
<p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:
> judith wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:42:25 +0100, "elyob" <newsprof...@gmail.com>
The driver gets fined if the passenger doors a cyclist- the single
most common cause of injury to cyclists. Filtering is entirely legal
and may reduce a compensation payout, most certainly not criminal
liability.
Daniel Barlow
> I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly
> re-instated my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
Although the car passenger was obviously legally in the wrong (anyone
who wants the exact law, Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 Regulation 105), I totally agree with you. At least
if you're on the outside the driver is more likely to pay attention to
traffic than the passenger, plus if he is being Mr Dopey, or if it's a
back seat passenger, you may well have more room - e.g. the opposite
carriageway - to take evasive action.
Cyclecraft says "Never cycle closer than 5 feet from a parked car", fwiw.
-dan
Colin Nelson
"judith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message news:nhvg94h53asgbhcrk...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:42:25 +0100, "elyob" <newsp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hope it wasn't someone from here, but I saw the damage I cycle makes when a
> >passenger opens a door. There was a police car and ambulance in attendance,
> >but the cyclist was up and about. The passenger door was a complete mess,
> >the whole of the window frame was bent right down and glass everywhere. Hope
> >he's still got his teeth.
> >
> >I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly re-instated
> >my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
> >
>
> Assuming the car was stationary and the cyclist was "filtering" -
> (what a fine term) - it sounds like the cyclist was at fault.
Tut! You haven't done your research have you "judith", you really should
you know.
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
Mike Clark
Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
There is a light controlled cross-road junction, which I pass through
regularly in Cambridge, that has a cycle lane leading into an advance
stop box. Most of the motorised traffic is either destined to turn left
or right, whilst most cyclists carry straight on. At quite a reasonable
frequency I have observed passengers being let out of vehicles whilst
they are in the queue waiting for the lights to change. Usually this
involves the passenger opening the door across the cyclists filter lane.
There is clearly a high likelihood of a cyclist thinking it is clear to
filter through on the inside of vehicles by making use of the cycle
lane, only to be doored by an emerging passenger.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Lloydd
> re-instated my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
>
>
I use the drivers side when passing built up traffic but only because it
'feels' safer... but now I know you do it too, I think it may be the right
side to use...
Cheers!
elyob
"Lloydd" <t...@dytrych.com> wrote in message
news:121795944...@proxy00.news.clara.net...
Thanks for the vote of confidence in my cycling ;)
I, too, will use the inside when the traffic is moving. It's fairly unlikely
they will get out when moving, hopefully, but will make the impact softer if
they decide to!
Just watch out for scooters, motorbikes and other cyclists when moving to
centre!
Daniel Barlow
> There is clearly a high likelihood of a cyclist thinking it is clear to
> filter through on the inside of vehicles by making use of the cycle
> lane, only to be doored by an emerging passenger.
Another good reason, if any more were needed, that the suggestion made
here recently that cyclists should be compelled to use cycle lanes is
a staggeringly dumb idea.
-dan
judith
wrote:
Why do you think that cycle lanes have already been designated as
"mandatory" or "advisory". Do you really think it is about being
"mandatory" for vehicles to keep out of them As had been pointed out
- a bastardisation of the language if ever there was one.
No - the real reason is that all cycle lanes will become either
mandatory or advisory in terms of whether cyclists must use the, in
the not too distant future.
A good thing too - in my opinion.
Richard Thrippleton
>
> No - the real reason is that all cycle lanes will become either
> mandatory or advisory in terms of whether cyclists must use the, in
> the not too distant future.
>
> A good thing too - in my opinion.
just gave us an example of a cycle lane that would be quite dangerous to
use - that is, there is a risk of getting doored if you use it, and it's
much safer to turn straight-on/right by being in the main traffic queue
at such a junction.
In your opinion, how mandatory should mandatory be, assuming the
hypothetical future in which it means mandatory for cyclists to use?
Should cyclists be
(a) forbidden from overtaking another cyclist, because cycle lanes
aren't wide enough to do this
(b) forbidden from turning right into a side-road, as this would involve
leaving the cycle lane to position yourself, unless there is a
special cycle lane taking you across a lane to the centerline
(c) forbidden from taking evasive action against
pedestrians/debris/potholes/parked cars if doing so means you would have
to leave the cycle lane
Just how strictly would you want the mandatory nature of such a cycle
lane enforced, and to what end?
I am genuinely curious. So far when I've seen you talk at great length
about cycle facilities, it's been picking over the exact wording of the
road traffic act/highway code, rather than an exploration of your own
/opinions/ about cycle facilities.
Richard
Pete Biggs
> I am genuinely curious. So far when I've seen you talk at great length
> about cycle facilities, it's been picking over the exact wording of
> the road traffic act/highway code, rather than an exploration of your
> own /opinions/ about cycle facilities.
"judith" doesn't like cyclists and wants them to be kept out of "her" way,
if not exterminated altogether.
~PB
Richard Thrippleton
pro-cycle-facility types, but I have a hunch that her reply will be more
interesting than that.
Oddly enough, I've never seen an explanation from the pro-facility
crowed as to why cyclists would deliberately not use cycle facilities.
Do they think that it's done to deliberately piss off other road users?
Richard
Daniel Barlow
> This wouldn't surprise me, as it's a motive I've seen from other
> pro-cycle-facility types, but I have a hunch that her reply will be
> more interesting than that.
Did you miss this thread?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/920d9ab9dad263a6/
It eventually ends with judith saying she was intentionally trolling
in order to win a £50 bet.
I see no reason that opening the subject again is going to lead anyone
to any more useful conclusions this time.
-dan
Richard Thrippleton
good idea to make cyclists use cycling facilities and why", it was a
long tedious pedantic plod through the meaning of the Highway Code. In
fact, most of her posts tend to be annoyingly pedantic ... I try to
ignore the long long threads pointlessly debating the exact meaning of
the word "is", and seize on any threads that have a larger chance of
being interesting.
Richard
Richard Thrippleton
> sycophants blame the car occupant. Business as usual.
I don't claim to be aligned with any particular pro/anti ethos, and
mostly just lurk here, if that helps. But in this case, he's right; it's
not an ambiguous question, according to the law, any driver opening the
door into the path of another vehicle has committed an offence. As to
whether or not civil or criminal liability rests with the cyclist for
the incident, I'm not 100% sure. In my own personal judgement though, I
think filtering through stationary/slow moving traffic is /often/ a dumb
thing to do.
Richard
Martin
> Cyclist at fault, cyclist not the injured party, Spindrift and his
> sycophants blame the car occupant. Business as usual.
Rule 239:
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the
road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the
roadside
* do not park facing against the traffic flow
* stop as close as you can to the side
[Picture of cyclist passing car]
* do not stop too close to a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge:
remember, the occupant may need more room to get in or out
* you MUST switch off the engine, headlights and fog lights
* you MUST apply the handbrake before leaving the vehicle
* you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door.
Check for cyclists or other traffic
* it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out
of the vehicle on the side next to the kerb
* put all valuables out of sight and make sure your vehicle is secure
* lock your vehicle
[Laws CUR reg 98, 105 & 107, RVLR reg 27 & RTA 1988 sect 42]
Pete Biggs
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>>> I am genuinely curious. So far when I've seen you talk at great
>>> length about cycle facilities, it's been picking over the exact
>>> wording of the road traffic act/highway code, rather than an
>>> exploration of your own /opinions/ about cycle facilities.
>>
>> "judith" doesn't like cyclists and wants them to be kept out of
>> "her" way,
> This wouldn't surprise me, as it's a motive I've seen from other
> pro-cycle-facility types, but I have a hunch that her reply will be
> more interesting than that.
"judith" eventually revealed her anti-cycling opinions the "(Non-) Use of
cycling facilities" thread. There is no more to it than that.
~PB
PK
"Mike Clark" <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6ef132ca4f....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
>. Usually this
> involves the passenger opening the door across the cyclists filter lane.
> There is clearly a high likelihood of a cyclist thinking it is clear to
> filter through on the inside of vehicles by making use of the cycle
> lane, only to be doored by an emerging passenger.
at such junctions, IF I decide it wise to filter, I do so at VERY slow speed
observing all potential door wielders in the process
pk
Tim Woodall
>
> I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly re-instated
> my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
>
if you're looking over your shoulder to check if there's a motorbike
coming down the outside.
http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20080805/
Fortunately, nothing hurt other than my pride. I had assumed the car
would keep going past the bus (although he was probably correct not to).
I just stepped off the pedals onto the ground, waited for the bike to
land and was then ready to go again. It's a miracle I didn't end up on
the ground tangled with the bike.
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.
http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
Roger Merriman
yup filtering has it's dangers, so best to give one the time avoid any
ones dumb moves, plus the fact one is passing though all the blind spots
of the ton plus lumps of metal.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
nully
"spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3592c98-09cc-4f23...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 5:36 pm, "Pete Biggs"
<p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:
> judith wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:42:25 +0100, "elyob" <newsprof...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Hope it wasn't someone from here, but I saw the damage I cycle makes
> >> when a passenger opens a door. There was a police car and ambulance
> >> in attendance, but the cyclist was up and about. The passenger door
> >> was a complete mess, the whole of the window frame was bent right
> >> down and glass everywhere. Hope he's still got his teeth.
>
> >> I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly
> >> re-instated my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
>
> > Assuming the car was stationary and the cyclist was "filtering" -
> > (what a fine term) - it sounds like the cyclist was at fault.
>
> The cyclist may have been able to avoid the sitaution, but the car
> occupant
> was wrong to open the door without first checking that no one was coming.
>
> I know that it is a criminal offence if a driver does it. Not sure about a
> passenger.
>
> ~PB
.The driver gets fined if the passenger doors a cyclist- the single
.most common cause of injury to cyclists. Filtering is entirely legal
.and may reduce a compensation payout, most certainly not criminal
.liability.
Just checking here, but by 'filtering' do you mean cycling between a
stationary vehicle and the curb? I follow entirely the concept of a driver
being responsible should he open an offside door and hit a cyclist, or any
other road-user for that reason, and it seems sensible to extrapolate that
to a rear passenger on that side, or even a front-seat passenger in a left
hand drive vehicle, but are you suggesting that the driver is somehow
negligent for a NEAR side door collision? I think thats utterly barking!
While it may be 'lawful' to do it, its more than a bit stupid - a cyclist
should *expect* that a door is likely to be opened if a vehicle is parked at
the curb and go around the OUT side. Its 'lawful' to climb over the fence
into the park, but if you impale yourself on a rose bush falling off of it
you dont expect to be compensated by the council, do you?
nully
"Richard Thrippleton" <re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:g7a7rh$h0o$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> judith wrote:
>>
>> No - the real reason is that all cycle lanes will become either
>> mandatory or advisory in terms of whether cyclists must use the, in
>> the not too distant future.
>>
>> A good thing too - in my opinion.
> How so? Who does it give advantage to - cyclists, motorists, other? Mike
> just gave us an example of a cycle lane that would be quite dangerous to
> use - that is, there is a risk of getting doored if you use it, and it's
> much safer to turn straight-on/right by being in the main traffic queue at
> such a junction.
>
> In your opinion, how mandatory should mandatory be, assuming the
> hypothetical future in which it means mandatory for cyclists to use?
> Should cyclists be
> (a) forbidden from overtaking another cyclist, because cycle lanes aren't
> wide enough to do this
In *theory*, why not? (Forbid overtaking, I mean.) After all, on a solid
centre white line motorists are likewise forbidden from overtaking,
regardless of how slow the other vehicle is.
> (b) forbidden from turning right into a side-road, as this would involve
> leaving the cycle lane to position yourself, unless there is a special
> cycle lane taking you across a lane to the centerline
Hmmmm, good question. Logically you'd think that there would be a 'broken'
section of the white line marking the boundary between cyclists and
motorised vehicles, but then logic was never a local council's strong point.
Perhaps it would simply be an acceptable defence to a charge of cycling
outside of the lane to state that you were about to turn right at a
junction?
> (c) forbidden from taking evasive action against
> pedestrians/debris/potholes/parked cars if doing so means you would have
> to leave the cycle lane
Again, it is technically no more onerous than the rules applied to motorised
traffic when there is a solid white centre line. Not that cars dont *cross*
those lines, of course, and where they are seen *and it is appropriate to
prosecute* they are then fined. When it is *not* appropriate to prosecute,
for example to overtake a broken-down vehicle or whatever, they are *not*
prosecuted. I can only assume that similar principles would be appropriate
in mandatory cycle lanes.
> Just how strictly would you want the mandatory nature of such a cycle lane
> enforced, and to what end?
>
Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer too. I
think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section of seperate
cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe from the main
carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for some reason prefer to
travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic, especially those that prefer
to travel alongside each other, seemingly for no other reason than that they
can. The 'end' is, where possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised
traffic, to avoid accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make
accidents more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists
benefit, since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in such
a collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
Pete Biggs
> Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer
> too. I think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section
> of seperate cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe
> from the main carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for
> some reason prefer to travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic,
> especially those that prefer to travel alongside each other,
> seemingly for no other reason than that they can. The 'end' is, where
> possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised traffic, to avoid
> accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make accidents
> more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists benefit,
> since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in such a
> collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
You would understand if you actually tried to ride a bike on a typical cycle
track - which tends to be narrow, bumpy, dirty and glass-ridden, and
includes ridiculous tight turns, gradients and obstacles and dangerous
crossings with roads, before ending suddenly after a short while.
If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds to your
journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend that the cyclists
would actually be better off on these cycle farcilities.
~PB
Dave Larrington
Martin <marti...@virgin.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> * do not park facing against the traffic flow
Someone should make this known to the imbeciles otherwise known as Essex
Police, who deemed it right and proper to park not one but FOUR patrol cars
facing east on the westbound A414 this morning.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I have always maintained that one can never have too many
pictures of cats playing table tennis.
Dave Larrington
nully <nu...@nully.nully> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> In *theory*, why not? (Forbid overtaking, I mean.) After all, on a
> solid centre white line motorists are likewise forbidden from
> overtaking, regardless of how slow the other vehicle is.
Bzzzt! Wrong. HC 108:
"108. Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you
MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to
pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less."
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
uck Wa
Peter Grange
>In *theory*, why not? (Forbid overtaking, I mean.) After all, on a solid
>centre white line motorists are likewise forbidden from overtaking,
>regardless of how slow the other vehicle is.
>
Nah, the motorist can overtake a bicycle(or horse or road maintenance
vehicle) doing less than 10 mph. Though quite how he's supposed to
know the speed of the bicycle I don't know.
Pete
nully
"Pete Biggs" <p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote in
message news:6ft4dgF...@mid.individual.net...
> nully wrote:
>> Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer
>> too. I think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section
>> of seperate cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe
>> from the main carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for
>> some reason prefer to travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic,
>> especially those that prefer to travel alongside each other,
>> seemingly for no other reason than that they can. The 'end' is, where
>> possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised traffic, to avoid
>> accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make accidents
>> more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists benefit,
>> since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in such a
>> collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
>
> You would understand if you actually tried to ride a bike on a typical
> cycle track - which tends to be narrow, bumpy, dirty and glass-ridden, and
> includes ridiculous tight turns, gradients and obstacles and dangerous
> crossings with roads, before ending suddenly after a short while.
>
of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide enough for two
cyclists alongside each other and still room for one the other way, is
pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road (its certainly
straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to have any glass or
hills on it.
> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds to
> your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend that the
> cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle farcilities.
>
To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such trouble
with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish comments as the one
above. I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion
from a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys aged
between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am most definitely
thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
nully
"Dave Larrington" <smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6ft5b7F...@mid.individual.net...
to turn right then (I'd always thought that the solid line was 'broken'
where there was a junction on the right). Thanks for putting me right on
that.
Ekul Namsob
I do this too. Sadly, some motorists (two in the last two years, not
enough to worry about) take exception to being overtaken by a mere
cyclist. However, although I know that I can legally filter down the
left, I tend to believe that it's better to overtake on the side where
motorists are more likely to spot me.
The challenge sometimes can be to pull in before a long line of
motorists gets up to speed.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
Squashme
> "spindrift" <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Aren't we more likely to be discussing either slowly moving vehicles,
or temporarily halted vehicles, at a little distance from the kerb? If
a vehicle is parked at the kerb, I would have great difficulty in
insinuating myself and bike into the (non-)gap, in order to get
doored. I have managed to get doored going around the outside. I have
successfully avoided it many times on both sides of vehicles. Yes,
absence of mind, too close or too fast, some of these times.
nully
"Squashme" <squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c540ed45-33fc-4012...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
differentiate between a 'parked' vehicle and a mere 'stationary' one? In
some situations it will be obvious, but in others potentially more
ambiguous - I have a near neighbour who must catch taxi's to the pavement
since he parks that far away from them!
elyob
> "Richard Thrippleton" <re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer too. I
> think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section of seperate
> cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe from the main
> carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for some reason prefer to
> travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic, especially those that prefer
> to travel alongside each other, seemingly for no other reason than that they
> can. The 'end' is, where possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised
> traffic, to avoid accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make
> accidents more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists
> benefit, since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in such
> a collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
>
Not sure where you seem to think that the 'end' is to seperate traffic
from each other. Ther 'end' is to not have cars going over the top of
cycles.
I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
this is something we don't wish in our tyres.
Also, you know when you're in a car waiting to turn across a road,
across a never ending line of traffic. Then suddenly a gap appears. We
make these. Little gaps for you to enjoy. You see, car drivers don't
mind accelerating and slowing down to keep the gaps between them
uniform. However, cyclists like to keep a good average speed and let
the car in front pull away as it's highly likely, in the grand scale
of things, that we'll pass this car sooner than later anyway.
[1] The clue's in the name.
judith
wrote:
>Richard Thrippleton <re...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> This wouldn't surprise me, as it's a motive I've seen from other
>> pro-cycle-facility types, but I have a hunch that her reply will be
>> more interesting than that.
>
>Did you miss this thread?
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/920d9ab9dad263a6/
>
Thanks for the pointer to the thread - and for the opportunity to set
the record straight:
I started that thread with the intent of serious discussion.
It did not get off to a good start with the first response:
>Oh dear.
>Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.
Closely followed by:
>Why didn't the car use the Motorway, after all they are provided by
>taxpayers for their use, and they are much safer than urban roads?
and later:
>Following the logic, or lack of logic, of the police in this incident,
>I would be entirely within my rights to physically attack
> drivers who drive and park in cycle lanes.
It became quickly apparent that one must not criticise a cyclist in
this news group.
I mentioned my experience to a colleague who had been looking at
social aspects of newsgroups - I was told that this group was well
known for the "zealots and fuckwits" it attracted; I was told that
some people would argue, and argue - just for the sake of it - if it
was defending a cyclist.
I had a bet that I could keep the thread going for at least four
hundred posts.
I won the bet - and immediately owned up.
Dave Larrington
Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> Nah, the motorist can overtake a bicycle(or horse or road maintenance
> vehicle) doing less than 10 mph. Though quite how he's supposed to
> know the speed of the bicycle I don't know.
It's a tricky one, that. It would require a motorist to look at his/her
speedometer which, as we are repeatedly told, is dangerous and/or
impossible, especially when there are big yellow boxes mounted on poles in
the neighbourhood.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop press! Pope still dead...
nully
"elyob" <newsp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dd5bba9-5b72-4266...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Aug, 08:37, "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote:
>> "Richard Thrippleton" <re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
>> Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer too. I
>> think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section of
>> seperate
>> cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe from the main
>> carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for some reason prefer
>> to
>> travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic, especially those that
>> prefer
>> to travel alongside each other, seemingly for no other reason than that
>> they
>> can. The 'end' is, where possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised
>> traffic, to avoid accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make
>> accidents more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists
>> benefit, since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in
>> such
>> a collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
>>
>
> Not sure where you seem to think that the 'end' is to seperate traffic
> from each other.
Because, as I said before, the speeds of the two forms of transport are
disparate. It stands to reason that there is increased potential for
accidents where that condition occurs.
>Ther 'end' is to not have cars going over the top of
> cycles.
>
Sounds sensible. But since I dont remember ever seeing cars driving along
cycle paths, "their" end is met if cyclists use paths, right?
> I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
> and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
> this is something we don't wish in our tyres.
>
Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred? I dont
know, but I would assume, that councils are a tad miffed that they've spent
lots of taxpayers money on providing cycle lanes and then seeing cyclists
ignore them because they apparently 'dont want bits and pieces in their
tyres'.
> Also, you know when you're in a car waiting to turn across a road,
> across a never ending line of traffic. Then suddenly a gap appears. We
> make these. Little gaps for you to enjoy. You see, car drivers don't
> mind accelerating and slowing down to keep the gaps between them
> uniform. However, cyclists like to keep a good average speed and let
> the car in front pull away as it's highly likely, in the grand scale
> of things, that we'll pass this car sooner than later anyway.
>
You (by which I presume you mean cyclists at large) create gaps, and this is
somehow a reason by which you should be permitted to ignore specialist
carraigeways designed for your use? Sorry, you've lost me there.
>
> [1] The clue's in the name.
I have an 'off-road prepared' Land Rover. Am I not allowed to use the road
then?
Pete Biggs
>> You would understand if you actually tried to ride a bike on a
>> typical cycle track - which tends to be narrow, bumpy, dirty and
>> glass-ridden, and includes ridiculous tight turns, gradients and
>> obstacles and dangerous crossings with roads, before ending suddenly
>> after a short while.
> Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose.
Most are not, in my experience.
> I was actually
> thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide
> enough for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one
> the other way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the
> road (its certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't
> *look* to have any glass or hills on it.
For it to be as good to cycle on as the road, the ways on to it and off it
need to be safe, quick and practical to negotiate, and the surface needs to
be smooth and clean. Usually the tarmac of cycle tracks is relatively rough
and bumpy, and dirtier because there are no cars to sweep it clean. You
would have to look closely to see the glass fragments that puncture bike
tyres. There tends to be far more of them on cycle tracks and paths.
I don't know the one you are thinking of, but if cyclists are not using it,
there is *probably* a good reason. I don't think there are many cyclists
who prefer to use the roads purely to annoy motorists. It will be for
safety and/or convenience.
I don't claim it is always purely for safety reasons. Personally, I
generally prefer to use roads because they are easier and faster to use, and
I only use cycle paths when they provide a good short cut, or when I want to
take a slow break from the roads in the middle of a long ride. Don't forget
that cyclists have the right to use the road except where specifically
prohibitted.
>> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds
>> to your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend
>> that the cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle
>> farcilities.
> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such
> trouble with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish
> comments as the one above. I've not posted here before and was simply
> offering a polite opinion from a car-drivers perspective.
If you are genuine then I apologise for my remark above. We get so many
trolls on this group that it is difficult to remain polite every time a
troll-like post appears, especially after one has been reading the newsgroup
for a number of years. I can only take so much!
> For what
> its worth, I have five boys aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they
> *all* have bikes, so I am most definitely thinking from a cyclist
> safety point of view.
While there are a exceptions, generally segregated cycle paths are more
dangerous to cycle on than the roads, mainly because of dangerous junctions
and crossings with roads along the way.
Roads are pretty safe to cycle on anyway once the rider is competent. You
should buy your boys a copy of Cyclecraft - which contains a lot of well
respected and officially endorsed practical advice for safe cycling on all
sorts of roads.
~PB
judith
(uk.legal added)
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:57:53 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
<re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> No - the real reason is that all cycle lanes will become either
>> mandatory or advisory in terms of whether cyclists must use the, in
>> the not too distant future.
>>
>> A good thing too - in my opinion.
>How so? Who does it give advantage to - cyclists, motorists, other?
It is not a question of giving an "advantage" to anyone - it is a
matter of making the roads safer fro all road users.
(I have noticed an many occasions in this group that anything which
"disadvantages" a cyclist in any way must be a bad thing -
irrespective of whether it is for the general good)
> Mike
>just gave us an example of a cycle lane that would be quite dangerous to
>use - that is, there is a risk of getting doored if you use it, and it's
>much safer to turn straight-on/right by being in the main traffic queue
>at such a junction.
That may be an example of the cycle lane being in the wrong place - it
does not mean that all cycle lanes are a bad thing. I have not said
that all cycle lanes must be mandatory (for cyclists) - certainly
some of them should be.
Properly provided cycle lanes and cycle paths would be of benefit to
cyclists and to motorists.
>In your opinion, how mandatory should mandatory be, assuming the
>hypothetical future in which it means mandatory for cyclists to use?
>Should cyclists be
>(a) forbidden from overtaking another cyclist, because cycle lanes
>aren't wide enough to do this
Why not in some circumstances - some roads have that restriction. If
it is acceptable for motorists to have to wait until it is safe to
overtake a cyclist - why should the same not apply to cyclists?
I would also see it as acceptable to overtake safely in some
circumstances and leave a mandatory lane - in the same way that
motorists can do when there are general restrictions on overtaking -
eg double white lines)
The answer would be to have cycle lanes/paths of a suitable width. (Of
course cyclists would not be expected to adopt the beloved primary
position - they would need to keep well to the left to allow others
to overtake)
>(b) forbidden from turning right into a side-road, as this would involve
> leaving the cycle lane to position yourself, unless there is a
>special cycle lane taking you across a lane to the centerline
Dashed lines to show that you could leave the lane to turn right -
lane not mandatory at that point.
>(c) forbidden from taking evasive action against
>pedestrians/debris/potholes/parked cars if doing so means you would have
>to leave the cycle lane
Acceptable - if done safely. If in doubt - get off your bike and walk
round the obstruction.
>Just how strictly would you want the mandatory nature of such a cycle
>lane enforced, and to what end?
The reason for having mandatory lanes/paths is that it would be for
the benefit of all road users.
Obviously not all lanes/paths should or can be mandatory. If they are
so designated then it would be an offence to ride in another lane on
the same road - or to ride on the road if the cycle pathway was not
physically part of it.
Cyclists are currently not allowed on some roads - I see nothing wrong
with this.
Matt B
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>> Cyclist at fault, cyclist not the injured party, Spindrift and his
>> sycophants blame the car occupant. Business as usual.
>
> Rule 239:
> * you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door.
> Check for cyclists or other traffic
Then there's rule 67:
You should... Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and
watch out for doors being opened...
A "should" not a "MUST", but a rule nevertheless.
--
Matt B
James Thomson
> Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose. I was actually
> thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide
> enough for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one
> the other way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road
> (its certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to
> have any glass or hills on it.
Where cycle paths provide a benfit to the cyclist, cyclists will use them.
The law allows cyclists to judge for themselves.
> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such
> trouble with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish
> comments as the one above.
If you'd spent any time reading this group, you'd be aware that this is a
bone of contention. Aggression from motorists who feel inconvenienced,
rightly or wrongly, by cyclists who choose not to use cycle paths is common,
and faux naiveté is a common trolling tactic.
> I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion from
> a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys
> aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am
> most definitely thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
The needs of adolescents don't always coincide with those of the population
at large.
Experienced cyclists often find that cycle paths are slower and less
convenient than roads, and increase the risk of collision by multiplying the
number of crossing points with roads, speed differential being a lesser
hazard than crossing trajectories without clear lines of sight.
James Thomson
Matt B
>
> The driver gets fined if the passenger doors a cyclist-
Are you sure about that - drivers aren't generally held responsible for
the actions of another adult.
> the single
> most common cause of injury to cyclists.
Wrong. The majority of incidents resulting in an injury to a cyclist do
not even involve another vehicle.
--
Matt B
judith
wrote:
>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>> Cyclist at fault, cyclist not the injured party, Spindrift and his
>> sycophants blame the car occupant. Business as usual.
>
>Rule 239:
Thanks for those.
You missed out:
Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for
doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
Now what does it say about cyclists passing between the vehicle and
the pavement. (I think it is called filtering).
Oh - on second thoughts - it may not be in the Highway Code
Snipe...@yahoo.co.uk
You must not open a door to danger takes precedence. To open a door
to danger is a statutory offence and civil a civil tort.
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
"Drivers of motor vehicles must not open any door of your vehicle so
as to cause injury or danger to anyone."
The driver is also responsible in law for the actions of any passenger
so as to provide compensation to any person injured or property
damaged as a result of a door from their vehicle being opened
negligently. This is because the driver is insured where as the
passenger may well not be.
Sniper8052
James Thomson
> Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred?
I think it arose because of a misunderstanding of the application of the
term.
> I dont know, but I would assume, that councils are a tad miffed that
> they've spent lots of taxpayers money on providing cycle lanes and
> then seeing cyclists ignore them because they apparently 'dont
> want bits and pieces in their tyres'.
You shouldn't anthropomorphise "councils". A council exists to serve the
local population. If a council provides a facility that fails to serve the
needs of the population, it should spend its money more wisely.
Nobody would use the motorway network if the alternatives were faster,
safer, more direct, and better maintained. Those are all common reasons to
prefer roads to cycle paths.
James Thomson
Nigel Cliffe
> "elyob" <newsp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8dd5bba9-5b72-4266...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> traffic from each other.
>
> Because, as I said before, the speeds of the two forms of transport
> are disparate. It stands to reason that there is increased potential
> for accidents where that condition occurs.
Not according to the accident data. The accidents happen at junctions and
other "conflict" points. They are rare along an ordinary plain road.
>
>> I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
>> and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
>> this is something we don't wish in our tyres.
>>
> Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred?
The word "mandatory" originated at the Department for Transport many many
years ago, and is explained in DfT official books including "know your
traffic signs". It describes lanes on the road where there is a mandate
(rule) applying to the lane. The rule is almost always a prohibition on use
of the lane by certain classes of vehicle (its usually done via a Traffic
Regulation Order). Typical rules would amount to "buses only", "local buses
only", "buses and taxis only", "buses, taxis and cycles only", etc. In no
case do the rules mean that a class of vehicle is compelled to use the lane.
The mandate (rule) applies to vehicles prohibited from using the lane.
The recent fluff of crosspostings between uk.legal and uk.rec.cycling have
been caused by self-admitted troll "judith". Plus a person under the name of
Jethro who seems to refuse to accept the DfT definitions of mandatory lanes.
>
> I
> dont know, but I would assume, that councils are a tad miffed that
> they've spent lots of taxpayers money on providing cycle lanes and
> then seeing cyclists ignore them because they apparently 'dont want
> bits and pieces in their tyres'.
Councils get brownie points and central grants for providing a certain
amount of cycle "facilities". That those "facilities" are often
"farcilities" is not checked.
As a car driver, would you choose to use a road with a Give-Way sign every
seventy yards on a 1 mile journey when there is another road alongside where
the traffic moves at a steady pace ?
> ...............................................................................
> and
> this is somehow a reason by which you [cyclists] should be permitted to
> ignore
> specialist carraigeways designed for your use?
Just as motor vehicle drivers are permitted to ignore the special
carriageways (motorways) designed for their use.
Please get used to the idea that roads are shared by people. Those people
want to get about. They use different vehicles. The vehicles travel at
different speeds.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
judith
<p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:
<snip>
>"judith" eventually revealed her anti-cycling opinions the "(Non-) Use of
>cycling facilities" thread. There is no more to it than that.
>
>~PB
>
Hello "Pete".
Any chance of repeating any "anti-cycling" opinions I have made.
(PS You may not be able to find one. You may find ones where I have
criticised cyclists or come up with an alternative point of view -
that does not make me anti-cycling.)
didds
> I was coming down on the outside as per usual, and it certainly re-instated
> my "don't cycle down the inside" rule.
straight question - what if the door was opened into a mandatory cycle
lane?
(not necessarily if this may have been the case in the OP of course)
didds
Matt B
>
> The driver is also responsible in law for the actions of any passenger
> so as to provide compensation to any person injured or property
> damaged as a result of a door from their vehicle being opened
> negligently.
So not criminally liable then, as "spindrift" asserted in a previous post.
> This is because the driver is insured where as the
> passenger may well not be.
Another example of the type of "pragmatic", rather than just law that
our motoring statutes are riddled with.
--
Matt B
nully
Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to mark the
boundary between the two. Since the main carraigeway is interrupted for
junctions which are all traffic lighted, even the ones that are only on one
side, it stands to reason that the cyclepath must be faster - their 'road'
doesn't have a traffic light where the junction only serves the other side
of the road, if you see what I mean. Its perhaps 3 miles long, and the
cyclepath runs the complete length of it. It has no 'obscure' junctions or
tight turns, but most cyclists use the main carraigeway - 30mph near
junctions, but 40 and 50 elsewhere.
Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But it
is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford cyclists
reasonable care. Cyclists (at least seem to) regularly chastise motorists
for not seeing them or cutting them up or whatever, and often that criticism
is justified. But (where a cycle path exists) the cyclist seems to be the
master of his own misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict
but chose not to for the sake of convenience. Put it this way - would
cyclists have any sympathy for car drivers who campaigned against
articulated trucks simply on the premise that the car was more vulnerable
than the truck?
>>> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds
>>> to your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend
>>> that the cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle
>>> farcilities.
>> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such
>> trouble with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish
>> comments as the one above. I've not posted here before and was simply
>> offering a polite opinion from a car-drivers perspective.
>
> If you are genuine then I apologise for my remark above. We get so many
> trolls on this group that it is difficult to remain polite every time a
> troll-like post appears, especially after one has been reading the
> newsgroup for a number of years. I can only take so much!
>
>> For what
>> its worth, I have five boys aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they
>> *all* have bikes, so I am most definitely thinking from a cyclist
>> safety point of view.
>
> While there are a exceptions, generally segregated cycle paths are more
> dangerous to cycle on than the roads, mainly because of dangerous
> junctions and crossings with roads along the way.
>
Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car drivers. I can
think of many roads that would be far safer if they didn't have junctions
with other roads along them! Where a dangerous junction occurs, the
traveller is rightly expected to take extra care and attention, and if
necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune' to that responsibility? I'm
*sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign which said something like "cyclists
dismount" and I cant see a distinction between a cyclist who ignores that
requirement and a car driver ignoring a red traffic light.
Pete Biggs
> Any chance of repeating any "anti-cycling" opinions I have made.
> (PS You may not be able to find one. You may find ones where I have
> criticised cyclists or come up with an alternative point of view -
> that does not make me anti-cycling.)
Those interested in reading your shit can dig it up via Google Groups. I
remember that you lost control of yourself at a couple of points in "that"
thread and made your opinions quite obvious.
~PB
judith
<p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:
<snip>
>If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds to your
>journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend that the cyclists
>would actually be better off on these cycle farcilities.
>
>~PB
>
And here we have the classic uk.rec.cycling response to a sensible
post from a non-regular poster.
How dare (s)he criticise cyclists.
Many thanks - your post epitomises some in this group and what I have
been saying for some time.
JNugent
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote:
By reasonable estimation.
judith
<dev...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
>But don't get too close to the car in front before filtering, especially
>if you're looking over your shoulder to check if there's a motorbike
>coming down the outside.
>
>http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20080805/
I've asked before - are you putting together a compilation of
appalling cyclists?
You seem to have many examples - keep it up.
Were you in a hurry - why not wait in the lane with the other
vehicles?
James Thomson
> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln
> city. Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to
> mark the boundary between the two. Since the main carraigeway is
> interrupted for junctions which are all traffic lighted, even the ones
> that are only on one side, it stands to reason that the cyclepath must be
> faster - their 'road' doesn't have a traffic light where the junction only
> serves the other side of the road, if you see what I mean. Its perhaps 3
> miles long, and the cyclepath runs the complete length of it. It has no
> 'obscure' junctions or tight turns, but most cyclists use the main
> carraigeway - 30mph near junctions, but 40 and 50 elsewhere.
It's not generally safe to ride much above 10mph when pedestrians are
present: even when theoretically separated by a white line, they can change
direction quickly. That immediately places a constraint on cyclists using
the path.
There are many examples along the length of the road where a cyclist on the
path will have to give way to a turning vehicle from the road, while a
cyclist on the road could continue unaffected.
The junction treatments here are horrible:
Far easier and safer to merge with traffic on the road at the approach to
the roundabout.
There are sections to the south where it doesn't look as though using the
path would be a great inconvenience, but the road is broad and straight, and
passing opportunities don't appear to be few. I find it hard to believe that
cyclists in single file would present an inconvenience to motorists using
the road.
> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the
> cyclists, although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone
> who said it was. But it is certainly no *less* selfish than car
> drivers who fail to afford cyclists reasonable care.
Of course it is. The duty to avoid injury to a third party is paramount. The
duty to avoid inconvenience to a third party by inconveniencing onself is at
best debatable.
> Cyclists (at least seem to) regularly chastise motorists for not seeing
> them or cutting them up or whatever, and
> often that criticism is justified. But (where a cycle path
> exists) the cyclist seems to be the master of his own
> misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose not to
> for the sake of convenience.
Cycle paths commonly multiply points of conflict.
> Put it this way - would cyclists have any sympathy for car
> drivers who campaigned against articulated trucks simply
> on the premise that the car was more vulnerable than the
> truck?
Or put it this way: would motorists have any sympathy for lorry drivers who
believe that private car traffic should be relegated to a slower, less
convenient secondary network *for its own safety*?
James Thomson
Daniel Barlow
> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln city.
> Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to mark the
> boundary between the two.
So it's a shared use path. Are you aware that nothing (either in law
or in custom) prevents pedestrians from using either side of it as
they see fit? If there are any users on foot, it is very unlikely in
practice to be faster than the road due to the necessity for riding
slowly to anticipate pedestrians doing odd things.
Would you rather drive a car on the road or on the pavement?
> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
> although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But it
> is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford cyclists
> reasonable care.
Not meaning to have a go at you, but do you really mean that? An
inconsiderate cyclist may slow a motorist down slightly: a car driver
who fails to afford a cyclist reasonable care may leave him in a
hospital or a box. There seems to be a question of proportion there.
>> While there are a exceptions, generally segregated cycle paths are more
>> dangerous to cycle on than the roads, mainly because of dangerous
>> junctions and crossings with roads along the way.
>>
> Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car drivers. I can
> think of many roads that would be far safer if they didn't have junctions
> with other roads along them! Where a dangerous junction occurs, the
> traveller is rightly expected to take extra care and attention, and if
> necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune' to that
> responsibility?
Who said they should be? The question is not whether cyclists should
take due care on dangerous cycle facilities (of course they should,
when they use them) but whether cyclists should be made to use those
dangerous facilities when safer roads exist. You wouldn't drive
through a town if the bypass was better, would you?
-dan
nully
"James Thomson" <yosn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:489972b8$0$969$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> a écrit:
>
>> Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose. I was actually
>> thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide
>> enough for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one
>> the other way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road
>> (its certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to
>> have any glass or hills on it.
>
> Where cycle paths provide a benfit to the cyclist, cyclists will use them.
> The law allows cyclists to judge for themselves.
>
exploit that leniency, motivated only by selfishness, it cant come as a
surprise when the law considers that removing said leniency might be a
positive move - hence the appearance of that ominous word 'mandatory' that
appears to have cropped up recently.
>> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such
>> trouble with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish
>> comments as the one above.
>
> If you'd spent any time reading this group, you'd be aware that this is a
> bone of contention. Aggression from motorists who feel inconvenienced,
> rightly or wrongly, by cyclists who choose not to use cycle paths is
> common, and faux naiveté is a common trolling tactic.
>
Hell, I've nothing to hide. I'm a confirmed 'cager' (isn't that the phrase
of choice here?). I usually have a minimum of four cars, often six or more.
I do have a bike, a good one (I think) but I doubt I've done more than fifty
miles on it in the two years I've had it. I came across this group following
cross-posts to uk.transport, mostly those of Duhgtard. Okay, no 'hidden
agendas' there then.
>> I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion from
>> a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys
>> aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am
>> most definitely thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
>
> The needs of adolescents don't always coincide with those of the
> population at large.
>
> Experienced cyclists often find that cycle paths are slower and less
> convenient than roads, and increase the risk of collision by multiplying
> the number of crossing points with roads, speed differential being a
> lesser hazard than crossing trajectories without clear lines of sight.
>
The pedestrian precinct through the middle of Lincoln city is more
"convenient" than the roads which go round it, so should I be allowed to
drive along them? Of course not, which is why I'm confused by the argument
that the carraigeway is more convenient than a cyclepath.
Clive George
news:Wldmk.33409$8w4....@newsfe30.ams2...
> Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose. I was actually
> thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide enough
> for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one the other
> way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road (its
> certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to have any
> glass or hills on it.
Whereabouts? Got a link to it on Google Maps?
>> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds to
>> your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend that the
>> cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle farcilities.
>>
> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such trouble
> with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish comments as the
> one above. I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite
> opinion from a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five
> boys aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am
> most definitely thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
But do *you* have a bike which you ride regularly? I understand you're
trying to protect your kids, but do you have the required experience to
appreciate the problems which your proposals would present?
spindrift
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:23:48 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
>
Offence Wording:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) opened a door of a
vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), on a
road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), so as to injure or
endanger a person.
Legislation
Contrary to regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986, section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule
2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Notes
(i) Statement of Facts procedure applies - see end of document for
wording.
(ii) See also offence wordings: H2533 and H2534.
(iii) In the Statement of Facts detail may be given as to the
circumstances in which the danger arose or the injury was caused, e.g.
"Mrs Ann Smith, who was riding a bicycle alongside the defendant's
car."
(iv) Fixed penalty scheme may be applied
Powers Of Arrest
Arrest without warrant
Mode Of Trial
SUMMARY MINOR TRAFFIC
Time Limit For Prosecutions 6 months
Penalty Field
A fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale if in respect of
goods vehicle or vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers.
A fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale in any other
case.
Fixed penalty ticket - thirty pounds.
Time limit for prosecutions:
6 months
The law applies to everyone using the roads, not just drivers - it
doesn't need to say it applies to passengers, as it doesn't refer to
driving behaviour.
There is no offence of passing within range of extending car parts, so
the cyclist is not guilty of anything.
A.C.P.Crawshaw
> I was told that this group was well known for the "zealots and fuckwits" it attracted
Ah, so you decided to join them.
judith
Excellent - you don't have any examples then.
You can always tell when someone is lying - when they accuse someone
of doing or saying something - but they cannot provide the evidence.
It really shows that they are the fuckwit - rather than the accused.
judith
<snip>
>To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such trouble
>with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish comments as the one
>above. I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite opinion
>from a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five boys aged
>between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am most definitely
>thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
>
Unfortunately Nully, you are not allowed to post here if you criticise
a cyclist in any way whatsoever; the venom soon starts.
Clive George
> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
> although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But it
> is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford
> cyclists reasonable care.
Would you care to revisit that statement? It looks pretty insane from here,
and I'm rather hoping you mean something else.
> I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign which said something like
> "cyclists dismount" and I cant see a distinction between a cyclist who
> ignores that requirement and a car driver ignoring a red traffic light.
Highway code will help you here. "Cyclists Dismount" is a hint, not a law.
nully
"Nigel Cliffe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:g7bset$6mq$1...@news.albasani.net...
safety. The railway goes *directly* through my town centre, but even were it
permitted to drive on it I think I'd rather take the meandering road
instead, because my safety would be compromised more than the gain in time.
If a cyclist wishes to exercise his right to use the main carraigeway rather
than the potentially slower cyclepath, he has made that choice and accepted
a higher degree of risk in exchange for the speedier journey. Fine, no
problems. Until the cyclist begins to bemoan his fate on the highway...
>
>> this is somehow a reason by which you [cyclists] should be permitted to
>> ignore
>> specialist carraigeways designed for your use?
>
> Just as motor vehicle drivers are permitted to ignore the special
> carriageways (motorways) designed for their use.
>
available. If a motorway goes where I want to go, I'll take it. And so will
99% of other motorists (I'm excepting the dizzy old bat who wont go on a
motorway in her Austin 1100 because "its too fast").
>
> Please get used to the idea that roads are shared by people. Those people
> want to get about. They use different vehicles. The vehicles travel at
> different speeds.
>
anybody else who wants to use it, be it another car, a cyclist, or a bloody
horse. I *do* have an issue with more vulnerable road users who make a
concious choice to do so despite an alternative being offered, and who then
create a fuss that they are not being afforded due care.
Matt B
>
> There is no offence of passing within range of extending car parts,
No, just highway code rule number 67 - a "should" rule.
> so
> the cyclist is not guilty of anything.
No, just of breaking one of the rules in the HC.
Do you remember what you said, just yesterday, about the HC? This:
"For instance, if drivers and cyclists adhere to the HC, there would be
virtually zero cyclists' deaths."
--
Matt B
Snipe...@yahoo.co.uk
> (uk.legal added)
>
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:57:53 +0100, Richard Thrippleton
>
> <re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> No - the real reason is that all cycle lanes will become either
> >> mandatory or advisory in terms of whether cyclists must use the, in
> >> the not too distant future.
>
> >> A good thing too - in my opinion.
> >How so? Who does it give advantage to - cyclists, motorists, other?
>
> It is not a question of giving an "advantage" to anyone - it is a
> matter of making the roads safer fro all road users.
> (I have noticed an many occasions in this group that anything which
> "disadvantages" a cyclist in any way must be a bad thing -
> irrespective of whether it is for the general good)
Why are cycle lanes for the general good?
>
> > Mike
> >just gave us an example of a cycle lane that would be quite dangerous to
> >use - that is, there is a risk of getting doored if you use it, and it's
> >much safer to turn straight-on/right by being in the main traffic queue
> >at such a junction.
>
> That may be an example of the cycle lane being in the wrong place - it
> does not mean that all cycle lanes are a bad thing. I have not said
> that all cycle lanes must be mandatory (for cyclists) - certainly
> some of them should be.
Why, safe driving/riding practice should be the requirement not
subjugation of the roadway
>
> Properly provided cycle lanes and cycle paths would be of benefit to
> cyclists and to motorists.
The operative words 'properly provided' most do not go where I wish to
travel or are so poorly designed they are a danger
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
>
> >In your opinion, how mandatory should mandatory be, assuming the
> >hypothetical future in which it means mandatory for cyclists to use?
> >Should cyclists be
> >(a) forbidden from overtaking another cyclist, because cycle lanes
> >aren't wide enough to do this
>
> Why not in some circumstances - some roads have that restriction. If
> it is acceptable for motorists to have to wait until it is safe to
> overtake a cyclist - why should the same not apply to cyclists?
Because a cyclist is traveling in the same direction as the traffic
flow even when overtaking where as the motor vehicle is traveling in
the opposite direction to the traffic flow where that restriction is
in place. It is the act of moving to the opposing carriageway that
creates the danger prescribed.
> I would also see it as acceptable to overtake safely in some
> circumstances and leave a mandatory lane - in the same way that
> motorists can do when there are general restrictions on overtaking -
> eg double white lines)
'In some circumstances', suggests an exception to the rule of 'not
allowing the overtaking of a cyclist' rather than an exception to the
rule 'of allowing the overtaking of a cyclist.' Unlike the double
white line which is a suspension of the normal permissive overtaking
rules.
>
> The answer would be to have cycle lanes/paths of a suitable width. (Of
> course cyclists would not be expected to adopt the beloved primary
> position - they would need to keep well to the left to allow others
> to overtake)
Since this is impossible and would require what could be termed a
complete dual road system with the widening of major roads, the
demolishing of buildings and the re-routing of utilities it is hardly
an option where as requiring everyone to ride and drive properly is an
option that is at least in theory attainable
>
> >(b) forbidden from turning right into a side-road, as this would involve
> > leaving the cycle lane to position yourself, unless there is a
> >special cycle lane taking you across a lane to the centerline
>
> Dashed lines to show that you could leave the lane to turn right -
> lane not mandatory at that point.
So again the rule is that leaving the cycle lane would be an offence,
there are a lot of side roads to the right over the length of a cycle
lane but not that many over the length of most passing restrictions
for motor vehicles. The idea fails to address either its purpose or
the needs of cyclists as road users.
>
> >(c) forbidden from taking evasive action against
> >pedestrians/debris/potholes/parked cars if doing so means you would have
> >to leave the cycle lane
>
> Acceptable - if done safely. If in doubt - get off your bike and walk
> round the obstruction.
>
> >Just how strictly would you want the mandatory nature of such a cycle
> >lane enforced, and to what end?
>
> The reason for having mandatory lanes/paths is that it would be for
> the benefit of all road users.
How? Under the terms you are discussing the idea is wholly unworkable
even from an elementary inspection.
> Obviously not all lanes/paths should or can be mandatory. If they are
> so designated then it would be an offence to ride in another lane on
> the same road - or to ride on the road if the cycle pathway was not
> physically part of it.
Even though the shared and single track pathways change priority and
hence introduce far more danger to the cyclist, pedestrian and motor
vehicle.
>
> Cyclists are currently not allowed on some roads - I see nothing wrong
> with this.
Motorways also ban mopeds. Can't think of any other national road
system bicycles can't use.
The ideas that you are promoting are the opposite of what has been
proven to be the better approach that of education and integration.
Whilst it was popular 20 years ago to separate all road users that
approach has been shown not to work unless the general road system is
altered to give priority to the cyclist and pedestrian. In towns that
have altered the priority the agenda has been for the reduction of the
motor vehicle as the primary mode of transport.
Sniper8052
judith
wrote:
<snip>
>The recent fluff of crosspostings between uk.legal and uk.rec.cycling have
>been caused by self-admitted troll "judith".
Hello "Nigel" - nice to see you again.
Did you see that I had contacted various bodies re Cyclecraft as you
had suggested and they confirmed that the book is not endorsed by
them?
Thanks for the idea - one of your more sensible ones - if I may say
so.
Keep up the good work.
nully
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> a écrit:
(snipped - I have nowhere near the expertise on a cycle to know whether what
you've said there is reasonable, so I'll not argue with it!)
>
> There are sections to the south where it doesn't look as though using the
> path would be a great inconvenience, but the road is broad and straight,
> and
> passing opportunities don't appear to be few. I find it hard to believe
> that
> cyclists in single file would present an inconvenience to motorists using
> the road.
>
as it is the main arterial route into the city centre and the university.
Many cyclists use it and it is often very difficult to pass them due to
opposing traffic.
>> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the
>> cyclists, although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone
>> who said it was. But it is certainly no *less* selfish than car
>> drivers who fail to afford cyclists reasonable care.
>
> Of course it is. The duty to avoid injury to a third party is paramount.
> The
> duty to avoid inconvenience to a third party by inconveniencing onself is
> at
> best debatable.
>
Hmmm, okay I'll give you that - I hadn't thought that one through very well.
But I'd still suggest that it is hypocritical of cyclists to criticise other
traffic when they ignore a 'safer' alternative.
>> Cyclists (at least seem to) regularly chastise motorists for not seeing
>> them or cutting them up or whatever, and
>> often that criticism is justified. But (where a cycle path
>> exists) the cyclist seems to be the master of his own
>> misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose not
>> to
>> for the sake of convenience.
>
> Cycle paths commonly multiply points of conflict.
>
>> Put it this way - would cyclists have any sympathy for car
>> drivers who campaigned against articulated trucks simply
>> on the premise that the car was more vulnerable than the
>> truck?
>
> Or put it this way: would motorists have any sympathy for lorry drivers
> who
> believe that private car traffic should be relegated to a slower, less
> convenient secondary network *for its own safety*?
>
What a very good question! I've never thought of that, but a 'knee-jerk'
response would be to say that the car driver couldn't refuse to use that
secondary network while at the same time moaning about the level of danger
on the primary route.
James Thomson
>> Where cycle paths provide a benfit to the cyclist, cyclists will
>> use them. The law allows cyclists to judge for themselves.
> But where the beneficiary of such lenient rules of the highway
> chooses to exploit that leniency, motivated only by selfishness,
> it cant come as a surprise when the law considers that removing
> said leniency might be a positive move
All road users, subject to restrictions, are allowed to choose which parts
of the network best serve their interests. Cyclists are no different in that
regard. Acting in one's own best interest can have consequences for others,
but shouldn't necessarily be equated with selfishness. Every road user
inconveniences other road users by the sheer fact of his existence.
Consideration for others includes extending them the right to inconvenience
us.
> hence the appearance of that ominous word 'mandatory'
> that appears to have cropped up recently.
I think that was willful misinterpretation by group of troublemakers.
> Hell, I've nothing to hide. I'm a confirmed 'cager' (isn't that
> the phrase of choice here?).
That wasn't the point I was making. I was suggesting that you wouldn't have
been surprised at the reception you received if you'd done your homework -
or that you had done your homework and your surprise was feigned. That's not
an accusation either way.
> The pedestrian precinct through the middle of Lincoln city is
> more "convenient" than the roads which go round it, so should
> I be allowed to drive along them? Of course not, which is why
> I'm confused by the argument that the carraigeway is more
> convenient than a cyclepath.
I don't think you would find it convenient to drive at walking pace through
a crowded pedestrian area. Nevertheless, motorists do drive everywhere the
law permits, even when alternatives exist, and they shouldnt think it
selfish that cyclists expect the same.
James Thomson
Snipe...@yahoo.co.uk
Well yes criminally liable, it's a statutory offence IE: made by
parliament and not common law. To be tried you go to magistrates
court and are found guilty under the criminal code - hence it is a
criminal offence.
The idea when the law was introduced was for the 'general good' and to
allow for all road users to claim compensation from a negligent
party. If it were the case that the passenger was liable rather than
the driver and vicariously the insurance company then many injured
parties would not have access to compensation for injury or loss. The
law applies equally to all road users, drivers, pedestrians and
cyclists who are injured or suffer loss.
Sniper8052
nully
"Daniel Barlow" <d...@telent.net> wrote in message
news:87promv...@toy.config...
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> writes:
>
>> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln
>> city.
>> Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to mark
>> the
>> boundary between the two.
>
> So it's a shared use path. Are you aware that nothing (either in law
> or in custom) prevents pedestrians from using either side of it as
> they see fit? If there are any users on foot, it is very unlikely in
> practice to be faster than the road due to the necessity for riding
> slowly to anticipate pedestrians doing odd things.
>
> Would you rather drive a car on the road or on the pavement?
>
>> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
>> although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But
>> it
>> is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford
>> cyclists
>> reasonable care.
>
> Not meaning to have a go at you, but do you really mean that? An
> inconsiderate cyclist may slow a motorist down slightly: a car driver
> who fails to afford a cyclist reasonable care may leave him in a
> hospital or a box. There seems to be a question of proportion there.
>
after class.
>>> While there are a exceptions, generally segregated cycle paths are more
>>> dangerous to cycle on than the roads, mainly because of dangerous
>>> junctions and crossings with roads along the way.
>>>
>> Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car drivers. I
>> can
>> think of many roads that would be far safer if they didn't have junctions
>> with other roads along them! Where a dangerous junction occurs, the
>> traveller is rightly expected to take extra care and attention, and if
>> necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune' to that
>> responsibility?
>
> Who said they should be? The question is not whether cyclists should
> take due care on dangerous cycle facilities (of course they should,
> when they use them) but whether cyclists should be made to use those
> dangerous facilities when safer roads exist. You wouldn't drive
> through a town if the bypass was better, would you?
>
Well the cyclist seems to think he should be, judging from their ignoring
traffic lights. I think what this whole thing comes down to (correct me if
I'm wrong) is our differing views of safety. I'd always considered that a
cyclist is considerably safer on a path dedicated to his use than the main
carraigeway. The responses in this group seem to think the opposite.
Pete Biggs
> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln
> city. Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line
> to mark the boundary between the two.
White lines don't stop people walking on the cycling side.
> Since the main carraigeway is
> interrupted for junctions which are all traffic lighted, even the
> ones that are only on one side, it stands to reason that the
> cyclepath must be faster - their 'road' doesn't have a traffic light
> where the junction only serves the other side of the road, if you see
> what I mean. Its perhaps 3 miles long, and the cyclepath runs the
> complete length of it. It has no 'obscure' junctions or tight turns,
> but most cyclists use the main carraigeway - 30mph near junctions,
> but 40 and 50 elsewhere.
I'd have to see the path for myself to know why the road is preferable. The
road may be faster or more pleasant for keen cyclists despite the traffic
lights. You can be pretty sure they are not using it purely to annoy
motorists.
> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the
> cyclists, although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said
> it was. But it is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who
> fail to afford cyclists reasonable care.
Cyclists who cause a little bit of inconvenience by occasionally getting in
your way on the road are rarely dangerous to other road users, whereas many
people are killed my careless car drivers. You cannot equate the two.
I suspect I was right first time that convenience when motoring is your is
your primary concern. I don't deny that convenience when cycling is a major
factor for me. Call it selfish if you like, the fact is that I have the
right to cause you this little bit of inconvenience. I could go on to argue
abot the greater good of cycling reducing car useage and the health and
green issues, etc, but I don't pretend this is the main motivator for me.
Basically, I'm just defending road cycling here on a legal and practical
basis, not a moral one (at the moment). Motorists can campaign for what
they want. If you want cyclists off the road because that would be more
convenient for you, then I'd rather you just said so. Let's be straight
about it.
> Cyclists (at least seem to)
> regularly chastise motorists for not seeing them or cutting them up
> or whatever, and often that criticism is justified. But (where a
> cycle path exists) the cyclist seems to be the master of his own
> misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose
> not to for the sake of convenience.
I actually get very little dangerous conflict on the roads. I find it well
worth the slight risk for the much greater convenience and enjoyment.
> Put it this way - would cyclists
> have any sympathy for car drivers who campaigned against articulated
> trucks simply on the premise that the car was more vulnerable than
> the truck?
Campaigning against cars is not what I'm doing here. I would have sympathy
anyway for anyone campaigning for safety improvements to trucks.
> Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car
> drivers. I can think of many roads that would be far safer if they
> didn't have junctions with other roads along them! Where a dangerous
> junction occurs, the traveller is rightly expected to take extra care
> and attention, and if necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune'
> to that responsibility?
They are not immune from that responsibility, but the crossings are often so
terrible that it is difficult to be safe at them even if you are quite
careful and skilfull. Due to poor sight lines, etc, they are often more
difficult than negotiating proper junctions on fast roads.
> I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign
> which said something like "cyclists dismount" and I cant see a
> distinction between a cyclist who ignores that requirement and a car
> driver ignoring a red traffic light.
They don't all have dismount signs, and walking isn't necessarily safer than
cycling accross anyway.
~PB
nully
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:coOdnRKsRP2UHATV...@posted.plusnet...
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote in message
> news:nKemk.33419$8w4....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the cyclists,
>> although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said it was. But
>> it is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who fail to afford
>> cyclists reasonable care.
>
> Would you care to revisit that statement? It looks pretty insane from
> here, and I'm rather hoping you mean something else.
>
you're right, I meant it in a different context.
>> I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign which said something like
>> "cyclists dismount" and I cant see a distinction between a cyclist who
>> ignores that requirement and a car driver ignoring a red traffic light.
>
> Highway code will help you here. "Cyclists Dismount" is a hint, not a law.
>
Wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
Pete Biggs
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:07:09 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> <p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds
>> to your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend
>> that the cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle
>> farcilities.
> And here we have the classic uk.rec.cycling response to a sensible
> post from a non-regular poster.
>
> How dare (s)he criticise cyclists.
>
> Many thanks - your post epitomises some in this group and what I have
> been saying for some time.
Rubbish. Criticise cyclists - just be honest about why you are doing so.
It's because they delay you by a few seconds. Go on, be honest.
~PB
Clive George
> But where the beneficiary of such lenient rules of the highway chooses to
> exploit that leniency, motivated only by selfishness, it cant come as a
> surprise when the law considers that removing said leniency might be a
> positive move - hence the appearance of that ominous word 'mandatory' that
> appears to have cropped up recently.
"Selfishness". I suppose wanting to get to your destination safer and
quicker could count as that - but do you really mean that?
JNugent
> nully wrote:
>> "elyob" <newsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not sure where you seem to think that the 'end' is to seperate
>>> traffic from each other.
>> Because, as I said before, the speeds of the two forms of transport
>> are disparate. It stands to reason that there is increased potential
>> for accidents where that condition occurs.
> Not according to the accident data. The accidents happen at junctions and
> other "conflict" points. They are rare along an ordinary plain road.
>>> I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
>>> and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
>>> this is something we don't wish in our tyres.
>
>> Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred?
> The word "mandatory" originated at the Department for Transport many many
> years ago, and is explained in DfT official books including "know your
> traffic signs".
"Explaining" an invented term-of-art meaning does not mean that the
words are being used in accordance with established usage and in a way
that ensures (as far as possible) clarity and minimises the possibility
of confusion.
Because of the risk of misunderstanding (illustrated so far in this
thread), the term "mandatory" is being ill-applied in the sense you
refer to (I'm not saying that's your fault).
The word "exclude" (and its derivations, including "exclusive"*) would
be much nearer to the correct sense (as would the word "only").
Let's see... "cycle-only lane"...
It has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
> It describes lanes on the road where there is a mandate
> (rule) applying to the lane.
When something is mandatory that means that you must do it, not that you
must not do it. But a mandatory requirement (not a "mandate" - that
means something else in normal usage) is not the only sort of rule. As
you rightly say, another sort of rule is the prohibition (ie, something
you must not do - like cycling through a red traffic light). The rule
you refer to ("do not drive a motor vehicle in this lane") is a
(negative) prohibition rather than a (positive) mandatory requirement.
In fact, the traffic light rules provide us with a good illustration of
the difference and shades of meaning between these two ways of
approaching the issue.. It is a mandatory requirement that one must stop
at a red traffic light. One is prohibited from driving or riding past a
traffic signal at red. They mean more or less the same thing -
eventually - but they get there by two completely separate linguistic
routes and it would be wrong to fail to distinguish them in a sub-thread
that has almost become a language flame.
> The rule is almost always a prohibition on use
> of the lane by certain classes of vehicle (its usually done via a Traffic
> Regulation Order). Typical rules would amount to "buses only", "local buses
> only", "buses and taxis only", "buses, taxis and cycles only", etc. In no
> case do the rules mean that a class of vehicle is compelled to use the lane.
> The mandate (rule) applies to vehicles prohibited from using the lane.
Then why not just use the word "prohibit" (and its derivations) and cut
the scope for confusion?
nully
> "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote in message
> news:Wldmk.33409$8w4....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
>> Okay, I accept that some may not be fit for purpose. I was actually
>> thinking of a specific one when I posted, which is more than wide enough
>> for two cyclists alongside each other and still room for one the other
>> way, is pretty much arrow straight for the length of the road (its
>> certainly straighter than the carraigeway!) and doesn't *look* to have
>> any glass or hills on it.
>
> Whereabouts? Got a link to it on Google Maps?
Its up the thread a bit, but here it is again
http://maps.google.fr/maps?hl=fr&safe=off&q=Tritton+Road++Lincoln&ie=UTF8&ll=53.224908,-0.552063&spn=0.003167,0.007349&t=k&z=17
>
>>> If you don't like cyclists on the road because they add five seconds to
>>> your journey to the hairdressers, just say so. Don't pretend that the
>>> cyclists would actually be better off on these cycle farcilities.
>>>
>> To be frank, its little wonder that this group seems to have such trouble
>> with hot-tempered motorists when met with such childish comments as the
>> one above. I've not posted here before and was simply offering a polite
>> opinion from a car-drivers perspective. For what its worth, I have five
>> boys aged between 15 1/2 and 16 1/2 and they *all* have bikes, so I am
>> most definitely thinking from a cyclist safety point of view.
>
> But do *you* have a bike which you ride regularly? I understand you're
> trying to protect your kids, but do you have the required experience to
> appreciate the problems which your proposals would present?
Yes I have one. I dont ride it regularly though. What 'proposal' have I
suggested which would require me any experience?
Clive George
> Without a doubt. I dont have an issue with sharing the carraigeway with
> anybody else who wants to use it, be it another car, a cyclist, or a
> bloody horse. I *do* have an issue with more vulnerable road users who
> make a concious choice to do so despite an alternative being offered, and
> who then create a fuss that they are not being afforded due care.
You do appear to be saying that bad driving is ok. Are you sure you want to
be saying that?
Pete Biggs
> The pedestrian precinct through the middle of Lincoln city is more
> "convenient" than the roads which go round it, so should I be allowed
> to drive along them? Of course not, which is why I'm confused by the
> argument that the carraigeway is more convenient than a cyclepath.
You are not allowed to drive through the pedestrian precinct. You are
allowed to cycle on the carriageway.
I am confused by the "should" question.
If you want to drive through the precinct then you can campaign for that.
While I am allowed to cycle on the carriageway, and while I enjoy it, and
while I think it causes little harm, I am not going to agree with anyone who
wants to ban it!
~PB
Pete Biggs
> You can always tell when someone is lying - when they accuse someone
> of doing or saying something - but they cannot provide the evidence.
> It really shows that they are the fuckwit - rather than the accused.
The evidence is there on Google Groups for anyone who wants to read it.
~PB
nully
"Pete Biggs" <p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote in
message news:6ftej2F...@mid.individual.net...
> nully wrote:
>
>> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln
>> city. Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line
>> to mark the boundary between the two.
>
> White lines don't stop people walking on the cycling side.
>
YMMV
>> Since the main carraigeway is
>> interrupted for junctions which are all traffic lighted, even the
>> ones that are only on one side, it stands to reason that the
>> cyclepath must be faster - their 'road' doesn't have a traffic light
>> where the junction only serves the other side of the road, if you see
>> what I mean. Its perhaps 3 miles long, and the cyclepath runs the
>> complete length of it. It has no 'obscure' junctions or tight turns,
>> but most cyclists use the main carraigeway - 30mph near junctions,
>> but 40 and 50 elsewhere.
>
> I'd have to see the path for myself to know why the road is preferable.
> The road may be faster or more pleasant for keen cyclists despite the
> traffic lights. You can be pretty sure they are not using it purely to
> annoy motorists.
>
>> Its not my position that that is selfish use of the road by the
>> cyclists, although I'd find it hard to disagree with someone who said
>> it was. But it is certainly no *less* selfish than car drivers who
>> fail to afford cyclists reasonable care.
>
> Cyclists who cause a little bit of inconvenience by occasionally getting
> in your way on the road are rarely dangerous to other road users, whereas
> many people are killed my careless car drivers. You cannot equate the two.
>
No, I got that - see elsewhere
> I suspect I was right first time that convenience when motoring is your is
> your primary concern. I don't deny that convenience when cycling is a
> major factor for me. Call it selfish if you like, the fact is that I have
> the right to cause you this little bit of inconvenience. I could go on to
> argue abot the greater good of cycling reducing car useage and the health
> and green issues, etc, but I don't pretend this is the main motivator for
> me.
>
I dont understand your first sentence, but if you're suggesting that I'm
simply 'causing trouble' for cyclists in this group then you're incorrect.
> Basically, I'm just defending road cycling here on a legal and practical
> basis, not a moral one (at the moment). Motorists can campaign for what
> they want. If you want cyclists off the road because that would be more
> convenient for you, then I'd rather you just said so. Let's be straight
> about it.
>
No, I dont want cyclists off the road. Cross my heart, too. I *do* want them
to be safe, not least because its a hell of a lot of paperwork if one of
them is injured. On that basis, and that alone, I think that where a cycle
path exists it should be used. But that goes with my understanding that the
path is safer than the carraigeway, so if thats an incorrect assumption lets
look at that bit alone and ignore tenuous motivational factors.
>> Cyclists (at least seem to)
>> regularly chastise motorists for not seeing them or cutting them up
>> or whatever, and often that criticism is justified. But (where a
>> cycle path exists) the cyclist seems to be the master of his own
>> misfortune - he has the opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose
>> not to for the sake of convenience.
>
> I actually get very little dangerous conflict on the roads. I find it
> well worth the slight risk for the much greater convenience and enjoyment.
>
Thats interesting. I would have thought that the opposite would have held
true.
>> Put it this way - would cyclists
>> have any sympathy for car drivers who campaigned against articulated
>> trucks simply on the premise that the car was more vulnerable than
>> the truck?
>
> Campaigning against cars is not what I'm doing here. I would have
> sympathy anyway for anyone campaigning for safety improvements to trucks.
>
>> Playing Devils Advocate for a moment, the same applies to car
>> drivers. I can think of many roads that would be far safer if they
>> didn't have junctions with other roads along them! Where a dangerous
>> junction occurs, the traveller is rightly expected to take extra care
>> and attention, and if necessary stop. Why should cyclists be 'immune'
>> to that responsibility?
>
> They are not immune from that responsibility, but the crossings are often
> so terrible that it is difficult to be safe at them even if you are quite
> careful and skilfull. Due to poor sight lines, etc, they are often more
> difficult than negotiating proper junctions on fast roads.
>
>> I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign
>> which said something like "cyclists dismount" and I cant see a
>> distinction between a cyclist who ignores that requirement and a car
>> driver ignoring a red traffic light.
>
> They don't all have dismount signs, and walking isn't necessarily safer
> than cycling accross anyway.
>
No, another false assumption on my part. I had been under the impression
that this was a mandatory sign, but another poster has already put me right
on that
elyob
> "elyob" <newsprof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8dd5bba9-5b72-4266...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 6 Aug, 08:37, "nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote:
> >> "Richard Thrippleton" <re...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >> Well you've asked the question of Judith, but I'll give my answer too. I
> >> think its frustrating to see an expensive custom-built section of
> >> seperate
> >> cycle track, parallel to but seperated by a grass fringe from the main
> >> carraigeway, go completely unused while cyclists for some reason prefer
> >> to
> >> travel on the road. They *do* obstruct traffic, especially those that
> >> prefer
> >> to travel alongside each other, seemingly for no other reason than that
> >> they
> >> can. The 'end' is, where possible, to seperate cyclists and motorised
> >> traffic, to avoid accidents where traffic at disproportionate speeds make
> >> accidents more likely. Obviously that 'end' is purely for the cyclists
> >> benefit, since the odds of a motorised traffic person being injured in
> >> such
> >> a collision is tiny compared to those of a cyclist.
>
> > Not sure where you seem to think that the 'end' is to seperate traffic
> > from each other.
>
> Because, as I said before, the speeds of the two forms of transport are
> disparate. It stands to reason that there is increased potential for
> accidents where that condition occurs.
>
> > cycles.
>
> Sounds sensible. But since I dont remember ever seeing cars driving along
> cycle paths, "their" end is met if cyclists use paths, right?
Cycle paths are often not segregated from the road and the 0.0000001%
of the roads which have segregated cycle paths don't allow me to get
to where I want to go. Forcing me off the road is not what I want, and
something I don't agree with.
> > I do often ignore the segregated cycle paths as they often have bits
> > and pieces across them thrown up from the road. On a road [1] bike,
> > this is something we don't wish in our tyres.
>
> Perhaps this is why this word 'mandatory' has suddenly occurred? I dont
> know, but I would assume, that councils are a tad miffed that they've spent
> lots of taxpayers money on providing cycle lanes and then seeing cyclists
> ignore them because they apparently 'dont want bits and pieces in their
> tyres'.
Councils are often "spending their quota" and the design is done by
someone who "has to spend the money" and isn't a cyclist.
You do realise "getting bits and pieces in my tyres" meant that I will
be constantly getting punctures?
Who mentioned mandatory? Suggest you read the highway code. It clearly
states that they are not mandatory.
> > Also, you know when you're in a car waiting to turn across a road,
> > across a never ending line of traffic. Then suddenly a gap appears. We
> > make these. Little gaps for you to enjoy. You see, car drivers don't
> > mind accelerating and slowing down to keep the gaps between them
> > uniform. However, cyclists like to keep a good average speed and let
> > the car in front pull away as it's highly likely, in the grand scale
> > of things, that we'll pass this car sooner than later anyway.
>
> You (by which I presume you mean cyclists at large) create gaps, and this is
> somehow a reason by which you should be permitted to ignore specialist
> carraigeways designed for your use? Sorry, you've lost me there.
As mentioned, these "specialist" lanes are in fact often badly
designed and unrequired. I am permitted to cycle on the roads and this
is what I do. One of the benefits that car drivers get all along my
journey is that small gaps appear in traffics which allows people in
side roads to pull out. It's an added bonus of us being there.
>
> > [1] The clue's in the name.
>
> I have an 'off-road prepared' Land Rover. Am I not allowed to use the road
> then?
Of course you are allowed. You are also allowed off-road. However, it
doesn't mean that you are required to be off-road the entire time just
because there is a grass verge at the side of the road.
judith
Yes - I knew I would be out of place - but I couldn't miss a chance to
try and turn them round.
(I see your another from University - are you a student - is it your
lunch break - you seem to get plenty of time for posting)
elyob
> spindrift wrote:
>
> > The driver gets fined if the passenger doors a cyclist-
>
> Are you sure about that - drivers aren't generally held responsible for
> the actions of another adult.
Check the seatbelt law, it's the drivers responsibility. There's an
obvious example.
The only time it isn't the driver's responsibility to be in charge of
the vehicle and its passengers is when the driver is a learner and it
becomes the person next to him/her.
judith
Which reiterates my point in an excellent fashion - well done.
Pete Biggs
>> White lines don't stop people walking on the cycling side.
>>
> Yeah, well, a curb doesn't stop them stepping in the road either! Of
> course, YMMV
A curb doesn't stop them stepping off the road (and I ride further out into
the carriageway when there are people close to the edge of a payment), but
it does disuade them more so than a white line. That is what I see.
Parents also take less care with their young children on shared paths than
they do on pavements besides roads, letting them toddle about all over the
place - a natural thing to do in a park-like environment. I generally have
to ride more slowly on shared paths because of all this. It's something I
don't mind doing because I expect paths to be slow. Roads are usually
faster, in my experience.
...
> No, I dont want cyclists off the road. Cross my heart, too. I *do*
> want them to be safe, not least because its a hell of a lot of
> paperwork if one of them is injured. On that basis, and that alone, I
> think that where a cycle path exists it should be used. But that goes
> with my understanding that the path is safer than the carraigeway, so
> if thats an incorrect assumption lets look at that bit alone and
> ignore tenuous motivational factors.
OK, thanks for making that plain. The safety issues will indeed continue to
be discussed on this thread.
~PB
judith
I do not criticise cyclists per se; I criticise fuckwits. (See below)
and then he has the gall to defend what he said: " they add five
seconds to your journey to the hairdressers,"
Was there an assumption with "hairdressers" I wonder?
Daniel Barlow
> If a cyclist wishes to exercise his right to use the main carraigeway rather
> than the potentially slower cyclepath, he has made that choice and accepted
> a higher degree of risk in exchange for the speedier journey. Fine, no
> problems.
Except that, as we've already discussed, the degree of risk on the
cycle path is often higher because the risk is predominantly at
junctions. Getting rear-ended on a straight road is really quite rare
Slower *and* more dangerous doesn't look like a good tradeoff
-dan
Matt B
> On 6 Aug, 11:12, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Sniper8...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> The driver is also responsible in law for the actions of any passenger
>>> so as to provide compensation to any person injured or property
>>> damaged as a result of a door from their vehicle being opened
>>> negligently.
>> So not criminally liable then, as "spindrift" asserted in a previous post.
>>
>>> This is because the driver is insured where as the
>>> passenger may well not be.
>> Another example of the type of "pragmatic", rather than just law that
>> our motoring statutes are riddled with.
>
> parliament and not common law. To be tried you go to magistrates
> court and are found guilty under the criminal code - hence it is a
> criminal offence.
Just be be clear that we are not at cross purposes, can you confirm that
a driver commits a criminal offence if an adult passenger opens a door
into somebody else. What if the driver is not present at the time?
--
Matt B
judith
There is no way that he is saying that "bad driving is ok" - are you
just trying to wind him up? There is no way a sane person could come
to that conclusion from the quoted paragraph.
Matt B
> On 6 Aug, 10:53, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>
>>> The driver gets fined if the passenger doors a cyclist-
>> Are you sure about that - drivers aren't generally held responsible for
>> the actions of another adult.
>
> Check the seatbelt law, it's the drivers responsibility.
Not for other adult passengers in the car - they are each responsible
for their own actions.
> There's an obvious example.
An obvious example of the same mistake maybe.
--
Matt B
judith
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 6, 11:21 am, judith <judithsm...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:23:48 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
>>
>> <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
>> >But don't get too close to the car in front before filtering, especially
>> >if you're looking over your shoulder to check if there's a motorbike
>> >coming down the outside.
>>
>> >http://www.woodall.me.uk/journey/20080805/
>>
>> I've asked before - are you putting together a compilation of
>> appalling cyclists?
>>
>> You seem to have many examples - keep it up.
>>
>> Were you in a hurry - why not wait in the lane with the other
>> vehicles?
>>
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>
>Offence Wording:
>On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) opened a door of a
>vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), on a
>road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), so as to injure or
>endanger a person.
>
>Legislation
>Contrary to regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
>Regulations 1986, section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule
>2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
>Notes
>(i) Statement of Facts procedure applies - see end of document for
>wording.
>(ii) See also offence wordings: H2533 and H2534.
>(iii) In the Statement of Facts detail may be given as to the
>circumstances in which the danger arose or the injury was caused, e.g.
>"Mrs Ann Smith, who was riding a bicycle alongside the defendant's
>car."
>(iv) Fixed penalty scheme may be applied
>
>Powers Of Arrest
>Arrest without warrant
>Mode Of Trial
>SUMMARY MINOR TRAFFIC
>Time Limit For Prosecutions 6 months
>Penalty Field
>A fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale if in respect of
>goods vehicle or vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers.
>
>A fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale in any other
>case.
>
>Fixed penalty ticket - thirty pounds.
>
>Time limit for prosecutions:
>6 months
>
>The law applies to everyone using the roads, not just drivers - it
>doesn't need to say it applies to passengers, as it doesn't refer to
>driving behaviour.
>
>There is no offence of passing within range of extending car parts, so
>the cyclist is not guilty of anything.
>
The phrase wtf are you on about springs to mind.
I did not mention a law. I did not say that the cyclist was guilty of
anything - I said it was an example of appalling cycling - it was.
Pete Biggs
> Which reiterates my point in an excellent fashion - well done.
To pick out examples, I would need to read all of your stupid messages in
that thread again. Once was quite enough for me to tick the box, thanks.
~PB
Dave Larrington
nully <nu...@nully.nully> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> I'm *sure* I've seen somewhere a blue sign
> which said something like "cyclists dismount" and I cant see a
> distinction between a cyclist who ignores that requirement and a car
> driver ignoring a red traffic light.
Here, perhaps?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm
That particular cycle path had at least twenty-five pairs of "Cyclists
Dismount" signs in a mile and a half. Shortly after it became Farcility of
the Month, the signs were removed. I should dearly like to know how much
public money was wasted on *that* piece of local government twattery.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of
thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in
high heels.
Snipe...@yahoo.co.uk
I cannot answer your what if as that would need to be tested by case
law, that's how our legal system works when there is a question that
has not been answered before.
The driver commits the offence, the passenger is physically
responsible but the criminal and civil liability through statute rests
with the driver as being in control of the motor vehicle and their
insurers.
Sniper8052
Colin Nelson
"nully" <nu...@nully.nully> wrote in message news:nKemk.33419$8w4....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> The one I have in mind goes for the length of Tritton Road in Lincoln city.
> Its part cycle path and part footpath, with a solid white line to mark the
> side, it stands to reason that the cyclepath must be faster - their 'road'
> doesn't have a traffic light where the junction only serves the other side
> of the road, if you see what I mean.
The cycle path route is slightly quicker through much of the day when
there is a reasonable amount of traffic on the road (averaging over the whole route
about 15mph due to traffic density, traffic lights etc), If the cyclist wants to/is capable
of maintaining a speed greater than 12mph (much faster and cyclists should be
on the road anyway).
> Its perhaps 3 miles long, and the
> cyclepath runs the complete length of it. It has no 'obscure' junctions or
> tight turns,
No tight turns? ... Doddington Road, Co-op/Sainsburys, Morrisons, crossings controlled
by traffic lights at which pedestrians/cyclists have to 'ask' (press a button) for permission
to cross the road (even though cross traffic may be held by a red light)
> but most cyclists use the main carraigeway -
Not in my experiance - far more on the path, only the occasional faster rider on the road.
>- 30mph near junctions, but 40 and 50 elsewhere.
I think you'll find that the limits have been 30 and 40 for some considerable time now.
It's not a bad route though ... for a cycle path.
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
Pete Biggs
> I do not criticise cyclists per se; I criticise fuckwits. (See below)
You don't like cyclists to use the roads per se. Or don't you mind if they
are non fuckwits? How do you tell from your car?
> and then he has the gall to defend what he said: " they add five
> seconds to your journey to the hairdressers,"
>
> Was there an assumption with "hairdressers" I wonder?
I'm not really bothered whether you're going to the hairdressers or the dog
racing.
~PB
Matt B
> On 6 Aug, 12:49, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Sniper8...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 6 Aug, 11:12, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>> Sniper8...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> The driver is also responsible in law for the actions of any passenger
>>>>> so as to provide compensation to any person injured or property
>>>>> damaged as a result of a door from their vehicle being opened
>>>>> negligently.
>>>> So not criminally liable then, as "spindrift" asserted in a previous post.
>>>>> This is because the driver is insured where as the
>>>>> passenger may well not be.
>>>> Another example of the type of "pragmatic", rather than just law that
>>>> our motoring statutes are riddled with.
>>> Well yes criminally liable, it's a statutory offence IE: made by
>>> parliament and not common law. To be tried you go to magistrates
>>> court and are found guilty under the criminal code - hence it is a
>>> criminal offence.
>> Just be be clear that we are not at cross purposes, can you confirm that
>> a driver commits a criminal offence if an adult passenger opens a door
>> into somebody else. What if the driver is not present at the time?
>>
>
> law, that's how our legal system works when there is a question that
> has not been answered before.
Fair enough. It's not a clear-cut situation then. The law doesn't
specifically make the driver responsible for the action of another adult.
> The driver commits the offence,
What specific offence?
> the passenger is physically
> responsible but the criminal and civil liability through statute rests
> with the driver as being in control of the motor vehicle and their
> insurers.
I understand the insurance and civil side of it, it being the insured
vehicle that "causes" the damage, and that the driver is responsible for
the insurance arrangements, but I was worried about the implication that
the driver could be convicted of a criminal offence if the passenger
acted independently.
--
Matt B
Snipe...@yahoo.co.uk
The offence is known as 'opening a car door to danger' it is committed
by the driver even when it is the action of a passenger that causes
the incident as the driver is in 'nominal' control of the vehicle.
Sniper8052