Keep right at chicane.
Simon Mason
keep right sign that in the HC applies to all vehicles, including cyclists.
The gully at the left only states that cars must not park in it at any time.
Funnily enough, oncoming drivers get very miffed when I keep right and make
them give way. It's not my fault, I'm just obeying the sign. Unlike many of
them who ignore the give way sign.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zchicane.jpg
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
Alistair Gunn
> Well, I've finally got around to photographing a chicane for Judith with a
> keep right sign that in the HC applies to all vehicles, including cyclists.
York managed to do the reverse, create a cycle lane and then include a
keep left sign for all vehicles ... Quite how the ones wider than the
gap manage I'm not sure.
http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Just zis Guy, you know?
I'm not sure it would actually be illegal to use the gutter there but
there's no doubt at all that going right of the bollard is what you
are being told to do.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Keitht
You could be in Hertfordshire with that picture.
(or several other counties)
Presumably the bollard should have two signs - one for motorists and one
for cyclists. I guess there should also be a sign on a stick a bit
further back to give advanced warning - like wot there is (should be)
for drivers.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Keitht
> Simon Mason twisted the electrons to say:
>> Well, I've finally got around to photographing a chicane for Judith with a
>> keep right sign that in the HC applies to all vehicles, including cyclists.
>
> York managed to do the reverse, create a cycle lane and then include a
> keep left sign for all vehicles ... Quite how the ones wider than the
> gap manage I'm not sure.
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
Looks fine to me - seems to be an advisory bike lane but could be
interesting when the obligatory truck removes the railings.
"I was only obeying the Highway Code, officer."
Nuxx Bar
> Simon Mason twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Well, I've finally got around to photographing a chicane for Judith with a
> > keep right sign that in the HC applies to all vehicles, including cyclists.
>
> York managed to do the reverse, create a cycle lane and then include a
> keep left sign for all vehicles ... Quite how the ones wider than the
> gap manage I'm not sure.
>
> http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
Yet no doubt the "law is the law" posse would support the prosecution
of motorists for "disobeying" that sign. As with low speed limits and
other anti-motorist measures, it provides a great opportunity to give
the motorist scum hell for daring to drive in the first place.
Keitht
> Yet no doubt the "law is the law" posse would support the prosecution
> of motorists for "disobeying" that sign. As with low speed limits and
> other anti-motorist measures, it provides a great opportunity to give
> the motorist scum hell for daring to drive in the first place.
Now now, they can't be scum until they drive -- you're not even giving
motorists a chance to prove themselves one way or the other yourself.
Roger Merriman
oh those yes total waste of every ones time. they confuse as some allow
bikes though some don't, some have small trees in them, and some have
steep banked sides for bikes to ride up and down, which i spotted on
friday they looked fun! no use for trnasport and down right dangerious,
but if i can rember where they are might roll the MTB out and have a
bounce up and down....
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
Nuxx Bar
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > Yet no doubt the "law is the law" posse would support the prosecution
> > of motorists for "disobeying" that sign. As with low speed limits and
> > other anti-motorist measures, it provides a great opportunity to give
> > the motorist scum hell for daring to drive in the first place.
>
> Now now, they can't be scum until they drive -- you're not even giving
> motorists a chance to prove themselves one way or the other yourself.
FFS, I was being sarcastic. I'm starting to think you're really not
very bright.
David Lloyd
"Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2YSdndZTQdvK-s3X...@eclipse.net.uk...
This is very poor. No doubt the designers did intend the sides to be cycle
bypasses, but they are not signed as such. As the use of cycle facilities is
optional, the use of the central route by cyclists should be expected.
Unfortunately, the inclusion of typical speed bumps makes the adoption of
the primary position through this facility dangerous and uncomfortable.
Keitht
--
Nuxx Bar
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 1:24 pm, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:
> >> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> >>> Yet no doubt the "law is the law" posse would support the prosecution
> >>> of motorists for "disobeying" that sign. As with low speed limits and
> >>> other anti-motorist measures, it provides a great opportunity to give
> >>> the motorist scum hell for daring to drive in the first place.
> >> Now now, they can't be scum until they drive -- you're not even giving
> >> motorists a chance to prove themselves one way or the other yourself.
>
> > FFS, I was being sarcastic. I'm starting to think you're really not
> > very bright.
>
> FFS, I was being sarcastic. I'm starting to think you're really not
> very bright.
I believe you're just trying to save face.
Nuxx Bar
Why on Earth would you need to adopt "primary position" there anyway?
Apart from it not being a recognised legitimate position in the first
place, no motorist in their right mind would overtake there, so even
the feeble "trying to stop motorists overtaking dangerously" excuse is
completely null and void. Only someone with a very large chip on
their shoulder would even contemplate cycling in "primary position"
through a gap that narrow (and short).
And the fundamental mistakes with the chicane show that such
"facilities" are designed primarily to inconvenience motorists, rather
than to "protect cyclists" or for any other reason. Accidents
frequently go up where such chicanes are installed. As usual, the car-
haters make themselves known by continuing to support such measures
regardless.
Jackbike
Your're not a cylist, are you.
Simon Brooke
> On Jul 5, 8:49 pm, "David Lloyd" <dldl11...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is very poor. No doubt the designers did intend the sides to be cycle
> > bypasses, but they are not signed as such. As the use of cycle facilities is
> > optional, the use of the central route by cyclists should be expected.
> > Unfortunately, the inclusion of typical speed bumps makes the adoption of
> > the primary position through this facility dangerous and uncomfortable.
>
> Why on Earth would you need to adopt "primary position" there anyway?
> Apart from it not being a recognised legitimate position in the first
> place, no motorist in their right mind would overtake there,
You've never actually ridden a bike, have you?
Of course motorists will try to overtake there. That's why pinch
points are so dangerous.
Keitht
Your belief system is way, way off.
Try another church.
Simon Mason
I *have* been overtaken there on that very spot. I was shouted at by a
taxi driver who tried to barge past as I was riding to the left of the
speed cushion. The fact that I was riding at 20mph and it is a 20mph
speed limit did not seem to matter.
--
Simon Mason
Judith M Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have no problem with you "keeping right" - there is no indication
whatsoever that that gully is a cycle lane.
I would do exactly the same.
Now if there was a sign which indicated that that "gully" was there
for cyclists - if for eg it was continuation of a cycle lane - then I
would use it.
(I see you have not taken part in the URCM "debate" - any particular
reason? Will you use it if it is formed?)
PS I could not see any dog shit or broken glass in the gully - did
you sweep it up for the purpose of taking the photo?)
Simon Mason
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:41:59 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>
> <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well, I've finally got around to photographing a chicane for Judith with a
> >keep right sign that in the HC applies to all vehicles, including cyclists.
> >The gully at the left only states that cars must not park in it at any time.
> >Funnily enough, oncoming drivers get very miffed when I keep right and make
> >them give way. It's not my fault, I'm just obeying the sign. Unlike many of
> >them who ignore the give way sign.
>
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zchicane.jpg
>
> I have no problem with you "keeping right" - there is no indication
> whatsoever that that gully is a cycle lane.
>
> I would do exactly the same.
>
> Now if there was a sign which indicated that that "gully" was there
> for cyclists - if for eg it was continuation of a cycle lane - then I
> would use it.
>
> (I see you have not taken part in the URCM "debate" - any particular
> reason? Will you use it if it is formed?)
I have no opinion on the matter really, certainly not enough to post
on the subject.
> PS I could not see any dog shit or broken glass in the gully - did
> you sweep it up for the purpose of taking the photo?)
No, we have people who get paid for doing that!
--
Simon Mason
Judith M Smith
Oh really can't a cycle traverse a speed hump comfortably?
Perhaps you are going too fast.
Judith M Smith
wrote:
I suppose the sensible approach would of course be to cycle to the
left of the bollard.
Still - if you want to make a point and be killed than that will be
your choice.
Ian Jackson
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>York managed to do the reverse, create a cycle lane and then include a
>keep left sign for all vehicles ... Quite how the ones wider than the
>gap manage I'm not sure.
>
>http://www.spod.org/~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg
404 Not Found
The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
this server.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Alistair Gunn
> 404 Not Found
> The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
> this server.
<nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
Rob Morley
> Unfortunately, the inclusion of typical speed
> bumps makes the adoption of the primary position through this
> facility dangerous and uncomfortable.
>
>
Dutch bike?
Ian Jackson
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
>> 404 Not Found
>> The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
>> this server.
>
><nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
>without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
Ah, fair enough. I didn't see Nuxxy's thread, obviously (as my
deluged non-killfile approach only applies to unnc).
Keitht
>
> Oh really can't a cycle traverse a speed hump comfortably?
>
> Perhaps you are going too fast.
>
>
Depends on the type of hump.
The 'blob on the road' type you can usually avoid but the edges are
usually steep and tricky when damp.
The standard 'sleeping policeman' buried drainpipe type are a bloody
pain for all except those who can bunny-hop at speed.
The 'pillow' or 'platform' are both usually pretty quick as long as
one's timing is right.
They are usually fast enough not to have to slow down - all that's
needed it a little twitch on the bars to get on and a slight shift of
the bum backwards when going off the other side.
Drivers frequently make the mistake of following bikes at this speed and
are surprised when there is the sound of the rending of plastic.
Simon Mason
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65u355ds2tn4nou5m...@4ax.com...
>>
>>I *have* been overtaken there on that very spot. I was shouted at by a
>>taxi driver who tried to barge past as I was riding to the left of the
>>speed cushion. The fact that I was riding at 20mph and it is a 20mph
>>speed limit did not seem to matter.
>
> I suppose the sensible approach would of course be to cycle to the
> left of the bollard.
>
> Still - if you want to make a point and be killed than that will be
> your choice.
No, you are wrong. The *sensible* choice is for the taxi driver to keep to
the speed limit and not overtake in such a stupid place, of course. Cycling
to the left of the bollard would disobey the keep right sign.
Nuxx Bar
> Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > 404 Not Found
> > The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
> > this server.
>
> <nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
> without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
That's really pathetic, and so typical of the kind of bloody-
mindedness that we get from URC "regulars". Just to teach me some
kind of perverse lesson you're stopping everyone on URC from accessing
an interesting image. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your
face.
I suspect you didn't like the point I was making either, and/or the
fact that the truth was likely to come out about how idiotic "The law
is the law" types are, so (again typically of URC denizens) you
decided that the best course of action was to (effectively) censor me
by stopping people looking at the picture.
I don't know why I'm even remotely surprised. Spiting and censoring
anyone who sticks up for motorists in any way has been the priority
round here for a long time; interesting discussions simply aren't
anywhere near as important.
Nuxx Bar
>
> > 404 Not Found
> > The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
> > this server.
>
> <nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
> without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
How am I supposed to get your permission to link to an image on your
site if you've killfiled me?
Anyway, I had a local copy of the image so I've uploaded it here:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8219/skeldergate.jpg
I had thought about not posting the new link in this thread, but I
decided that would be stooping to your level (i.e. deliberately
sabotaging an interesting discussion just to spite someone). The fact
that you were so willing to break your original link really does speak
volumes about the attitude of some of the URC "regulars" towards
anyone who disagrees with them. You wouldn't have deleted the image
if it had been linked to by someone who agreed with you, would you?
And what is the problem with linking to an image from a URC thread
when you've already linked to it from another URC thread? There's no
problem, you just saw an opportunity to censor someone you disagreed
with, and you went for it. If you'd thought about it before you did
it you would have realised it wasn't a very smart move.
Admit it: you ballsed up and you shouldn't have deleted the picture.
At this point being honest about that is the least embarrassing thing
you can do. You've just made yourself and URC look bad, and
needlessly scuppered (if only temporarily) a couple of interesting
discussions which weren't contentious in any way (unless you say a
discussion's "contentious" whenever someone who disagrees with you
posts in it).
Now, are you going to put the photo back on your site and stop
inconveniencing everyone with this pointless nonsense?
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> In article <h2sv4i$ev...@aioe.org>,
> Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
> >> 404 Not Found
> >> The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
> >> this server.
>
> ><nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
> >without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
>
> Ah, fair enough. I didn't see Nuxxy's thread, obviously (as my
> deluged non-killfile approach only applies to unnc).
Wow, you're really suitable as a "moderator" and group proposal. You
call people silly names like "troll" when you don't agree with them;
you have a massive killfile, chock full of anyone who's *ever*
disagreed with you on particular subjects; and you regularly boast
about it as if your crazed intolerance of different points of view is
something to be proud of.
Your arrogance is toxic and you're a horrible little man. You've got
to be in the top 15-20 of people on URC who absolutely shouldn't have
any authority within URCM, as your track record (including comments
such as the above) strongly indicates that you will abuse the position
to gag those who don't share your points of view. It's an outrage.
Simon Brooke
> On Jul 6, 2:44 pm, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > > 404 Not Found
> > > The requested URL /~allyg/tmpimages/skeldergate.jpg was not found on
> > > this server.
>
> > <nods> I noticed Nuxxy was starting his own thread using that URL
> > without so much as a by your leave, so I deleted the image early.
>
> How am I supposed to get your permission to link to an image on your
> site if you've killfiled me?
>
> Anyway, I had a local copy of the image so I've uploaded it here:
>
> http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8219/skeldergate.jpg
I trust you had the permission of the copyright holder to do that?
Pip Ryder
>
> "Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:65u355ds2tn4nou5m...@4ax.com...
>> Still - if you want to make a point and be killed than that will be
>> your choice.
>
> No, you are wrong. The *sensible* choice is for the taxi driver to keep
> to the speed limit and not overtake in such a stupid place, of course.
> Cycling to the left of the bollard would disobey the keep right sign.
Not only that, but it's potentially dangerous. A car driver could well
use it as an opportunity to overtake. After the bump the flow of the
lane has them swerve directly into your path.
The safest thing to do is to take the centre of the bump even if it's a
bit uncomfortable on a road bike, and pull over when it's safe to do so.
As has been mentioned before, only an insane driver would attempt to
overtake there. If you have a sane driver behind you, they won't mind
you taking the centre of the lane because it's not obstructing them.
You can safely prevent an insane driver from attempting anything stupid,
and they'll overtake you a few seconds later assuming the road is clear
and nobody is about to pull out of that road on the left.
Judith M Smith
It may well do - I have agreed elsewhere.
It would however be the sensible thing to do if you are fearful of the
consequences of not doing so.
Or perhaps you just want to make a point (and die doing it)
The fact that you have to drive to the left of the speed cushion
speaks volumes - why is that?
Nuxx Bar
Again, you wouldn't have said that if someone you agreed with had
uploaded the image. Do you think this biased treatment fills people
with confidence about you "moderating" properly?
Someone said in another thread something like this (in reference to
how URCM "moderation"/censorship will be conducted): "For those with
the right opinions, rules will be found to let every post of theirs
through; for those with the wrong opinions, rules will be found to
block every post of theirs." That sounded to me like exactly what was
going to happen, and you've just demonstrated that very well by doing
the same to me here: you've scrambled around trying to find a rule
which prevented me from posting that picture, simply because I have
the "wrong" opinions. You wouldn't have done so if I'd had the
"right" opinions, would you? Would you?
And the answer to the question is "None of your business".
Nuxx Bar
That's awful. I stand corrected. Clearly there are some extremely
irresponsible drivers around (though thankfully not very many).
> The fact that I was riding at 20mph and it is a 20mph
> speed limit did not seem to matter.
You're right, that doesn't matter.
Nuxx Bar
> "Judith M Smith" <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:65u355ds2tn4nou5m...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>I *have* been overtaken there on that very spot. I was shouted at by a
> >>taxi driver who tried to barge past as I was riding to the left of the
> >>speed cushion. The fact that I was riding at 20mph and it is a 20mph
> >>speed limit did not seem to matter.
>
> > I suppose the sensible approach would of course be to cycle to the
> > left of the bollard.
>
> > Still - if you want to make a point and be killed than that will be
> > your choice.
>
> No, you are wrong. The *sensible* choice is for the taxi driver to keep to
> the speed limit and not overtake in such a stupid place, of course. Cycling
> to the left of the bollard would disobey the keep right sign.
FFS! Can you honestly not differentiate between a technical
triviality (exceeding The Holy Speed Limit) and genuinely bad driving
(overtaking in a blatantly inappropriate place)? Why do you insist on
distorting the road safety debate by implying that the former is as
bad as the latter, when you must surely know really that it's not, and
that millions of responsible drivers do the former (but not the
latter) every day?
Simon Mason
To avoid riding over the hump of course. Remember I am riding at the 20 mph
speed limit and have no suspension, so the hump is quite a jolt at that
speed.
Simon Mason
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:52c0fb8a-f39b-434d...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Because the usual argument is that the cyclist is "holding up" a car by
cycling in front of them giving the driver no opportunity to overtake. In
this case, since I am riding at the speed limit, the driver behind *must
not*, in law, overtake me and the argument about being held up does not
apply.
Simon Brooke
> "Nuxx Bar" <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> FFS! Can you honestly not differentiate between a technical
> triviality (exceeding The Holy Speed Limit) and genuinely bad driving
> (overtaking in a blatantly inappropriate place)? Why do you insist on
> distorting the road safety debate by implying that the former is as
> bad as the latter, when you must surely know really that it's not, and
> that millions of responsible drivers do the former (but not the
> latter) every day?
>
> Because the usual argument is that the cyclist is "holding up" a car by
> cycling in front of them giving the driver no opportunity to overtake. In
> this case, since I am riding at the speed limit, the driver behind *must
> not*, in law, overtake me and the argument about being held up does not
> apply.
You forget that Herr Nuxx believes he has the right to pick and choose
which laws he's obliged to obey.
Keitht
>> speaks volumes - why is that?
>
> To avoid riding over the hump of course. Remember I am riding at the 20
> mph speed limit and have no suspension, so the hump is quite a jolt at
> that speed.
>
>
And it's bloody hard to drive to the left of the hump without taking out
the bollard.
Unless you could get a car up on two wheels on one side.
Alistair Gunn
> I trust you had the permission of the copyright holder to do that?
No he didn't, and he doesn't!
Judith M Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> The fact that you have to drive to the left of the speed cushion
>> speaks volumes - why is that?
>
>To avoid riding over the hump of course. Remember I am riding at the 20 mph
>speed limit and have no suspension, so the hump is quite a jolt at that
>speed.
Ah I see - going too fast for the road conditions - do you do that
much?
Nuxx Bar
> "Nuxx Bar" <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, no need for the "FFS" there. I mean, I do think your speed
limit-related opinions are bananas, but there was no need to swear at
you...you are after all entitled to your opinions (I don't subscribe
to the "Anyone who disagrees with me shouldn't be allowed to express
their opinion and should be insulted and shunned if they do" nonsense
that so many here do, and which is clearly the sole driving force
behind the u.r.c.censored proposal).
As for what you said, well, that seems to me to be a similar argument
to "If I go at 70mph on the motorway then I can drive in the
rightermost lane all the time and no-one can complain because no-one
should be overtaking me". I think either argument is a poor one, for
several good reasons, not least because someone might decide that a
certain speed is x mph when it's not (because their speedo isn't
calibrated), and also because someone's numerical speed isn't the
business of other road users (except the police)...defensive driving
doesn't involve being nosey about other people's exact speeds and
deciding off the back of that whether they "deserve" to be impeded or
not. That's the wrong attitude. (Also emergency vehicles, which may
be unmarked, are allowed to go faster than the speed limit. IMO you
shouldn't ever need to consider whether someone else's speed is within
their particular speed limit or not.)
Simon Mason
>As for what you said, well, that seems to me to be a similar argument
>to "If I go at 70mph on the motorway then I can drive in the
>rightermost lane all the time and no-one can complain because no-one
>should be overtaking me".
I don't mind people overtaking me on a motorway doing 100 mph if they feel
like it, but I do object to being overtaken by a car in a stupid place like
that chicane and then complaining that I am in his way.
If he wants to break the law and overtake me, that's his choice, but he
can't have a go at me for stopping him breaking the law by being in his way
when, unlike the motorway's second overtaking lane example you use, there is
no way I can move over and let him by safely until I am clear of the
chicane, at which point I will have held him up for, oh, less than one
second. He is then free to do 50 in a 20 as you would support.
Nuxx Bar
> You forget that Herr Nuxx believes he has the right to pick and choose
> which laws he's obliged to obey.
At least I'm not complicit in the creation of a supposedly "moderated"
newsgroup which is actually just a thoroughly dishonest exercise in
censorship of the "wrong" opinions. Just think, you won't have to
make snide remarks like that anymore soon, as no-one will be allowed
to say anything that you would want to make such remarks in reference
to. Bet you can't wait.
Don't you feel even a little bit bad about lying about the real
purpose of the new group? If you love usenet so much, why are you
abusing its processes in this way? If you want a private club where
only certain opinions are allowed, why not just set up a private web
forum instead of pretending that you want a genuine moderated
newsgroup? Sure, it might be a bit harder to get people to join such
a forum than it would URCM, but at least the whole thing wouldn't be
one big lie. Usenet is not the place for systematic suppression of
certain points of view, and you know it.
And anyway people will leave URCM in their droves once they realise
what it's really about, so you won't gain anything from the deception
in the end. Why not stop the charade before it's too late (and you've
permanently ruined URC into the bargain)? Do you *really* think this
dressing up of censorship as moderation is the right course of action?
I get the impression you were talked into this by Jackson. I'm sure
you know really that this is the wrong way to go about things. So
please stand up for your principles (assuming you have any) and tell
Jackson that you are not prepared to support a group which is being
created on a false premise. Even if you believe that URC has its
problems, and "something must be done", that doesn't mean this
"something" is the right "something", and that it won't actually just
make things worse.
Judith M Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>If he wants to break the law and overtake me,
Which "law" would that be?
Nuxx Bar
> I don't mind people overtaking me on a motorway doing 100 mph
> when, unlike the motorway's second overtaking lane example you use, there is
> no way I can move over and let him by safely
Sounds like you're admitting that 100mph on a motorway is (in the
right conditions) safe. Oh no, I forgot, it's only safe on the
Autobahn isn't it, despite the road types being essentially the same.
> He is then free to do 50 in a 20 as you would support.
Usually 50 in a 20 would probably be excessive. But as ever, it
depends on the conditions (especially since we are getting more and
more ludicrous 20s and 30s these days, thanks to anti-car councils and
fallacious nonsense like "Lowering the speed limit will probably make
things safer, and definitely won't make things any less safe, and it
makes people think we're doing something, so we might as well do
it...after all, making the roads safer is as easy as changing the
numbers on a few signs, and it keeps working again and again and again
and....").
You can't judge for sure whether a speed's excessively fast using just
numbers (unless you take things to extremes which never occur in the
real world). 100 in some 30s is safe in the right conditions; under
other circumstances 1 in a 70 would be deadly. The driver is by far
the best placed to decide. Trying to take that responsibility away
from the driver is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. Surely you can
see where I'm coming from there?
(Don't worry, in URCM you won't have to read posts like these
anymore. I know that thought-provoking and/or well-constructed posts
in defence of the "wrong" points of view are exactly the sort of thing
"they" are desperate to stamp out. What self-respecting car-hater
wants to be bothered by someone making a good case against anti-
motorist measures? It's no fun when people come on here and make
difficult-to-refute points in favour of the "wrong side"; much better
to carry on pretending things are a particular way and gag the
dissenters. Job done, without having to bite the bullet and face up
to reality.)
Simon Mason
Exceeding the 20 mph speed limit of course.
Simon Mason
>
> Sounds like you're admitting that 100mph on a motorway is (in the
> right conditions) safe. Oh no, I forgot, it's only safe on the
> Autobahn isn't it, despite the road types being essentially the same.
It doesn't matter if it is "safe", it is illegal. It might be "safe" for me
to fire a machine gun down our High Street at 3am, but I would get locked up
for it.
>
>> He is then free to do 50 in a 20 as you would support.
>
> Usually 50 in a 20 would probably be excessive. But as ever, it
> depends on the conditions (especially since we are getting more and
> more ludicrous 20s and 30s these days, thanks to anti-car councils and
> fallacious nonsense like "Lowering the speed limit will probably make
> things safer, and definitely won't make things any less safe, and it
> makes people think we're doing something, so we might as well do
> it...after all, making the roads safer is as easy as changing the
> numbers on a few signs, and it keeps working again and again and again
> and....").
>
> You can't judge for sure whether a speed's excessively fast using just
> numbers (unless you take things to extremes which never occur in the
> real world). 100 in some 30s is safe in the right conditions; under
> other circumstances 1 in a 70 would be deadly. The driver is by far
> the best placed to decide. Trying to take that responsibility away
> from the driver is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. Surely you can
> see where I'm coming from there?
No, I can't. You seem to want to drive at whatever speed you wish all of the
time on all roads and I am afraid you can't. The sooner you accept this then
you will lose your anger and become a safer driver. If you want to test the
law, go ahead and try, but there will only be one winner.
Simon Brooke
> I think either argument is a poor one, for
> several good reasons, not least because someone might decide that a
> certain speed is x mph when it's not (because their speedo isn't
> calibrated), and also because someone's numerical speed isn't the
> business of other road users (except the police)..
It bloody is (and that bloody is literal, not swearing). If you're
driving at 30 in a 30 limit, and you hit someone, that someone's
chances of surviving are about 50/50. If you're driving at 40, their
chances of surviving are a lot less (and if you're driving at 20, a
lot better). As one of the people you're likely to hit, I have a very
major interest in making sure you don't speed (and so has everyone
else on the road).
>.(Also emergency vehicles, which may
> be unmarked, are allowed to go faster than the speed limit. IMO you
> shouldn't ever need to consider whether someone else's speed is within
> their particular speed limit or not.)
Their drivers also have special training which you don't have, and
they have blue lights and sirens which they use when exceeding the
speed limit.
And they still kill a lot of people.
Simon Mason
No, I don't. That's why I avoid the hump to ensure the road conditions are
the same before and after the hump which is designed to slow cars down as it
states in the HC.
153
Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road
humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you
approach these features reduce your speed. *Allow cyclists and motorcyclists
room to pass through them*. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the
stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users
if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road
users while in these areas.
Simon Mason
"Simon Brooke" <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:11a059f1-423f-4bd7-a40e-,
>they have blue lights and sirens which they use when exceeding the
>speed limit.
Now and again, yes.
Simon Brooke
> On Jul 7, 9:37 am, Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > You forget that Herr Nuxx believes he has the right to pick and choose
> > which laws he's obliged to obey.
>
> At least I'm not complicit in the creation of a supposedly "moderated"
> newsgroup which is actually just a thoroughly dishonest exercise in
> censorship of the "wrong" opinions.
If you really think this you're in for a surprise (but I don't believe
you really think this).
> And anyway people will leave URCM in their droves once they realise
> what it's really about, so you won't gain anything from the deception
> in the end.
They would, if we were planning anything like what you think we're
planning. But, of course, we're not.
> Why not stop the charade before it's too late (and you've
> permanently ruined URC into the bargain)? Do you *really* think this
> dressing up of censorship as moderation is the right course of action?
URC has been permanently ruined already. It cannot be made worse than
it is. A moderated group may or may not work, but it can't make things
worse.
mileburner
"Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7qOdnRM9toJ9_8nX...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> No, I don't. That's why I avoid the hump to ensure the road conditions are
> the same before and after the hump which is designed to slow cars down as
> it states in the HC.
>
> 153
> Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road
> humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When
> you approach these features reduce your speed. *Allow cyclists and
> motorcyclists room to pass through them*. Maintain a reduced speed along
> the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to
> oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake
> other moving road users while in these areas.
I recently saw some road humps in a residential area, accompanied by a cycle
lane by the side, on a road that was really too narrow to lane share. It
looked as if the cyclists were supposed to ride in the gutter (thus avoiding
the humps) but any other traffic was at liberty to overtake at any time due
to lane segregation, albeit on very narrow lanes.
I do not think that street engineers are familiar with the highway code.
David Hansen
Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote this:-
>they have blue lights and sirens which they use when exceeding the
>speed limit.
Sometimes.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3970105.ece>
outlines one case where they did not. It was not a unique event.
<http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/05/01/hayley-adamson-death-pc-jailed-for-three-years-72703-23523863/>
outlines the pathetic sentence and family reaction is outlined in
<http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/05/02/hayley-adamson-s-sister-blasts-policeman-s-3-year-prison-term-72703-23526047/>
A few things to not about this:
1) the criminal had been trained to an "advanced" level by the
police.
2) in court the criminal claimed that there was nothing wrong with
his driving, he hadn't made a mistake and he had followed his
training. He described his driving, and I find this almost
impossible to believe, as "safe". "I think my driving was safe." is
the quote the BBC give in
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7987832.stm>.
3) people who were understandably upset at the time were treated
with contempt by the police. Instead of behaving properly the police
were their usual arrogant selves, including firing an electrical
stun gun at one person and arresting him and several others.
4) the data recorder in the car was yet another piece of equipment
which "mysteriously" failed to work when recording police actions.
Such failures are rare indeed when they record what the police want
them to record.
5) the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission have still not
issued their whitewash, sorry report, three months after the trial.
>And they still kill a lot of people.
(Yes I am quoting the Daily Wail).
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Judith M Smith
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I recently saw some road humps in a residential area, accompanied by a cycle
>lane by the side, on a road that was really too narrow to lane share. It
>looked as if the cyclists were supposed to ride in the gutter (thus avoiding
>the humps) but any other traffic was at liberty to overtake at any time due
>to lane segregation, albeit on very narrow lanes.
>
>I do not think that street engineers are familiar with the highway code.
>
So what was it that you think contravened the Highway Code?
Simon Mason
"Traffic is at liberty to overtake" in a traffic calmed zone that the HC
says "You should not overtake other moving road users while in these
areas." It was in the bit you snipped.
mileburner
There is also that bit (look it up if you wish judith) about leaving
cyclists as much space as any other vehicle. If the (narrow) 3 metre lane is
divided into a cycle lane and a lane for the traffic then there is not
enough space for a cyclists and a car, and enough space between.