Cyclists as organ donors + cycle lanes
delboy
without any sort of proficiency test, licence or insurance. In many
cases this shows, as cyclists seem to have a complete disregard of the
Highway Code and a total absense of common sense or self
preservation. Things like jumping red lights, riding at high speeds
on pavements and in pedestrian areas, weaving through traffic, not
wearing helmets or hi-viz clothing, and riding at night without lights
seem to be all too commonplace. If they do have an accident, it's
always the poor old motorist that's to blame. If they are unlucky they
(the cyclists) will end up as brain dead organ donors.
As a cyclist (and fully licenced car driver) myself I am very well
aware that I will come off worst in any collision with a motor
vehicle, so I take precautions (helmet, lights etc), and do my best to
ride in a sensible manner and to comply with the rules of the road. My
biggest fear of becoming an organ donor is following the well
intentioned cycle lanes in my borough, which usually disappear just
where the road gets narrow and where you need them most. Some of them
require you to ride down the middle of the road without any obvious
way of getting there! Some dedicated and well maintained cycle tracks
would be nice.
DC
OG
"delboy" <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9438af3a-6488-4405...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
If you feel that a cycle lane puts you in danger you are at perfect liberty
to ignore it. If you are aware that the road narrows ahead, look around you
and (being aware of the location of other road users) move into a position
where you are in control.
Make it clear that you are looking around, be very clear in the signals that
you give, and move out of the cycle lane and into the flow of traffic so
that they cannot 'squeeze by you' as you move into the danger zone.
If wearing a helmet gets in the way of your observation of traffic around
and behind you, don't wear a helmet; the 'commonly quoted' figures for their
effectiveness are overstated.
I don't know whether you've seen any of the threads about the recent TRL
(transport research labs) report on cycle accidents; it's interesting that
only a relatively small minority of accidents are attributed to the
behaviours that you described as 'absence of self preservation'.
Mike Lewis
> aware that I will come off worst in any collision with a motor
> vehicle, so I take precautions (helmet, lights etc), and do my best to
I've got a car license. And a motorbike license. And a motorbike IAM test
pass. I'm well aware of the fact that when I'm on a pushbike (same as on the
motorbike) I'm likely to come off worst in any bike/car interface. therefore
I use my braisn to decide what's safest for me. This includes riding on the
pavement (at appropriate speeds including a consideratuion of other users).
crashing through red lights (when it's safe to do so, but only on the
pushbike), and generally making a decision for myself on what is the safest
and most appropriate decision at every instance one is required.
delboy
I forget to say that I also have a full motor cycle licence, although
I haven't ridden a motorcycle for some years. I had two accidents on
motorbikes. One was caused by going round a corner too fast when the
bike skidded from under me (my fault), and the other was caused by
being rammed from behind by a drunken car driver (not my fault). I
would still not deliberately jump a red light, as there may be traffic
moving at a reasonable speed across the junction in the other
direction.
DC
Mike Lewis
> would still not deliberately jump a red light, as there may be traffic
> moving at a reasonable speed across the junction in the other
> direction.
I look before I leap.
DC
delboy
So motorists have to obey the law, but cyclists don't?
If you are caught jumping a red traffic light in a car you will get at
least a fine and penalty points on your licence. You also risk a
careless or dangerous driving charge. Possible 5 years in jail for the
latter, if Jack Straw gets his way!
DC
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Bicycles are about the only vehicles you can take onto the public road
>without any sort of proficiency test, licence or insurance. In many
>cases this shows, as cyclists seem to have a complete disregard of the
>Highway Code and a total absense of common sense or self
>preservation.
As far as I can tell *every* class of road user will break the rules
when it suits their convenience and they think they can get away with
it. Your assertion that cyclists are unusually lacking in
self-preservation is countered by the recorded fact that in most car v
bike collisions, the (trained and licensed) car driver is at fault.
If what you meant to say was that some people on bikes do stupid
things then I quite agree. As do some people in cars and some
pedestrians. Removing unnecessary and uncorrelated variables, we get
"some people do stupid things". While uncontentious, I don't feel this
adds much to the sum of human knowledge.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
JNugent
[ ... ]
> ... Your assertion that cyclists are unusually lacking in
> self-preservation is countered by the recorded fact that in most car v
> bike collisions, the (trained and licensed) car driver is at fault.
Interesting truncation and selection.
Is that the only sort of accident cyclists are ever involved in?
Many people are concerned about scofflaw cyclists in their (majority of the
time) capacity as *pedestrians*.
Marc
> On Dec 26, 2:38 am, "Mike Lewis"<mike-at-
> h...@deletethisbit.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> being rammed from behind by a drunken car driver (not my fault). I
>>> would still not deliberately jump a red light, as there may be traffic
>>> moving at a reasonable speed across the junction in the other
>>> direction.
>>
>> I look before I leap.
>
>
> So motorists have to obey the law, but cyclists don't?
>
> If you are caught jumping a red traffic light in a car you will get at
> least a fine and penalty points on your licence.
No you won't , the least would be a a mild tut from somone seeing it,
they are so used to it.
delboy
Quite a few traffic lights have cameras to detect vehicles that fail
to stop. Cars and motorbikes have number plates that can be traced.
Pushbikes don't, but that is not a good reason to flout the law. You
could still be pulled over by a watching traffic cop.
DC
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>So motorists have to obey the law, but cyclists don't?
Surveys show between 80% and 90% of drivers freely admit to speeding,
so you'll need some evidence to show that lawbreaking is restricted to
one road user class.
>If you are caught jumping a red traffic light in a car you will get at
>least a fine and penalty points on your licence.
You might, just as you might be fined for riding a bicycle without
lights or on the pavement, but the chances of being caught are in all
cases pretty slim. I suggest you observe the traffic round Hyde Park
Corner some day, the red light is interpreted as "go unless the
traffic from the other direction is actually going to hit you".
Marc
None of which negates, my point. However I expected that.
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most people who only ride bikes (and walk) should perhaps learn and
qualify to drive as well. Then at least they would have to know the
Highway Code, and would find out how often you have to take avoiding
action to avoid hitting cyclists who do stupid things on their bikes.
Traffic lights are there for a reason. Cyclists are difficult to see
at night if they don't have lights. Reflectors only work over a small
angle, and some bikes are not even fitted with them.
DC
Marc
Yeah yeah, but that still doesn't validate your claim that "If you are
caught jumping a red traffic light in a car you will get at
least a fine and penalty points on your licence." your not very good
at this, are you?
JNugent
What was wrong with it as a statement?
Surely he doesn't *have* to include the words "by the police" after "caught"
in order for it to make perfect sense?
Squashme
"Majority of time" may be, but not majority of distance travelled.
Hardly likely to be hit by a cyclist in between leaving car and
entering house, or v.v. Unlikely to be hit by a scofflaw cyclist
within house or any other building, which is where majority of time is
likely to be spent. However, as we have seen from quoted cases over
time in this group, even in a building you are not safe from the
attentions of motorists and their vehicles.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>Many people are concerned about scofflaw cyclists in their (majority of the
>time) capacity as *pedestrians*.
And many are as concerned about scofflaw motorists, who present a
massively greater threat to them both as pedestrians and, for that
matter, as cyclists, drivers and train passengers.
How fortunate we are to have people like you and the Daily Mail
talking up the tiny risk posed by cyclists to enable people to feel
better while posing massively greater risk when behind the wheel.
Anything like a sense of proportion might result in people driving
more carefully, and that would never do.
NM
Good, glad to see you are using all your facillities to ensure your
safety, how would a car driver having to interact with you on the
highway distinguish that you are 'different' from all the other
cyclists he encounters, is there a special way he can, for example,
immediatly be aware that you will not stop at the red light?
How do you feel about everyone obeying the same set of rules (we could
call it a Highway Code) in order to avoid any ambiguity that could
occur by everyone only looking out for themselves?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Many people are concerned about scofflaw cyclists in their (majority of the
>> time) capacity as *pedestrians*.
> And many are as concerned about scofflaw motorists, who present a
> massively greater threat to them both as pedestrians and, for that
> matter, as cyclists, drivers and train passengers.
> How fortunate we are to have people like you and the Daily Mail
> talking up the tiny...
[and totally unnecessary, selfcentredly-imposed]
> ...risk...
[danger]
> ...posed by cyclists to enable people to feel
> better while posing massively greater risk when behind the wheel.
> Anything like a sense of proportion might result in people driving
> more carefully, and that would never do.
If by that little rant, you mean that driving through red lights, along
footways or the wrong way along one-way streets in a car or similar vehicle
is somehow acceptable to me, you are 100% wrong.
But you knew that already. And we all knew you were wrong.
JNugent
<shrug>
There may be an attempt at some point or other in there somewhere.
OG
I accept that sometimes there are problems where cyclists jump a red
light and get in the way of pedestrians who are crossing with the green
man, but I've rarely seen that happen - far less than (for example)
seeing motorists crossing on red.
Other than that, the main problem with cyclists jumping traffic lights
at red is that it annoys motorists. I don't do it (and IME it doesn't
give RLJs a great advantage anyway), but it is not a significant cause
of danger to other road users.
If there is an inequality in the penalty for breaking traffic laws, it
probably reflects the different level of danger to others the offending
behaviour presents.
Squashme
"That which can be made explicit to the idiot is not worth my
care." (Blake).
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the main difference is that cyclists don't have a licence that
can be endorsed with penalty points or subject to a ban.
You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a red
traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as are
riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk in
charge of a bicycle, and speeding (easier now there are 20mph limits;
One London borough has just installed speed humps on a blocked off
pedestrianised street just to slow down cyclists!). We just need more
traffic police to enforce these things.
DC
OG
You don't think there is a reason WHY motorists are licenced and
cyclists aren't?
> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a red
> traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as are
> riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk in
> charge of a bicycle, and speeding (easier now there are 20mph limits;
> One London borough has just installed speed humps on a blocked off
> pedestrianised street just to slow down cyclists!). We just need more
> traffic police to enforce these things.
>
Can't argue with that, more effective traffic police would be helpful to
all vulnerable road users.
I trust you would want them to be able to use their discretion to
concentrate on dangerous offences rather than technical offences.
Ian Smith
> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a
> red traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as
> are riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk
> in charge of a bicycle, and speeding
Speed limits don't apply to bicycles, except in a vanishingly few
situations (the odd royal park).
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
JNugent
> delboy wrote:
[ ... ]
>> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a red
>> traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as are
>> riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk in
>> charge of a bicycle, and speeding (easier now there are 20mph limits;
>> One London borough has just installed speed humps on a blocked off
>> pedestrianised street just to slow down cyclists!). We just need more
>> traffic police to enforce these things.
> Can't argue with that, more effective traffic police would be helpful to
> all vulnerable road users.
> I trust you would want them to be able to use their discretion to
> concentrate on dangerous offences rather than technical offences.
A retired police officer of my acquaintance has very direct views on that
subject. When attempts were made to argue that resources should be targeted
on the only "serious" offences, he will remind you that the Krays started off
by breaking gas meters and that they should have been stopped earlier.
This is supported by parallel examples. In New York (as I understand it) a
society which was moving towards utter lawlessness and complete lack of
governance was turned around by a robust policy of "zero tolerance" of
lower-level lawlessness on the basis that you mustn't allow anyone to think
they can get always away with it, because that potentially encourages them to
be even less law-abiding (and sometimes to think up ever-more-far-fetched and
spurious reasons as to why "their" offence{s) isn't/aren't even serious).
JNugent
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a
>> red traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as
>> are riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk
>> in charge of a bicycle, and speeding
>
> Speed limits don't apply to bicycles, except in a vanishingly few
> situations (the odd royal park).
That doesn't diminish the rest of the poster's point.
Ian Smith
In general, asserting as fact things that are not true does diminish
the poster's point, since it raises doubt about the accuracy of any
other points they may have made. The poster would be more convincing
if they did not state as fact things which are false.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a
>>>> red traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as
>>>> are riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk
>>>> in charge of a bicycle, and speeding
>>> Speed limits don't apply to bicycles, except in a vanishingly few
>>> situations (the odd royal park).
>> That doesn't diminish the rest of the poster's point.
> In general, asserting as fact things that are not true does diminish
> the poster's point, since it raises doubt about the accuracy of any
> other points they may have made.
That depends on the context.
So, he made a mistake. Who of us never does?
In this context, you know that his other points are valid. You are very
familiar with those arguments. It isn't as though you were encountering them
for the first time and only relying on his veracity and credibility in order
to appraise them.
> The poster would be more convincing
> if they did not state as fact things which are false.
Maybe. Maybe not.
SW
>
> A retired police officer of my acquaintance has very direct views on that
> subject. When attempts were made to argue that resources should be targeted
> on the only "serious" offences, he will remind you that the Krays started off
> by breaking gas meters and that they should have been stopped earlier.
>
> This is supported by parallel examples. In New York (as I understand it) a
> society which was moving towards utter lawlessness and complete lack of
> governance was turned around by a robust policy of "zero tolerance" of
> lower-level lawlessness on the basis that you mustn't allow anyone to think
> they can get always away with it, because that potentially encourages them to
> be even less law-abiding (and sometimes to think up ever-more-far-fetched and
> spurious reasons as to why "their" offence{s) isn't/aren't even serious).
Indeed - the most effective way of reducing dangerous motoring
offences would be to introduce zero tolerance of drivers who break the
speed limit.
SW
delboy
There used to be an offence called 'furious pedalling' on a bike, i.e.
going too fast. I don't know if it's still on the statute book. A
friend of my was cautioned by the Police for doing 40mph in a 30 limit
on a push bike back in the early 1960s. He was quite a keen racing
cyclist at the time and the road was slightly downhill. I guess that
in general push bikes are considered by the powers that be to be too
slow to exceed any normal speed limits, but I don't see why they
should be exempt because in some circumstances they can go dangerously
fast.
DC
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
You miss the point.
Allowing cyclists to get away with (for instance) cycling on the footway is
like not being bothered about a gas meter breaking. On its own, it may not be
the crime of the century, but getting away with it leaves the wrong
impression in the miscreant's mind.
You probably wouldn't believe it, but some of them start trying to justify
their lawbreaking.
Ian Smith
> On 27 Dec, 10:18, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of
> > > jumping a red traffic light by the police. It is technically an
> > > offence, as are riding without lights at night, dangerous
> > > cycling, being drunk in charge of a bicycle, and speeding
> >
> > Speed limits don't apply to bicycles, except in a vanishingly few
> > situations (the odd royal park).
>
> going too fast. I don't know if it's still on the statute book.
It is not an offence of breaking a speed limit.
> I don't see why they should be exempt because in some circumstances
> they can go dangerously fast.
They are exempt because speed limits don't apply to them. You don't
just spontaneously decide that the law should apply to other things.
Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, just like the directional
restrictions in one-way streets don't apply to pedestrians, and the
requirement to pay vehicle excise duty does not apply to pushchairs.
You could campaign to change the law, if you like, but the existing
speed limits laws do not apply to cyclists (except, as noted, in a
very few locations - some royal parks speed limits do apply to
cyclists).
OG
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:N5idnVeI8OrIxqrW...@pipex.net...
> OG wrote:
>
>> delboy wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> You can still get a fine if you are caught in the act of jumping a red
>>> traffic light by the police. It is technically an offence, as are
>>> riding without lights at night, dangerous cycling, being drunk in
>>> charge of a bicycle, and speeding (easier now there are 20mph limits;
>>> One London borough has just installed speed humps on a blocked off
>>> pedestrianised street just to slow down cyclists!). We just need more
>>> traffic police to enforce these things.
>
>> Can't argue with that, more effective traffic police would be helpful to
>> all vulnerable road users.
>> I trust you would want them to be able to use their discretion to
>> concentrate on dangerous offences rather than technical offences.
>
> A retired police officer of my acquaintance has very direct views on that
> subject. When attempts were made to argue that resources should be
> targeted on the only "serious" offences, he will remind you that the Krays
> started off by breaking gas meters and that they should have been stopped
> earlier.
Yes, the police were well known for their tolerance in the late 40s. Famed
for it.
> This is supported by parallel examples. In New York (as I understand it) a
> society which was moving towards utter lawlessness and complete lack of
> governance was turned around by a robust policy of "zero tolerance" of
> lower-level lawlessness on the basis that you mustn't allow anyone to
> think they can get always away with it, because that potentially
> encourages them to be even less law-abiding (and sometimes to think up
> ever-more-far-fetched and spurious reasons as to why "their" offence{s)
> isn't/aren't even serious).
The problem with such an approach is that it criminalises a lot of people.
In situations such as New York, the offences being caught by ZT policies
were oftentimes those done by 'the underclass'; whereas most motoring
offences are done by 'respectable' people - and we know how the papers love
to wail about the injustices done to 'decent law abiding people'!
OG
I'm glad you decided not to concentrate on red light jumping cyclists. It's
hard to see that as being comparable to theft from gas meters.
Cycling on pavements is probably quite close to speeding as an offence, but
a lot less dangerous of course.
SW
You miss the point.
Allowing motorists to get away with (for instance) breaking the speed
limit is
like not being bothered about a gas meter breaking. On its own, it may
not be
the crime of the century, but getting away with it leaves the wrong
impression in the miscreant's mind.
You probably wouldn't believe it, but some of them start trying to
justify
their lawbreaking.
The fact is that zero tolerance of law-breaking motorists will have a
far greater impact on road casualties than a similar policy applied to
cyclists.
SW
The Medway Handyman
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 02:17:33 -0800 (PST), delboy
> <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So motorists have to obey the law, but cyclists don't?
>
> so you'll need some evidence to show that lawbreaking is restricted to
> one road user class.
>
>> If you are caught jumping a red traffic light in a car you will get
>> at least a fine and penalty points on your licence.
>
> lights or on the pavement, but the chances of being caught are in all
> cases pretty slim.
Indeed they are, because cyclists don't pay road tax & therefore don't have
registration numbers. Which is exactly why cyclists regard any sort of
regulation as the antichrist. So they may continue to ignore traffic laws.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
SW
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Indeed they are, because cyclists don't pay road tax & therefore don't have
> registration numbers. Which is exactly why cyclists regard any sort of
> regulation as the antichrist. So they may continue to ignore traffic laws.
>
Although cars do have registration numbers, motorists break the law
just as much as cyclists.
SW
JNugent
Absolutely NOT the point.
You are another who has missed it.
webreader
But in most cases, they can be traced by their registration numbers.
WSR
Just zis Guy, you know?
<allbrankee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Indeed they are, because cyclists don't pay road tax & therefore don't have
>> registration numbers. �Which is exactly why cyclists regard any sort of
>> regulation as the antichrist. �So they may continue to ignore traffic laws.
>Although cars do have registration numbers, motorists break the law
>just as much as cyclists.
It's quite clear that the only way cyclists can gain the respect of
motorists is to break different laws - and of course to pollute more
and kill more people, since it's guilt about that which causes much of
the friction.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<websit...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>But in most cases, [drivers] can be traced by their registration numbers.
Really? In most cases they are not prosecuted, actually (over 80% of
drivers freely admit breaking the law regularly). There's also the
"Hamilton defence" (which worked rather well recently for three youths
who killed someone) and of course the recorded fact that increasing
numbers of drivers simply flee the scene leaving their victims to
their fate - with cyclists significantly over-represented as victims
in such cases. I think you've a job on your hands to prove that this
traceability acts as much of a deterrent.
d...@telent.net
> This is supported by parallel examples. In New York (as I understand
> it) a society which was moving towards utter lawlessness and complete
> lack of governance was turned around by a robust policy of "zero
> tolerance" of lower-level lawlessness on the basis that you mustn't
> allow anyone to think they can get always away with it
I assume you're referring to the "broken windows" approach adopted after
Giuliani's election in 1993 (see also "zero tolerance" and "quality of
life", sez Wikipedia).
You should be aware that in retrospect it turned out to be Not That
Simple(tm): (1) that there is a correlation between low-level antisocial
behaviour and serious crime does not imply a causal relationship; (2)
crime rates everywhere else dropped similarly in the same period.
-dan
The Medway Handyman
> On 26/12/2009 10:17, delboy wrote:
>> On Dec 26, 2:38 am, "Mike Lewis"<mike-at-
>> h...@deletethisbit.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> being rammed from behind by a drunken car driver (not my fault). I
>>>> would still not deliberately jump a red light, as there may be
>>>> traffic moving at a reasonable speed across the junction in the
>>>> other direction.
>>>
>>> I look before I leap.
>>
>>
>>
>> at least a fine and penalty points on your licence.
>
>
>
> they are so used to it.
Yup. I've often heard those cameras tutting.
The Medway Handyman
Don't be silly.
Mas...@bp.com
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Although cars do have registration numbers, motorists break the law
> > just as much as cyclists.
>
> Don't be silly.
Did you know that the tens of 1000's of drivers breathalysed over the
holidays had to have commited a moving traffic *offence* in order to
be checked?
They don't appear to be very law abiding if they can be bagged in such
huge numbers.
--
Simon Mason
NM
Tens of thousands out of how many journies? 80 million at a guess,
what are the proportion of cycle journies to moving traffic offences?
Don't bear thinking about, probably closing on 100%.
Mas...@bp.com
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
My published reply.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zmotormouth.jpg
--
Simon Mason
delboy
>
> holidays had to have commited a moving traffic *offence* in order to
> be checked?
> They don't appear to be very law abiding if they can be bagged in such
> huge numbers.
>
I was breathalysed last week. The cops had been sitting opposite the
pub in their patrol car and stopped me shortly after I drove out of
the car park. I asked them if I had committed any moving traffic
offences and they said 'no sir, but we suspect that you have drinking
alcohol'. Brilliant logic that, as I had just come out of a pub:
Sherlock Holmes would have been proud! Fortunately I had only had a
small amount to drink and passed the breath test easily.
So I'm afraid the idea that you have to commit a moving traffic
offence to get breathalysed is an urban myth!
Vehicle drivers are also routinely breathalysed if they are involved
in any sort of accident.
DC
Mas...@bp.com
Quote:
"So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are
driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test?
The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but
they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to
suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol
(eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you
have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car
matches that given by a witness)."
Around here, they simply find a 40mph dual carriageway where the
majority of drivers exceed the speed limit and just pull them in after
pointing a speed guns at them. They are usually let off the speeding
offence if they are "only" doing 46, 47 mph or so. It's just used as
the reason to pull them over so they can breath test them.
--
Simon Mason
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>So I'm afraid the idea that you have to commit a moving traffic
>offence to get breathalysed is an urban myth!
You have to be /suspected/ of committing an offence. They can't stop
you without reasonable cause. In the past, people challenged
convictions on the basis that the police had not seen them do anything
wrong, other than stagger from the pub to the car (which was on
private property). I was told, years ago, that this form of challenge
had been successful on occasion, even though the driver was well over
the limit. I doubt that would be true any more.
Mas...@bp.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:07:18 -0800 (PST), delboy
>
> >So I'm afraid the idea that you have to commit a moving traffic
> >offence to get breathalysed is an urban myth!
>
> You have to be /suspected/ of committing an offence. They can't stop
> you without reasonable cause. In the past, people challenged
> convictions on the basis that the police had not seen them do anything
> wrong, other than stagger from the pub to the car (which was on
> private property). I was told, years ago, that this form of challenge
> had been successful on occasion, even though the driver was well over
> the limit. I doubt that would be true any more.
>
"Mr Loophole" Nick Freeman makes a fortune out of getting drivers off
due to such gaffes in procedures.
"Ashley Fitton, was cleared of drunk-driving based on the defence of
coercion from the Criminal Justice Act 1925, claiming she was
terrified she would be hurt by her husband if she did not drive him"
"Freeman "defended a businessman who had crashed his car and was taken
to hospital seriously injured", and who was over the drink-drive
limit, and was acquitted as "the relevant legislation says that the
blood must be taken by someone who is not associated with the driver's
care. In this case, it was taken by a surgeon directly involved, and
so the man was acquitted."
And this original one.
Jimmy Carr - cleared of using a mobile phone while driving at Harrow
Magistrates Court after Freeman argued that Carr had used the
dictation setting of his iPhone to record a joke as he drove and that
using the phone for such a purpose was not illegal under current law
--
Simon Mason
delboy
They can also stop you if they consider that you are driving
erratically, even if no traffic offences have been committed. The
previous time I was pulled over and breathalysed was when it was
alleged that I had put a wheel over the centre line of the road on a
tight right hand bend late at night. I probably had slightly cut the
corner, but I wasn't drunk, and it wasn't dangerous because I could
see there was nothing coming the other way.
Do they ever breathalyse cyclists. or are they above the law on that
as well?
DC
Mas...@bp.com
>
> Do they ever breathalyse cyclists. or are they above the law on that
> as well?
Breathalysers cannot be used to assess if a cyclist is drunk, their
use only applies to motorised vehicle drivers, including battery
powered invalid carriages IIRC.
A cyclist who is drunk has to be assessed in the same way as a drunken
pedestrian.
Quote:
"MORE than 30 people have been charged with drink-cycling in the past
five years in the Lothians, new figures have revealed.
A breakdown of alcohol-related offences shows that the number of
charges as a whole remains at much the same level since 2003, with
drink-driving accounting for the majority.
But six people were also convicted last year in the city of "drunk
when riding a bicycle" – an offence that does not require a
breathalyser and has no set limit, but is judged on whether the
cyclist is a danger to themselves or others."
--
Simon Mason
delboy
So no consolation to the just slightly over the limit motorist who has
a collision with a very drunken cyclist who is at fault. The driver
will probably lose his licence, but there are few, if any sanctions,
that can be taken against the cyclist, and nothing to stop him doing
it again! Doesn't exactly seem very fair!
DC
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>So no consolation to the just slightly over the limit motorist who has
>a collision with a very drunken cyclist who is at fault. The driver
>will probably lose his licence, but there are few, if any sanctions,
>that can be taken against the cyclist, and nothing to stop him doing
>it again! Doesn't exactly seem very fair!
The word "cyclist" is redundant in that paragraph. It would apply just
exactly the same to a pedestrian. As it happens, where fault is
attributable, drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame. This is
not the case where they hit pedestrians.
The Medway Handyman
> On 28 Dec, 19:07, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28 Dec, 14:40, "Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So I'm afraid the idea that you have to commit a moving traffic
>> offence to get breathalysed is an urban myth!
>>
>> Vehicle drivers are also routinely breathalysed if they are involved
>> in any sort of accident.
>>
>> DC
>
> Quote:
> "So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are
> driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test?
>
> The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but
> they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to
> suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol
> (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you
> have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car
> matches that given by a witness)."
You have an amazing ability to get things wrong Simple Simon. All they need
are 'reasonable grounds to suspect' that you might have consumed alcohol.
Anything will do, literally anything. Just driving the car is enough.
The Medway Handyman
Great idea Delboy. Cyclists should become organ donors.
Cyclists brains would be especially valuable - since they have never been
used.
delboy
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:14:01 -0800 (PST), delboy
>
Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled crossing
(although you do occasionally see them lurching drunkenly up the
middle of the road in city centres late at night). There is a
difference!
By the way, is it OK to hit drunken pedestrians then?
DC
Matt B
>
> As it happens, where fault is
> attributable, drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame.
Remind us which piece of peer-reviewed research you rely on for that
particular cherry. Presumably we will then be able to clarify the
relevance of the get-out-clause "where fault is attributable", and get a
feel for the real picture.
> This is
> not the case where they hit pedestrians.
And that one; if it's different.
--
Matt B
Marc
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> As it happens, where fault is
>> attributable, drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame.
>
> Remind us which piece of peer-reviewed research you rely on for that
> particular cherry. Presumably we will then be able to clarify the
> relevance of the get-out-clause "where fault is attributable", and get a
> feel for the real picture.
>
Matt B
I don't think so, that's only been published a few weeks, and doesn't
mention blame or fault.
--
Matt B
Marc
NM
It is fair, if you are slightly over the limit you shouldn't be
driving however as you were and there was an accident it's your fault,
you shouldn't have been there
simples innit.
JNugent
> On 28 Dec, 12:22, "The Medway Handyman"
> <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Although cars do have registration numbers, motorists break the law
>>> just as much as cyclists.
>> Don't be silly.
>
>
> Did you know that the tens of 1000's of drivers breathalysed over the
> holidays had to have commited a moving traffic *offence* in order to
> be checked?
Is that correct?
I thought that a breath-test could be administered where there had been a
moving traffic offence or where the officer had reason to believe that the
driver might have been drinking?
Not necessarily "drinking over the limit".
> They don't appear to be very law abiding if they can be bagged in such
> huge numbers.
I have been breathalysed (negative) without an offence having been committed.
I was lost at dead of night and drove round a large roundabout twice looking
for road numbers I recognised.
Matt B
I'm not "denying" anything. I asked for the evidence of the "blame"
assertion, and what you gave obviously isn't it, as it doesn't discuss
blame - at all.
Even if you assume that the primary contributory factor gives an
indication of blame, which of course it doesn't, you'll see that "driver
only" contributory factors do not account for the majority of either
fatal, serious or slight cyclist casualty collisions.
--
Matt B
JNugent
> On 28 Dec, 19:07, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28 Dec, 14:40, "Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>
>> So I'm afraid the idea that you have to commit a moving traffic
>> offence to get breathalysed is an urban myth!
>>
>> Vehicle drivers are also routinely breathalysed if they are involved
>> in any sort of accident.
>>
>> DC
>
> Quote:
> "So does that mean that the police can just stop your car if you are
> driving along and insist on giving you a roadside breath test?
> The answer is NO. They are entitled to randomly stop your car, but
> they can only insist on a breath test if they have reasonable cause to
> suspect you have committed a traffic offence, or have consumed alcohol
> (eg they can smell it on your breath), or they reasonably believe you
> have been involved in an accident (eg the description of your car
> matches that given by a witness)."
IOW, any argument that the police can only administer a breath-test when a
moving traffic offence has been committed is nonsense.
JNugent
Fancy people being acquitted when there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.
Whatever next?
Marc
> Marc wrote:
>> On 28/12/2009 23:05, Matt B wrote:
>>> Marc wrote:
>>>> On 28/12/2009 21:11, Matt B wrote:
>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it happens, where fault is
>>>>>> attributable, drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remind us which piece of peer-reviewed research you rely on for that
>>>>> particular cherry. Presumably we will then be able to clarify the
>>>>> relevance of the get-out-clause "where fault is attributable", and
>>>>> get a
>>>>> feel for the real picture.
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_collisions_involving_pedal_cyclists_on_britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so, that's only been published a few weeks, and doesn't
>>> mention blame or fault.
>>>
>> I wondered what you would use to deny it.
>
> I'm not "denying" anything. I asked for the evidence of the "blame"
> assertion, and what you gave obviously isn't it, as it doesn't discuss
> blame - at all.
You haven't read it have you?
d...@telent.net
> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled crossing
Pedestrians have a common law right to pass and repass on the Queen's
Highway.
That you wish it to be otherwise does not make your cryptofascist little
fantasy world the real one.
-dan
Matt B
In more detail than you, apparently. Which bit do you interpret then,
as supporting the "drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame" assertion?
Please be explicit, and don't allude to something which isn't actually
there.
--
Matt B
Marc
> Marc wrote:
>> On 28/12/2009 23:27, Matt B wrote:
>>> Marc wrote:
>>>> On 28/12/2009 23:05, Matt B wrote:
>>>>> Marc wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/12/2009 21:11, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As it happens, where fault is
>>>>>>>> attributable, drivers who hit cyclists are usually to blame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remind us which piece of peer-reviewed research you rely on for that
>>>>>>> particular cherry. Presumably we will then be able to clarify the
>>>>>>> relevance of the get-out-clause "where fault is attributable", and
>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>> feel for the real picture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_collisions_involving_pedal_cyclists_on_britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so, that's only been published a few weeks, and doesn't
>>>>> mention blame or fault.
>>>>>
>>>> I wondered what you would use to deny it.
>>>
>>> I'm not "denying" anything. I asked for the evidence of the "blame"
>>> assertion, and what you gave obviously isn't it, as it doesn't discuss
>>> blame - at all.
>>
>> You haven't read it have you?
>
> In more detail than you, apparently.
You mean "no"?
The Medway Handyman
> delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
>> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled
>> crossing
>
> Pedestrians have a common law right to pass and repass on the Queen's
> Highway.
Oh really? Evidence?
>
> That you wish it to be otherwise does not make your cryptofascist
> little fantasy world the real one.
--
Matt B
I've read it - and do not see any support for the "drivers who hit
cyclists are usually to blame" assertion. If you've read it, and /do/
see support, please explain - with appropriate paragraph references.
Why all this evasion and beating about the bush.
If the support /is/ there then it'll be easy to point it out - won't it.
--
Matt B
Marc
Of course you have...
- and do not see any support for the "drivers who hit
> cyclists are usually to blame" assertion. If you've read it, and /do/
> see support, please explain - with appropriate paragraph references. Why
> all this evasion and beating about the bush.
If you are reading/replying me then you aren't bothering somone else ,
this is my service to the nation.
>
> If the support /is/ there then it'll be easy to point it out - won't it.
It's easy enough to see, if of course you had bothered to read it. So
far you either don't seem to have or you don't read very well.My money
is on you not bothering to do your research.
delboy
> delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Mon, 28 Dec 2009
> Equality would mean a death sentence for the driver in the same
> scenario.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So what percentage of collisions between motor vehicles and bikes
actually cause death or serious injury to the cyclist, and what
percentage are mostly the fault of the cyclist?
One the one occasion I was knocked off my bike by a small truck that
cut me up against the kerb, I got badly bruised fingers where the
truck hit me and bruises and grazes to my left leg from then falling
off. i.e minor injuries The truck failed to stop but I managed to get
his number. This went to court, but the truck driver got off because
it was my word against his, and because he already had a number of
motoring convictions and would have lost his licence and his
livelyhood with one more. He also employed a rather clever lawyer.
Annoyingly there were a number of witnesses to this accident, which
was entirely his fault, but I failed to take their names and
addresses. Always get as much evidence as you can!
Last night I drove into central London via Euston Road and Pentonville
Road. I saw 5 cylists. The first one had no lights or reflectors and
was only made visible by small reflective strips on the back of his
shoes. The second one was on a touring type bike with reflective
strips on the rear panniers, two bright rear lights and a powerful
front light, and the rider was wearing a reflective hi-viz vest, so no
problems there. The next two didn't have lights. The last one not only
didn't didn't have lights, but rode straight through a red traffic
light and then turned left through a 'no left turn' sign the wrong way
up a one-way street. I rest my case!
DC
P.S. What is the difference between a rat and a lawyer?
There are some things that even a rat wouldn't do!
Jeremy Parker
"delboy" <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9438af3a-6488-4405...@q2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Bicycles are about the only vehicles you can take onto the public
> road
> without any sort of proficiency test, licence or insurance.
[snip]
. If they do have an accident, it's
> always the poor old motorist that's to blame.
[snip]
And that in spite of ever stiffer driving tests and a punitive
no-claims-bonus system (in this country, at least. There are other
countries where insurance companies don't have no claims bonuses)
All I can think of to change the system is continental style
insurance payout systems, periodic retests, insurance stickers on the
windscreen next to the tax disc, and confiscation of cars.
Actually, it's not always the motorist who is to blame, and it's
possible, also advisable, for cyclists to avoid most of the accidents
that are "the motorist's fault".
>
> As a cyclist (and fully licenced car driver) myself I am very well
> aware that I will come off worst in any collision with a motor
> vehicle, so I take precautions (helmet, lights etc),
Chicken Little was right. The sky is falling. Take precautions. We
should all remember the Greek playwright Aeschylus who was killed in
456 BC when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his head. Our luck cannot
last for ever, especially as the species of eagle involved is likely
to be the very same as the sea eagle now being reintroduced into
Scotland. That's the best reason to wear a helmet. I'm not sure
about the second best.
>and do my best to
> ride in a sensible manner
Well Einstein said that common sense is nothing but a deposit of
prejudices laid down in the mind before one reaches the age of 18.
Have you tried reading "Cyclecraft yet? Do you think you are up to
level 3 in the national proficiency standards?
>and to comply with the rules of the road.
I presume by this you mean the British Highway Code. Other places
have some different rules, of course.
The Highway Code rules are gradually improving with each edition, but
have some way to go yet. In any bureaucratic set of rules, though,
you can get statements whose very presence indicates that they are
unlikely to be true, "Your call is important to us" is the classic
example. When, for example, the author of rule 61 feels that they
have to say about bike facilities, "but they can make you journey
safer" this indicates that not only is the statement unlikely often
to be true, but also that the author of rule 61 knew that when they
wrote the rule.
> biggest fear of becoming an organ donor is following the well
> intentioned cycle lanes in my borough, which usually disappear just
> where the road gets narrow and where you need them most.
That's the thing about white paint. It doesn't make the road any
wider. The only place you can put bike lanes is where the road is
wide enough not to need them.
Why do you assume that the designer of your lanes as well
intentioned? I once said on some newsgroup that at least the
designer of any bike facilility was probably proud of it, even if
nobody else liked it This proved to be remarkably contentious, and
several people provided specific examples - I can't remember where
they were - where the designers were demonstrably not well
intentioned, at least for any definition of "well intentioned" usable
on this newsgroup
Some of them
> require you to ride down the middle of the road without any obvious
> way of getting there!
Well the method of getting a bike to the middle of the road is
broadly similar to the method of getting a car to the middle of the
road. You should, however, look at changing lanes as a two step
process. Step one is moving from the left side of the lane to the
right hand side, step two, crossing the lane line into the left side
of the next lane.
Obviously, unless you want to win yourself a Darwin award, you
shouldn't do that unless there is some empty space to move into.
Since your speed difference to cars is likely to be greater than if
you were in a car yourself, you will need bigger gaps. Bigger gaps
being rarer than smaller gaps, you need to start trying to move over
early, in plenty of time to spot such "obvious ways" of lane changing
as occur.
Some dedicated and well maintained cycle tracks
> would be nice.
More than that is needed. They need to be well designed as well,
especially at the intersections, which need both to avoid excessive
delay to cyclists, and to be safe. Blindly following British, or
even foreign, design standards will not achieve that
There is, of course, no such thing as a "dedicated cycle track" which
pedestrians were not permitted to use instead of their sidewalk.
Even if the law were changed to introduce such things, it wouldn't be
obeyed.
I snipped most of your talk about "organ donors", but I should point
out that you are likely NOT FRIGHTENED ENOUGH. I suspect that you
worry about only one class of accident, being run into from behind by
one of those motorists unable to spot a six foot all, two hundred
pound weight object on the road right in front of them (a fairly rare
class of driver, fortunately. Usually such drivers can't get out of
the car park). There are other kinds of accident WHICH ARE FAR MORE
LIKELY TO KILL OR MAIM YOU. It's a good idea to learn how to avoid
those accidents too, even the ones which don't count as "your fault".
John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" gives good advice
Jeremy Parker
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
>crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled crossing
Bzzt! Wrong. Pedestrians use the roads by right, drivers use it under
license. The highway gives pedestrians a right to pass and repass.
>(although you do occasionally see them lurching drunkenly up the
>middle of the road in city centres late at night). There is a
>difference!
You also see them walking in the road in country areas where there are
not footways, and you see them walking in the carriageway when the
footway is impassable. Of course drivers will behave as if there will
be no pedestrians there, and will become indignant if they are, as
seen around Reading this past week or so, but that is a problem with
the drivers not the pedestrians.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>So what percentage of collisions between motor vehicles and bikes
>actually cause death or serious injury to the cyclist, and what
>percentage are mostly the fault of the cyclist?
Around one third of collisions involving death or serious injury to a
cyclist are the fault of the cyclist. Well, some sources have it as
low as one in five or less, but a third seems to be the consensus
view.
Guess what proportion of car v bike collisions end in injury for the
driver?
d...@telent.net
> d...@telent.net wrote:
>> delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
>>> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled
>>> crossing
>>
>> Pedestrians have a common law right to pass and repass on the Queen's
>> Highway.
>
> Oh really? Evidence?
I'd suggest starting with DPP v. Jones and Another, in the House of
Lords. Reading that and following the precedents cited therein will
give you a good overview of the law as it pertains to highway access
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm
-dan
Mas...@bp.com
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> d...@telent.net wrote:
> > delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
> >> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled
> >> crossing
>
> > Pedestrians have a common law right to pass and repass on the Queen's
> > Highway.
>
> Oh really? Evidence?
It's right at the front of the HC.
Rule 2 in fact, which states:
Rules for pedestrians.
"If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the *road* so
that you can see oncoming traffic.
You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file,
especially on narrow *roads* or in poor light
keep close to the side of the *road*.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:04:28 -0800 (PST), delboy
> <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
>> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled crossing
>
> Bzzt! Wrong. Pedestrians use the roads by right, drivers use it under
> license. The highway gives pedestrians a right to pass and repass.
Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians, who
have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have exactly
the same rights to use the highway as persons legally walking. Some
highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
>
> Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians, who
> have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have exactly
> the same rights to use the highway as persons legally walking. Some
> highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
It has been interesting in the past week or so. None of the pavements
around here has been gritted (despite pedestrians paying Council Tax)
and so many more people have been walking on even city streets to stay
safe.
--
Simon Mason
Tom Crispin
<matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>Some
>highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
I think that you will find that all highways have speed restrictions
for motor vehicle drivers, while such restrictions do not exist for
pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
Matt B
> On 29 Dec, 13:05, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians, who
>> have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have exactly
>> the same rights to use the highway as persons legally walking. Some
>> highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
>
> It has been interesting in the past week or so. None of the pavements
> around here has been gritted (despite pedestrians paying Council Tax)
Tax payers usually expect value for money though. Gritting the main
roadways benefits thousands of people per hour; gritting local footways
would only benefit a handful of people per day. Would you tolerate the
tax rise that would be required to grit even all roadways, let alone all
footways too?
> and so many more people have been walking on even city streets to stay
> safe.
Yes, I've been walking on the roadway in our main town. Cars disperse
the ice and snow on it, even where it isn't gritted, which makes it
easier to walk on than the path.
--
Matt B
Just zis Guy, you know?
>>> Cyclists are road users. Pedestrians should be on the pavement unless
>>> crossing the road at right angles, preferably at a controlled crossing
>>
>> Bzzt! Wrong. Pedestrians use the roads by right, drivers use it under
>> license. The highway gives pedestrians a right to pass and repass.
>
>Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians, who
>have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have exactly
>the same rights to use the highway as persons legally walking. Some
>highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
Yes, the right to pass and re-pass is not dependent on vehicle type,
except in as much as there is no *right* to use a motor vehicle, that
is a permission. In other words, my point was correct: the pedestrian
has a *right* to pass and re-pass, whereas the motorist may have
*permission* to do so, but that permission is subject to restrictions
including the possibility of being revoked altogether.
Matt B
Yes, I believe so. But like I said, whilst behaving legally at least,
all persons have the same right to pass and repass - regardless of their
choice of conveyance.
--
Matt B
Matt B
Bzzt! Wrong again. No matter how much *you* resent it, a legal
motorist has exactly the same absolute right to pass and repass as a
legal pedestrian or cyclist.
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
>
> Tax payers usually expect value for money though. Gritting the main
> roadways benefits thousands of people per hour; gritting local footways
> would only benefit a handful of people per day. Would you tolerate the
> tax rise that would be required to grit even all roadways, let alone all
> footways too?
I would have to see the costs incurred by the NHS's A+E departments UK-
wide due to bust hips and broken bones before I made that decision.
--
Simon Mason
OG
"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tO8_m.19694$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> Great idea Delboy. Cyclists should become organ donors.
>
> Cyclists brains would be especially valuable - since they have never been
> used.
>
What colour's your van, Dave?
Tom Crispin
<matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>> On 29 Dec, 13:05, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians, who
>>> have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have exactly
>>> the same rights to use the highway as persons legally walking. Some
>>> highways may have some restrictions on how they can be used.
>>
>> It has been interesting in the past week or so. None of the pavements
>> around here has been gritted (despite pedestrians paying Council Tax)
>
>Tax payers usually expect value for money though. Gritting the main
>roadways benefits thousands of people per hour; gritting local footways
>would only benefit a handful of people per day. Would you tolerate the
>tax rise that would be required to grit even all roadways, let alone all
>footways too?
I would like to see home, shop and business owners take some
responsibility for the footway outside their property. I understand
that in Germany house and business owners /might/ be held liable for
any injury if snow is not cleared from outside their home, but
obviously any liability would depend on circumstance.
It always annoys me that my local Sainsbury's stops its gritting at
the boundary of their car park. They could at least do the pavement
on their doorstep.
The Medway Handyman
Thats not evidence you fuckwit its advice.
The Medway Handyman
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>> On 29 Dec, 13:05, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bzzt! Wrong too. It is "persons", not specifically pedestrians,
>>> who have that right. Persons legally driving a motor vehicle have
>>> exactly the same rights to use the highway as persons legally
>>> walking. Some highways may have some restrictions on how they can
>>> be used.
>>
>> It has been interesting in the past week or so. None of the pavements
>> around here has been gritted (despite pedestrians paying Council Tax)
>
> Tax payers usually expect value for money though. Gritting the main
> roadways benefits thousands of people per hour; gritting local
> footways would only benefit a handful of people per day. Would you
> tolerate the tax rise that would be required to grit even all
> roadways, let alone all footways too?
As a lycra loon he would expect everything for free.
The Medway Handyman
> delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Mon, 28 Dec 2009
> 12:14:01 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 28 Dec, 19:56, "Mas...@BP.com" <Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>>> On 28 Dec, 19:46, delboy <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do they ever breathalyse cyclists. or are they above the law on
>>>> that as well?
>>>
>>> Breathalysers cannot be used to assess if a cyclist is drunk, their
>>> use only applies to motorised vehicle drivers, including battery
>>> powered invalid carriages IIRC.
>>> A cyclist who is drunk has to be assessed in the same way as a
>>> drunken pedestrian.
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>> "MORE than 30 people have been charged with drink-cycling in the
>>> past five years in the Lothians, new figures have revealed.
>>> A breakdown of alcohol-related offences shows that the number of
>>> charges as a whole remains at much the same level since 2003, with
>>> drink-driving accounting for the majority.
>>>
>>> But six people were also convicted last year in the city of "drunk
>>> breathalyser and has no set limit, but is judged on whether the
>>> cyclist is a danger to themselves or others."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>
>> So no consolation to the just slightly over the limit motorist who
>> has a collision with a very drunken cyclist who is at fault. The
>> driver will probably lose his licence, but there are few, if any
>> sanctions, that can be taken against the cyclist, and nothing to
>> stop him doing it again! Doesn't exactly seem very fair!
>>
> Indeed it doesn't seem fair - the cyclist will very likely be dead!
> Equality would mean a death sentence for the driver in the same
> scenario.
So now its the death penalty for motorists is it idiot boy?
The Medway Handyman
Whats that got to do with anything?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>I would like to see home, shop and business owners take some
>responsibility for the footway outside their property. I understand
>that in Germany house and business owners /might/ be held liable for
>any injury if snow is not cleared from outside their home, but
>obviously any liability would depend on circumstance.
There were, I believe, cases where people were held liable for slips
on the path where they had shovelled snow away, whereas if you leave
the snow in place and someone slips it's an act of God. The thing I
have noticed is that the old yellow grit bins have gone the way of all
flesh - it would have been really handy to have had grit bins on my
road this week, there is still frozen snow in places.
Roger Merriman
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:27:09 +0000, Tom Crispin
> <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> >I would like to see home, shop and business owners take some
> >responsibility for the footway outside their property. I understand
> >that in Germany house and business owners /might/ be held liable for
> >any injury if snow is not cleared from outside their home, but
> >obviously any liability would depend on circumstance.
>
> There were, I believe, cases where people were held liable for slips
> on the path where they had shovelled snow away, whereas if you leave
> the snow in place and someone slips it's an act of God. The thing I
> have noticed is that the old yellow grit bins have gone the way of all
> flesh - it would have been really handy to have had grit bins on my
> road this week, there is still frozen snow in places.
>
> Guy
still around monmouthshire/gwent.
don't think i've seen one SE england though.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com