it had to happen sooner or later .....
Ian Henden
Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
of day. (yesterday, 17th).
Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
to avoid roundabout.
Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
I am sure we all feel for the lady cyclist's family, and also for the bus
driver.
BrianW
"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Yes indeed. The problem with these "cycle routes" is that generally they use
the pavement, and the cyclist is expected to dismount regularly. Not
surprisingly most cyclists can't be bothered and use the road instead. IIRC
In Benelux they have dedicated cycle lanes round roundabouts, and cars have
to give way to cyclists using these.
Brian
W K
"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
> of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>
> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for
cyclists,
> to avoid roundabout.
>
> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>
> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
Complete bollocks in so many different ways.
JNugent
> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> ..... but not expected so close to home.
>> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very
>> busy time of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for
>> cyclists, to avoid roundabout.
>> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
>> I am sure we all feel for the lady cyclist's family, and also for
>> the bus driver.
I am very sorry to hear of this accident.
> Yes indeed. The problem with these "cycle routes" is that generally
> they use the pavement, and the cyclist is expected to dismount
> regularly. Not surprisingly most cyclists can't be bothered and use
> the road instead. IIRC In Benelux they have dedicated cycle lanes
> round roundabouts, and cars have to give way to cyclists using these.
You do not remember correctly.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 16/02/04
Doug Steel
>
> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
> of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>
> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
> to avoid roundabout.
I don't know the area so cannot comment on the safety or otherwise of
these
specific routes. In several instances I know of cycle routes that are
not as safe
as the nearby roads.
> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>
> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
Do you know the facts of the accident ?
Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me,
you have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
happened
you should not try to place blame.
> I am sure we all feel for the lady cyclist's family, and also for the bus
> driver.
My sympathy goes to everyone concerned.
Some more details are here:
http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS0.html
"The bus driver was arrested at the scene and was released last night
on police bail
after he was questioned."
Doug
Adrian Boliston
news:2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> ..... but not expected so close to home.
>
> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
> of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>
> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
> to avoid roundabout.
>
> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>
> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
These cycle routes can often *add* danger as they can require a cyclist to cross
each spur of the roundabout separately instead of simply taking the same route
round as the other traffic.
[Not Responding]
cross posted. But this is my Patch and a roundabout I frequently use.
On 19 Feb 2004 02:31:28 -0800, doug_...@geocities.com (Doug Steel)
wrote:
>"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>> ..... but not expected so close to home.
>>
>> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
>> of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>>
>> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
>> to avoid roundabout.
I would never dream of using the 'cycle routes'. They are utterly
useless and downright dangerous. Not to mention the fact that they add
a hell of a distance and lots of stop-give-way.
Besides, there is *no* cycle route coming down from Hartlands Road
which is where the paper says the cyclist joined the roundabout from.
Look here http://notonmywatch.blogs.com/photos/cycling/slide1.html for
a map showing just how non-existant cycle routes are in that area.
>I don't know the area so cannot comment on the safety or otherwise of
>these
>specific routes. In several instances I know of cycle routes that are
>not as safe
>as the nearby roads.
>
>> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>>
>> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
If only we had removed the roundabout and put in a signalised
junction.
There is no reason why cyclists should feel forced off the road. If
people stick to the rules of the road Quay St roundabout is fine.
>Do you know the facts of the accident ?
>
>Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
>routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me,
>you have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
>The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
>happened
>you should not try to place blame.
>
>> I am sure we all feel for the lady cyclist's family, and also for the bus
>> driver.
>
>My sympathy goes to everyone concerned.
>
>Some more details are here:
>
>http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS0.html
>
>"The bus driver was arrested at the scene and was released last night
>on police bail
>after he was questioned."
Good to see a proper investigation carried out; location closed and
treated as a crime scene according to the article.
JohnB
>
> I've only just picked up on this thread. I suspect it's just been
> cross posted. But this is my Patch and a roundabout I frequently use.
>
> On 19 Feb 2004 02:31:28 -0800, doug_...@geocities.com (Doug Steel)
> wrote:
>
> >"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >> ..... but not expected so close to home.
> >>
> >> Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
> >> of day. (yesterday, 17th).
> >>
> >> Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
> >> to avoid roundabout.
>
> I would never dream of using the 'cycle routes'. They are utterly
> useless and downright dangerous. Not to mention the fact that they add
> a hell of a distance and lots of stop-give-way.
I know that roundabout too.
Also remember that Henden is a well-known anti-cyclist bus driver and
has often advocated that cyclists should be compelled to use facilities
'provided for them'.
> >"The bus driver was arrested at the scene and was released last night
> >on police bail
> >after he was questioned."
> Good to see a proper investigation carried out; location closed and
> treated as a crime scene according to the article.
Excellent, tho' it won't stop Henden bleating.
John B
W K
"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> also for the bus
> driver.
Ah, now we get the picture.
He was arrested.
MrBitsy
> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>
<snip>
>>Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>>
>>If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
>
>
> Do you know the facts of the accident ?
>
> Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
> routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me,
> you have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
> The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
> happened
> you should not try to place blame.
>
Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
MrBitsy
[Not Responding]
Especially as there isn't one there.
W K
"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
> Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
Fool.
Do you bother reading?
Painted pavements vastly increase the number of junctions and the number of
areas of conflict between the different road users.
What makes it far worse is that drivers are far less likely to expect
another road user to be coming from those particular angles.
Doug Steel
> Doug Steel wrote:
>> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>>>
>>> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
>>
>> Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
>> routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me, you
>> have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
>> The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
>> happened
>> you should not try to place blame.
>>
> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
To turn this around:
"Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught
under the wheels of a bus, on the road."
Wherever it was, it was unlucky and unfortunate. To make out that
the cyclist was somehow at fault for *being on the road* is crass
cynicism at its worst.
We might as well say things like "if *only she had been driving a
Challenger tank*", for what its worth - she wasn't.
Don't blame the victim for doing something she was entitled to do.
Until we know the facts its best to leave blame out of it.
Doug
Clive George
news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
> Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
Would it be impertinent to ask why you don't give cycling the same care you
give to car driving? Ie time spent learning how to improve, both practical
and theory? I would suggest the latter could be handled in the first
instance by getting a copy of 'Cyclecraft', whereas the former could be
anything from going out for a ride to formal instruction, with club riding
offering something in between. And just think, unlike the hours you spend
with IAM etc, you'll be doing your body some good on the way!
(relevance? as an 'advanced' cyclist you'd understand that a pavement
cycletrack is a worse place to be than the road).
clive
JohnB
I wonder if he was one of Henden's mates?
John B
Peter Clinch
> Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
Though if you do some research you'll find that, despite the absence of
buses on a typical day, pavement cycletracks are actually more dangerous
to cycle on than simply using the roads. Not a "common sense" answer,
perhaps, but that's what the numbers say very clearly. Which is a good
enough reason in itself not to use them, but the fact that they're
usually slower too is usually the final nail in the coffin.
People often wonder why cyclists don't use the facilities they're
provided with. And in many cases the answer is "because they're worse
than what we had already".
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Dave Kahn
> Some more details are here:
>
> http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS0.html
Now apparently moved to here:
http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/archive/2004/02/18/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS09ZM.html
or http://makeashorterlink.com/?N39C23577 .
--
Dave...
[Not Responding]
And a few more details here
http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS1.html
Including "... Sgt Faulkner advised cyclists to be wary when on the
roads and reminded them to wear high-visibility clothing and helmets
and to use cycleways wherever possible."
None of which would have helped this girl as she was in daylight, wore
a helmet and didn't even have the option of even the crappiest cycle
lane in the vicinity.
JohnB
> And a few more details here
> http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS1.html
>
> Including "... Sgt Faulkner advised cyclists to be wary when on the
> roads and reminded them to wear high-visibility clothing and helmets
> and to use cycleways wherever possible."
The standard attempt to try and apportion blame upon the victim - as
long as they are not a motorist, for they can never in the wrong in a
collision with a cyclist - oh no.
John B
John McCabe
wrote:
>I don't know the area so cannot comment on the safety or otherwise of
>these specific routes. In several instances I know of cycle routes that
>are not as safe as the nearby roads.
Well I know that roundabout, and I wouldn't want to go cycling round
it! I'm not even that keen on driving round it!
>Do you know the facts of the accident ?
>Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
>routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me,
>you have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
>The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
>happened you should not try to place blame.
>Some more details are here:
>http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/farehamandgosport/news/FAREHAMANDGOSPORT_NEWS_NEWS0.html
>
>"The bus driver was arrested at the scene and was released last night
>on police bail
>after he was questioned."
Interesting - it also says:
"Passengers on the First Hampshire and Dorset bus watched in horror as
the cyclist on a blue bike appeared to collide with the vehicle at
Quay Street roundabout just after 4pm. Both had pulled out from
Hartlands Road."
You could, I guess, read whatever you like into that because it
doesn't state whether either of them were stationary immediately prior
to pulling out from Hartlands Road.
Best Regards
John McCabe
To reply by email replace 'nospam' with 'assen'
JNugent
> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> also for the bus driver.
> Ah, now we get the picture.
> He was arrested.
*Arrested*?
That's dramatic for a road accident - even one in which someone has been
killed.
It suggests suspicion of a certain amount of recklessness (I discount
deliberate action, as I don't think for one moment that the bus driver will
have murdered the cyclist) or perhaps something alcohol-related?
W K
"JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c12ua3$p21$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> hyag...@tesco.net wrote:
>
> > "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> also for the bus driver.
>
> > Ah, now we get the picture.
> > He was arrested.
>
> *Arrested*?
>
> That's dramatic for a road accident - even one in which someone has been
> killed.
>
> It suggests suspicion of a certain amount of recklessness
I thought so too, but wondered whether anyone would point out that an arrest
is not a conviction.
If you look at the links elsewhere:
"The bus driver was arrested at the scene and was released last night on
police bail after he was questioned."
It is one thing about roundabouts, that although many seem very dangerous to
a cyclist, most of them have reasonable speeds, and everyone paying
attention (?!!)
Simon Proven
Consider a pavement cycle path, ungritted, covered with ice,
snow and ruts, and a gritted road which is clear of these
problems. Which do you think is more likely to put you
under a bus?
Simon Proven
Nor does it say anything about the approach the junction, which could
have been any one of a number of scenarious. I wouldn't filter up the
left hand side of a bus at a junction, for instance. However, if the
bus approached from behind the cyclist they may have cut the corner on
the cyclist as they passed. I've been within a small number of inches
of buses that have passed me on a left hand bend and been unaware or
uncaring of the fact that the rear wheels don't follow the same path
as the front wheels. In general, bus drivers seem far less well
trained than HGV drivers and are generally far less considerate as well.
(For which pressure to keep to unrealistic timetables in busy traffic
must take some blame)
Ian Henden
"Doug Steel" <doug_...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:13b852d6.04021...@posting.google.com...
That is true.
The roundabout carries just about *all* of Gosport's traffic to and from
the M27 and Fareham. It has traffic lights on the Gosport approach (from
the south) at
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=458000&y=106000&z=3&sv=458000,106000&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=803
It is *very* difficult to get on to the roundabout in busy periods with a
car (from the rail station, and from Fareham town centre, Hartlands Rd and
also Quay street)
It is even more dificult to get on to it with a bus - less acceleration,
can't "nip in" to one of the infrequent gaps that come round fast....
You have to be looking in about four directions at once.
With a cycle, it is, honestly, madness to even attemt it (the lady worked in
Fareham, was on way home to Gosport, so I presume came down Quay street, or
possibly Hartlands Road, with the aim of passing under the A27 westbound
flyover, there isn't an eastbound one, under thae railway, and along the
A32.
Without wishing to prejudice anyone, it is possible that the bus driver was
at fault, and made a misjudjement: I don't know (I DO know his name, and
rough age, he's not a tearaway type). If, in making such a misjudgement, he
had hit a car, or a car had hit him, there is a 99% chance that it would
have been "damage only" to the vehicles, maybe some lost NCB and lost pride,
but no-one, in all liklihood, would have been hurt.
But people on cycles are MUCH MORE VULNERABLE ...... and, there ARE safe
alternative routes signposted via Bath Lane, through the park, and along the
wide pavement between the A32 and the creek, towards Gosport. No-one can
avoid the fact that, if the cyclist had used that route (maybe three or four
minutes longer) this tragedy would not have occurred.
Granted she had a *right* to be there ..... but it was an unnecessary risk.
Ian Henden
"W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:c12ep8$sta$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
In this instance, there is a route from the centre of Fareham, towards
Gosport, which is downhill, along a quiet road, through an underpass, across
a park (along paths) and along a wide pavement, and then on through a
housing estate.
Avoids the maelstrom of the A27/A32 completely at its busiest - and most
dangerous - part.
Takes four minutes longer.
I used to use it when I rode a bike. (before the route became "official")
Simon Proven
> "JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c12ua3$p21$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> and everyone paying
> attention (?!!)
Is that meant to be tongue in cheek? I still see rather a lot
of hand-held mobile phones in use at roundabouts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<3VaZb.216$8e3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>:
>But people on cycles are MUCH MORE VULNERABLE ...... and, there ARE safe
>alternative routes signposted via Bath Lane, through the park, and along the
>wide pavement between the A32 and the creek, towards Gosport. No-one can
>avoid the fact that, if the cyclist had used that route (maybe three or four
>minutes longer) this tragedy would not have occurred.
But, according to the law of averages, specifically the average injury
rates for cycle tracks being worse than for roads, another tragedy
might have happened instead. That's how the law of averages goes.
When I was rammed from the side by a car on a roundabout in my youth
that would not have happened had I not been there. To avoid it all I
had to do was use the underpass, which woudl only have meant crossing
both carriageways of the A405 and the A5 twice - so no risk there.
It would also not have happened had the driver bothered to look before
flooring their throttle. There were only three vehicles present: me,
the driver weho hit me, and (luckily for me) a witness.
It may also be significant that the bus driver was arrested. I do not
think this is not normal practice in the case of drivers involved in
fatal accidents.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Simon Proven
> "W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:c12ep8$sta$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
>>"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
>>news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
>>
>>
>>>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>>>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>>
>>Fool.
>>Do you bother reading?
>>
>>Painted pavements vastly increase the number of junctions and the number
>
> of
>
>>areas of conflict between the different road users.
>>What makes it far worse is that drivers are far less likely to expect
>>another road user to be coming from those particular angles.
>
>
> In this instance, there is a route from the centre of Fareham, towards
> Gosport, which is downhill, along a quiet road, through an underpass, across
> a park (along paths) and along a wide pavement, and then on through a
> housing estate.
Don't forget that secluded routes can be daunting to some, particularly
lone females. A cyclist was attacked whilst cycling through a park
in Edinburgh recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3495901.stm
Two weeks ago I was assaulted because I intervened (in that I said
"excuse me" from a distance away to indicate that this harassment
wasn't unobserved) when a drunk was harassing a lone woman who was
leaving the back entrance of a multi storey car park. Perhaps
you should consider the personal safety issues people might have
with such routes. There have also been incidents near where I
live of wire being strung across cycle paths at head height. The
alternative route for one of the roundabouts here is an underpass
that's entirely hidden from the outside world, and people can hide
in there undetected until you're basically on top of them. Give
me the roundabout (known by some as the "wall of death") any day.
> Avoids the maelstrom of the A27/A32 completely at its busiest - and most
> dangerous - part.
> Takes four minutes longer.
My commute involves a fair amount of cycle paths. I probably take
about 4 minutes longer going by that route. However, it actually
makes the roundabouts more dangerous than being on the road. The
main reason for using the paths for much of the length is not the
safety of being on the road per se, but the intolerance to cyclists
being on the road, created by the path being there. By putting
a cycle path alongside a road, you make the road a more hazardous
place; thus it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Simon
Graeme
news:gtga305i3tebtp6g7...@4ax.com:
> But, according to the law of averages, specifically the average injury
> rates for cycle tracks being worse than for roads, another tragedy
> might have happened instead.
You can't necessarily say that about specific sections of road though.
The comparison you make above is between the entirety (or at least the
majority) of the UK road system and UK cycle tracks/shared use paths.
There are certain bits of road around Edinburgh which I could say with
almost total certainty (no figures, just a long memory of accidents
combined with my own experience of cycling there) are considerably less
safe than the majority of the Edinburgh cycle path network - provided
there are no marauding gangs of young girls on the loose that is :o)
Having said that, I wasn't keen on Ian's statement that the accident
wouldn't have happened if she'd used the cycle route either. I know he
went on to say it was her right to cycle where she did, but as we are all
aware that is not the general public perception (or at least not that of
the hoons who shout out of their car windows at us "Get on the cycle
path!") and that is something which other road users should be reminded
of.
Graeme
[Not Responding]
snip
>
>The roundabout carries just about *all* of Gosport's traffic to and from
>the M27 and Fareham. It has traffic lights on the Gosport approach (from
>the south) at
>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=458000&y=106000&z=3&sv=458000,106000&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=803
>
>It is *very* difficult to get on to the roundabout in busy periods with a
>car (from the rail station, and from Fareham town centre, Hartlands Rd and
>also Quay street)
>
>It is even more dificult to get on to it with a bus - less acceleration,
>can't "nip in" to one of the infrequent gaps that come round fast....
When I'm driving a car and it's congested I often slow up and let
buses out. If I thought other bus drivers share your attitude to other
road users I'd be inclined to stop doing this.
>You have to be looking in about four directions at once.
>
>With a cycle, it is, honestly, madness to even attemt it
Absolute bollocks. Lots of cyclists do it all the time. Including me.
It is no worse than any other busy and congested junction; a
description that covers most junctions in Fareham, Gosport and
Portsmouth.
>(the lady worked in
>Fareham, was on way home to Gosport, so I presume came down Quay street, or
>possibly Hartlands Road, with the aim of passing under the A27 westbound
>flyover, there isn't an eastbound one, under thae railway, and along the
>A32.
If you read the article you posted, it says Harlands Rd.
>Without wishing to prejudice anyone,
Ha Ha.
> it is possible that the bus driver was
>at fault, and made a misjudjement: I don't know (I DO know his name, and
>rough age, he's not a tearaway type). If, in making such a misjudgement, he
>had hit a car, or a car had hit him, there is a 99% chance that it would
>have been "damage only" to the vehicles, maybe some lost NCB and lost pride,
>but no-one, in all liklihood, would have been hurt.
>
>But people on cycles are MUCH MORE VULNERABLE ...... and, there ARE safe
>alternative routes signposted via Bath Lane, through the park, and along the
>wide pavement between the A32 and the creek, towards Gosport.
Total cobblers. Follow the link I put up earlier to see a map.
To follow the detour you describe adds over 1km to your journey; the
direct route is 150 metres. ie nearly ten times as far.
There is no cycle lane; only narrow shared pavements. It takes you
through the park which always has broken bottles and sometimes a few
tramps. You pass through two grim and intimidating underpasses with 90
degree turns and no view ahead. There is 100 metres of wide pavement
(next to the creek) but the rest is impossible.
From a cycling or personal safety viewpoint, the route you describe
would be ridiculous. I might as well be saying that the roundabout
would be far safer if only motorists stayed on the motorway.
>No-one can
>avoid the fact that, if the cyclist had used that route (maybe three or four
>minutes longer) this tragedy would not have occurred.
You'd have to ride like a lunatic on speed to do it in 4 minutes and
have no concern for your own safety or that of pedestrians. I did it
once and it took me nearer 10 minutes.
How do I get from Hartands Rd to Bath Lane? A choice of a 400m push
through the pedestrian area (no thanks) or up Quay Street (in which
case I've joined the roundabout anyway).
If I were to follow your logic a 5 mile trip to Gosport would take for
ever. Quay St is nothing unusual round here and if I increased my
journey time 10 fold at every busy junction it would be an impossible
trip by bike.
>Granted she had a *right* to be there ..... but it was an unnecessary risk.
Everyone has the right to be there; some at risk (cyclists,
pedestrians) and some posing danger (cars mainly). Your attitude of
criticising the vulnerable and, in this case, the dead stinks.
W K
"Simon Proven" <simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote in message
news:4035406...@ntlworld-ptang.com...
> W K wrote:
> > "JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c12ua3$p21$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> [roundabouts...]
> > and everyone paying
> > attention (?!!)
>
> Is that meant to be tongue in cheek?
Not really, it there is actually some truth in it.
> I still see rather a lot
> of hand-held mobile phones in use at roundabouts.
True. But I would tend to think that they are actually paying slightly more
attention than they would have been doing elsewhere.
I'd still guess that a cyclist is less likely to have someone pulling out in
front of them from a roundabout than from a normal give way.
Just zis Guy, you know?
news:Xns9495A60772DD8gr...@203.2.194.51...
> > But, according to the law of averages, specifically the average injury
> > rates for cycle tracks being worse than for roads, another tragedy
> > might have happened instead.
> You can't necessarily say that about specific sections of road though.
> The comparison you make above is between the entirety (or at least the
> majority) of the UK road system and UK cycle tracks/shared use paths.
No, but "if she wasn't there it wouldn't have happened" in this case is a
pretty fatuous assertion: of course that particular crash would not have
happened, but if one were to plan a route using only the cycle "facilities"
who is to say that the aggregate journey risk would not be higher? It is,
and remains, our prerogative to choose our route based on our assessment of
the overall balance of risk and utility. Experience indicates that cyclists
are much better at judging the risks of cycling than non-cyclists.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
[Not Responding]
<outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>"Graeme" <gra...@gpdods.removethis.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9495A60772DD8gr...@203.2.194.51...
>
>> > But, according to the law of averages, specifically the average injury
>> > rates for cycle tracks being worse than for roads, another tragedy
>> > might have happened instead.
>
>> You can't necessarily say that about specific sections of road though.
>> The comparison you make above is between the entirety (or at least the
>> majority) of the UK road system and UK cycle tracks/shared use paths.
But as I know the area, I can and have said as much about that
specific section of road.
>No, but "if she wasn't there it wouldn't have happened" in this case is a
>pretty fatuous assertion: of course that particular crash would not have
>happened, but if one were to plan a route using only the cycle "facilities"
>who is to say that the aggregate journey risk would not be higher? It is,
>and remains, our prerogative to choose our route based on our assessment of
>the overall balance of risk and utility. Experience indicates that cyclists
>are much better at judging the risks of cycling than non-cyclists.
And only the cyclist on the spot and at that time can make the
judgement.
But this is all a completely pointless thread. Someone was perfectly
legally using a perfectly average bit of road. For us all to stand
around discussing how she should have taken the scenic route/read the
bus timetable/stayed in bed/bought a car etc is ridiculous.
John McCabe
<simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote:
>John McCabe wrote:
>> "Passengers on the First Hampshire and Dorset bus watched in horror as
>> the cyclist on a blue bike appeared to collide with the vehicle at
>> Quay Street roundabout just after 4pm. Both had pulled out from
>> Hartlands Road."
>> You could, I guess, read whatever you like into that because it
>> doesn't state whether either of them were stationary immediately prior
>> to pulling out from Hartlands Road.
>Nor does it say anything about the approach the junction, which could
>have been any one of a number of scenarious. I wouldn't filter up the
>left hand side of a bus at a junction, for instance.
But *some* people do.
W K
"John McCabe" <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4035dc63...@news.btclick.com...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:57:52 +0000, Simon Proven
> >Nor does it say anything about the approach the junction, which could
> >have been any one of a number of scenarious. I wouldn't filter up the
> >left hand side of a bus at a junction, for instance.
>
> But *some* people do.
Indeed they do, but they must really be quite inexperienced cyclists.
Being down the left hand side of a large vehicle is something you really
really don't want, quite quickly you'd get enough scares not to be doing it.
OTOH if you DO that kind of thing, they are unlikely to arrest the driver at
the scene if he squashes you.
W K
> There are certain bits of road around Edinburgh which I could say with
> almost total certainty (no figures, just a long memory of accidents
> combined with my own experience of cycling there) are considerably less
> safe than the majority of the Edinburgh cycle path network - provided
> there are no marauding gangs of young girls on the loose that is :o)
Ho Ho.
Try salford.
Knife attacks and attempted rapes? Still makes you grin?
martian
".......In general, bus drivers seem far less well trained than HGV
drivers and are generally far less considerate as well........"
In general, this is a slur on a very skilled workforce. Just for
starters, try getting yourself a PSV licence (and yes, I do have one).
M
Insert Mars in subject of any direct reply.
Graeme
news:svlb305ugmgf9fk8b...@4ax.com:
> But this is all a completely pointless thread. Someone was perfectly
> legally using a perfectly average bit of road.
Aww come on! If all threads on URC are meant to have a point then the
groups would be almost totally silent!
Graeme
Graeme
@sparta.btinternet.com:
> Knife attacks and attempted rapes? Still makes you grin?
Quite honestly, yes. It's the only way I managed to stay relatively sane
after my spate of attacks. I had my friends in hoots of laughter when I
described the attack that involved a gun due to highlighting the silly
details of the event.
It's my way of dealing with it. I neither expect nor need you to
understand.
Graeme
Nick Finnigan
news:c14nse$scc$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> Indeed they do, but they must really be quite inexperienced cyclists.
> Being down the left hand side of a large vehicle is something you really
> really don't want, quite quickly you'd get enough scares not to be doing it.
However, it is encouraged at junctions with advanced stop lines.
The roundabout sounds like cyclists will be able to emerge
more easily than buses, provided they are on the left.
It also sounds like buses will wait as far to the right as
possible, to have a better chance of emerging.
nospam
>..... but not expected so close to home.
>
>Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
>of day. (yesterday, 17th).
>
>Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
>to avoid roundabout.
>
>Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
Oh well at least it will help the Hampshire SCAMera partnership to justify
another GATSO in the area.
Adrian Boliston
news:c14r0h$1dmghg$1...@ID-118255.news.uni-berlin.de...
Bus or cyclist, your anticipated *exit* lane will surely dictate which entry lane
you choose, so that if you are going right you will pick the right entry lane, or
if you are going left of straight on you would generally pick the left entry lane.
Pete Smith
From: Pete Smith <pete...@lethe.org.uk>
Date:
In article <1e847d7e.04022...@posting.google.com>,
mar...@talk21.com says...
> Simon Proven <simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote in message news:<06aZb.104$m47.47@newsfe1-win>...
>
> ".......In general, bus drivers seem far less well trained than HGV
> drivers and are generally far less considerate as well........"
>
> In general, this is a slur on a very skilled workforce. Just for
> starters, try getting yourself a PSV licence (and yes, I do have one).
Try looking at the bus drivers around Chester.
The concept of a stopping at a red light seems to be totally alien to 95% of
them.
Speed limits also don't seem to apply to a substantial number.
Pete.
--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
JohnB
>
> Simon Proven <simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote in message news:<06aZb.104$m47.47@newsfe1-win>...
>
> ".......In general, bus drivers seem far less well trained than HGV
> drivers and are generally far less considerate as well........"
>
> In general, this is a slur on a very skilled workforce. Just for
> starters, try getting yourself a PSV licence (and yes, I do have one).
A PSV licence doesn't make anyone a considerate driver.
I too find that bus drivers are less careful than the average HGV driver.
In the area I live i'm sure they are put under undue pressure to
maintain schedules which have been cut to the minimum with no allowance
for when teh traffic is heavy. Hence the buses are regularly late.
This shows itself in their irritation at being held up, the way they
race between stops and how they barge out at junctions.
John B
Nick Finnigan
news:c14u4k$1eidbn$1...@ID-111900.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c14r0h$1dmghg$1...@ID-118255.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > more easily than buses, provided they are on the left.
> > It also sounds like buses will wait as far to the right as
> > possible, to have a better chance of emerging.
>
> Bus or cyclist, your anticipated *exit* lane will surely dictate which entry
lane
> you choose, so that if you are going right you will pick the right entry lane,
or
> if you are going left of straight on you would generally pick the left entry
lane.
If a cyclist has a choice of waiting 5 minutes for a suitable
gap to use the rh lane, or pulling straight out on to the lh
lane, which is not illegal, what is going to happen?
For the bus, I meant the rh side of whatever lane it is in,
which will not encourage overtaking on the right.
Ian
"nospam" > wrote in message
>
> Oh well at least it will help the Hampshire SCAMera partnership to justify
> another GATSO in the area.
>
this roundabout and the flyover that bypasses it on the way to the station.
Ian
Ian
"JNugent" wrote in message
>
> *Arrested*?
>
> That's dramatic for a road accident - even one in which someone has been
> killed.
>
> It suggests suspicion of a certain amount of recklessness (I discount
> deliberate action, as I don't think for one moment that the bus driver
will
> have murdered the cyclist) or perhaps something alcohol-related?
>
>
It suggests nothing as it seems to be standard practice in Hampshire when
there is a death. A van driver was arrested a year or two back following a
head on crash leading to a double fatality near Southwick. He was later
found to be totally innocent. The car that hit him was on the wrong side of
the road and he couldn't avoid the collision.
Ian
MrBitsy
> "MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
>
>
>>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>
>
> Fool.
> Do you bother reading?
>
> Painted pavements vastly increase the number of junctions and the number of
> areas of conflict between the different road users.
> What makes it far worse is that drivers are far less likely to expect
> another road user to be coming from those particular angles.
>
>
A Cyclist, negotiating a roundabout, is relying on the decisions of many
others so has less than 100% of the decisions needed to create a collision.
The same cyclist using a path or cycle track, will make 100% of the
decision when crossing a road, therefor it is much safer to use a cycle
track or path.
MrBitsy
MrBitsy
> MrBitsy wrote:
>
>>Doug Steel wrote:
>>
>>>"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>>>
>>>>Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>>>>
>>>>If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
>>>
>>>Do you know the facts of the accident ?
>>>
>>>Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
>>>routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me, you
>>>have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
>>>The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
>>>happened
>>>you should not try to place blame.
>>>
>>
>>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>
>
> To turn this around:
> "Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught
> under the wheels of a bus, on the road."
The cyclist could make all the right decisions but still be hit by a
driver not paying attention. The cyclist was partly relying on others
for safety. It would be unlucky to get hit by a bus on the road - even
more so on a cycle track.
>
> Wherever it was, it was unlucky and unfortunate. To make out that
> the cyclist was somehow at fault for *being on the road* is crass
> cynicism at its worst.
It would be if I implied the cyclist was at fault, but I didn't.
>
> We might as well say things like "if *only she had been driving a
> Challenger tank*", for what its worth - she wasn't.
>
You could suggest that and you did and we all know she wasn't.
> Don't blame the victim for doing something she was entitled to do.
>
I didn't.
> Until we know the facts its best to leave blame out of it.
I did.
>
> Doug
MrBitsy
MrBitsy
> "MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
>
>
>>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>
>
> Would it be impertinent to ask why you don't give cycling the same care you
> give to car driving?
I do.
> Ie time spent learning how to improve, both practical
> and theory? I would suggest the latter could be handled in the first
> instance by getting a copy of 'Cyclecraft', whereas the former could be
> anything from going out for a ride to formal instruction, with club riding
> offering something in between. And just think, unlike the hours you spend
> with IAM etc, you'll be doing your body some good on the way!
>
I walk or cycle 5 miles per day and agree it has many benifits for the body.
> (relevance? as an 'advanced' cyclist you'd understand that a pavement
> cycletrack is a worse place to be than the road).
>
I find a cycletrack vastly more safe than cycling on the road.
MrBitsy
MrBitsy
> MrBitsy wrote:
>
>> Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>
>
> Though if you do some research you'll find that, despite the absence of
> buses on a typical day, pavement cycletracks are actually more dangerous
> to cycle on than simply using the roads. Not a "common sense" answer,
> perhaps, but that's what the numbers say very clearly. Which is a good
> enough reason in itself not to use them, but the fact that they're
> usually slower too is usually the final nail in the coffin.
>
> People often wonder why cyclists don't use the facilities they're
> provided with. And in many cases the answer is "because they're worse
> than what we had already".
>
> Pete.
A responsible cyclist should be able to remain safe on a cycletrack as
there is less to contend with than the roads. The figures are indeed odd.
MrBitsy.
MrBitsy
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:38:35 +0000, MrBitsy
>> <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Doug Steel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<2GRYb.3271$AQ4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>>>>>
>>>>> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the facts of the accident ?
>>>>
>>>> Without such details you simply cannot state that using the cycle
>>>> routes would have been any safer. As it stands, it appears to me,
>>>> you have made a cynical attempt at putting the blame on the cyclist.
>>>> The cyclist had a right to be on the road and without knowing what
>>>> happened
>>>> you should not try to place blame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
>>> wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
>
>
> Consider a pavement cycle path, ungritted, covered with ice,
> snow and ruts, and a gritted road which is clear of these
> problems. Which do you think is more likely to put you
> under a bus?
>
Cycling on the road.
MrBitsy
Clive George
> Clive George wrote:
>
> > "MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> > news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
> >
> >
> >>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
> >>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
> >
> >
> > Would it be impertinent to ask why you don't give cycling the same care
you
> > give to car driving?
>
> I do.
Erm - you clearly don't, as you indicate below...
>
> > Ie time spent learning how to improve, both practical
> > and theory? I would suggest the latter could be handled in the first
> > instance by getting a copy of 'Cyclecraft', whereas the former could be
> > anything from going out for a ride to formal instruction, with club
riding
> > offering something in between. And just think, unlike the hours you
spend
> > with IAM etc, you'll be doing your body some good on the way!
> >
>
> I walk or cycle 5 miles per day and agree it has many benifits for the
body.
Ok, so you do a bit. You're now on the same level as somebody who's passed
their driving test. Now what are you doing to improve your skills,
comparable to the significant time input you give to your advanced motoring?
> > (relevance? as an 'advanced' cyclist you'd understand that a pavement
> > cycletrack is a worse place to be than the road).
> >
> I find a cycletrack vastly more safe than cycling on the road.
Some people find driving in L2 of the motorway vastly more safe than
changing lane. Doesn't mean it's right.
clive
Peter Clinch
> A responsible cyclist should be able to remain safe on a cycletrack as
> there is less to contend with than the roads. The figures are indeed odd.
Not necessarily, especially if it's a shared use cycletrack. Now, some
tracks are very good and this does not apply to them all, but in general
on a c-t compared to an adjacent road there are more rights of way
conflicts, less room, more deviations of direction, more obstacles, an
inferior surface and more users who aren't expecting cycles or who are
less used to dealing with vehicular traffic than other road users, such
as dog walking pedestrians.
The figures aren't actually odd when you consider these aspects. I'd
suggest you start at reading at
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
It's an article of faith that separate cycle tracks must be safer than
roads, but articles of faith aren't really good enough to base safety
decisions on.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
W K
"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> W K wrote:
> > "MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> > news:z%2Zb.248$Fd....@newsr2.u-net.net...
> >
> >
> >>Regardless of blame, it would be very unlucky to be caught under the
> >>wheels of a bus, on a pavement cycletrack.
> >
> >
> > Fool.
> > Do you bother reading?
> >
> > Painted pavements vastly increase the number of junctions and the number
of
> > areas of conflict between the different road users.
> > What makes it far worse is that drivers are far less likely to expect
> > another road user to be coming from those particular angles.
Ah he is a Fool.
> A Cyclist, negotiating a roundabout, is relying on the decisions of many
> others so has less than 100% of the decisions needed to create a
collision.
So what? You keep an eye on the other road users, not extremely easy, but
far from taxing.
> The same cyclist using a path or cycle track, will make 100% of the
> decision when crossing a road, therefor it is much safer to use a cycle
> track or path.
Obviously as the great bitsy you can make no mistakes.
If that were the case and you were a better cyclist than the trundling,
wobbly, useless git you appear to be, you too could use large and busy
roundabouts with a very acceptable level of safety.
But, in using all those extra road junctions, unless you are painfully
careful, you will make bad decisions - and even if extremely infrequently -
drivers will not have anticipated you appearing where you did.
Do you know anything about safe cycling?
W K
"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> I find a cycletrack vastly more safe than cycling on the road.
"find" ?
How?
Percieved risks and real risks are different things.
Adrian Boliston
> If a cyclist has a choice of waiting 5 minutes for a suitable
> gap to use the rh lane, or pulling straight out on to the lh
> lane, which is not illegal, what is going to happen?
I assume to mean a case where the RH approach lane has a long queue of traffic
waiting to turn right so the cyclist scoots down the less busy (or even empty) LH
approach lane but still intending to turn right?
The problem I can see with this would be the traffic waiting to pull out would be
looking right for a gap in traffic so not see the cyclist on their left and yet
the cyclist would all the time be wanting to move right once on the roundabout, so
there would be a risk of getting "side swiped".
MrBitsy
Where did I say that? Only reason to go to the IAM was to minimise
driver error.
>
> If that were the case and you were a better cyclist than the trundling,
> wobbly, useless git you appear to be,
Ooh name calling, how inteligent!
> you too could use large and busy
> roundabouts with a very acceptable level of safety.
>
I can agree with that. However, My personal preference is to use cycle
tracks where available.
> But, in using all those extra road junctions, unless you are painfully
> careful, you will make bad decisions - and even if extremely infrequently -
> drivers will not have anticipated you appearing where you did.
>
> Do you know anything about safe cycling?
>
What exactly is being painfully carefull? I do look carefully before
crossing a road, but I don't consider that to be 'painfullt' carefull.
I have not been to 'advanced cycle school' or read about safer cycling.
I perceived my driving to be in need of extra training, so I went to the
IAM. Most of my cycling is done on cycle tracks to get to work, and I
have yet to experience anything dangerous on my journey.
MrBitsy
John McCabe
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
>> I walk or cycle 5 miles per day and agree it has many benifits for the
>body.
>Ok, so you do a bit. You're now on the same level as somebody who's passed
>their driving test. Now what are you doing to improve your skills,
>comparable to the significant time input you give to your advanced motoring?
I can't see the point of this discussion unless you're trying to imply
that the dead cyclist had put a lot of effort into becoming as good a
cyclists as she possibly can be (which is fairly unlikely).
John McCabe
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>The figures aren't actually odd when you consider these aspects. I'd
>suggest you start at reading at
>http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
Fascinating summary of cycle path safety - seems to be a common thread
that there is no improvement in safety in cycle paths because there
are just as many, if not more, accidents involving cyclists on the
paths as there are on the roads.
Where are the number of deaths (cycle tracks vs roads) stated?
Clive George
"John McCabe" <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40362f60...@news.btclick.com...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:26:31 -0000, "Clive George"
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I walk or cycle 5 miles per day and agree it has many benifits for the
> >body.
>
> >Ok, so you do a bit. You're now on the same level as somebody who's
passed
> >their driving test. Now what are you doing to improve your skills,
> >comparable to the significant time input you give to your advanced
motoring?
>
> I can't see the point of this discussion unless you're trying to imply
> that the dead cyclist had put a lot of effort into becoming as good a
> cyclists as she possibly can be (which is fairly unlikely).
Thread drift. I'm now trying to persuade Ray to think a bit more about
cycling related matters rather than just blurting bollocks.
clive
Nick Finnigan
> "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c151n4$1e37nd$1...@ID-118255.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > If a cyclist has a choice of waiting 5 minutes for a suitable
> > gap to use the rh lane, or pulling straight out on to the lh
> > lane, which is not illegal, what is going to happen?
>
> I assume to mean a case where the RH approach lane has a long queue of traffic
> waiting to turn right so the cyclist scoots down the less busy (or even empty)
LH
> approach lane but still intending to turn right?
Nope, just that there is a lot of traffic coming from
the right, so the cyclist has to wait for suitable gaps
in both lanes of traffic before emerging.
> The problem I can see with this would be the traffic waiting to pull out would
be
> looking right for a gap in traffic so not see the cyclist on their left and
yet
> the cyclist would all the time be wanting to move right once on the
roundabout, so
> there would be a risk of getting "side swiped".
The cyclist may chose not to move right.
JNugent
> "JNugent" wrote in message
Well, that's two cases.
I bet there have been rather more than two fatal road accidents in Hampshire
during the last couple of years.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 16/02/04
Adrian Boliston
> The cyclist may chose not to move right.
I know that the Highway code says a cyclist can turn right at a roundabout whilst
staying in the left hand lane at all times, but there is a risk of being wiped out
by a vehicle leaving the roundabout if you choose this method!
W K
> "Adrian Boliston" <adr...@boliston.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c158bk$1ef66f$1...@ID-111900.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c151n4$1e37nd$1...@ID-118255.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > If a cyclist has a choice of waiting 5 minutes for a suitable
> > > gap to use the rh lane, or pulling straight out on to the lh
> > > lane, which is not illegal, what is going to happen?
> >
> > I assume to mean a case where the RH approach lane has a long queue of
traffic
> > waiting to turn right so the cyclist scoots down the less busy (or even
empty)
> LH
> > approach lane but still intending to turn right?
>
> Nope, just that there is a lot of traffic coming from
> the right, so the cyclist has to wait for suitable gaps
> in both lanes of traffic before emerging.
Thats a rather crappy trick, that I really hate when driving (other cars).
On a bike it sounds extremely dodgy unless its almost at a standstill or a
very very large roundabout.
> > The problem I can see with this would be the traffic waiting to pull out
would
> be
> > looking right for a gap in traffic so not see the cyclist on their left
and
> yet
> > the cyclist would all the time be wanting to move right once on the
> roundabout, so
> > there would be a risk of getting "side swiped".
>
> The cyclist may chose not to move right.
It mentions something like this in the HC doesn't (/didn't) it?
They would have to be mega-observant when passing each exit.
W K
"MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> W K wrote:
> > "MrBitsy" <raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
> >>The same cyclist using a path or cycle track, will make 100% of the
> >>decision when crossing a road, therefor it is much safer to use a cycle
> >>track or path.
> >
> >
> > Obviously as the great bitsy you can make no mistakes.
>
> Where did I say that? Only reason to go to the IAM was to minimise
> driver error.
You seem to be making such an assumption above.
ie I won't make mistakes, others will.
It comes through in some of your posts on driving.
> > If that were the case and you were a better cyclist than the trundling,
> > wobbly, useless git you appear to be,
>
> Ooh name calling, how inteligent!
I could have done worse you know, I was being restrained.
You have a great skill in bringing the worse out in people.
BTW: I don't have anything against the trundling and the useless, but don't
expect them to give sermons on cycling safety.
> > you too could use large and busy
> > roundabouts with a very acceptable level of safety.
> >
>
> I can agree with that. However, My personal preference is to use cycle
> tracks where available.
Bear in mind that it may not be anything like the safest option.
And making smartarse idiotic comments about not being hit by a bus while
actually on an offroad path is one of the things that is irritating.
> > But, in using all those extra road junctions, unless you are painfully
> > careful, you will make bad decisions - and even if extremely
infrequently -
> > drivers will not have anticipated you appearing where you did.
> >
> > Do you know anything about safe cycling?
> What exactly is being painfully carefull? I do look carefully before
> crossing a road, but I don't consider that to be 'painfullt' carefull.
Having to stop dead every 50 yards or so, looking in every single direction,
etc.
People who use cycle tracks every day will eventually get into a state where
they treat "give ways" other than as if they were "stop".
> I have not been to 'advanced cycle school' or read about safer cycling.
> I perceived my driving to be in need of extra training, so I went to the
> IAM. Most of my cycling is done on cycle tracks to get to work, and I
> have yet to experience anything dangerous on my journey.
In your 2.5 mile trip how many give ways do you have, and how many crossings
where there would be seldom a pedestrian crossing?
Some places do have tracks well away from roads that run for good distances
without this sort of thing.
However, they seem to be in parks have more dangers from dogs and
pedestrians.
JNugent
> "[Not Responding]" <not_res...@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>> But this is all a completely pointless thread. Someone was perfectly
>> legally using a perfectly average bit of road.
> Aww come on! If all threads on URC are meant to have a point then the
> groups would be almost totally silent!
But this is not a "thread on URC", is it?
It is a thread in ukt which someone has (by now) x-posted to urc.
JohnB
>
> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >..... but not expected so close to home.
> >
> >Very busy roundabout (Fareham, A27/A32 Market roundabout). Very busy time
> >of day. (yesterday, 17th).
> >
> >Roundabout has cycle *routes* nearby which provide safe routes for cyclists,
> >to avoid roundabout.
> >
> >Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>
> another GATSO in the area.
And thus release resources to enable them to catch errant bus drivers.
John B
Just zis Guy, you know?
<raymond...@HATschofields.com> wrote in message
<ZeoZb.7$B%4...@newsr2.u-net.net>:
>I find a cycletrack vastly more safe than cycling on the road.
You can go all the way from home to work without having to cross any
sideroads? And the cycle track is as direct as the roads, not four
times longer like the ones in Fareham?
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Ian Henden
> "W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:c14nse$scc$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> > Indeed they do, but they must really be quite inexperienced cyclists.
> > Being down the left hand side of a large vehicle is something you really
> > really don't want, quite quickly you'd get enough scares not to be doing
it.
>
> However, it is encouraged at junctions with advanced stop lines.
>
> The roundabout sounds like cyclists will be able to emerge
> more easily than buses, provided they are on the left.
> It also sounds like buses will wait as far to the right as
> possible, to have a better chance of emerging.
>
>
From Hartlands Rd, to A32 southbound is slightly more than halfway round the
roundabout.
On the way, there are two lanes of fast traffic which cross the path of the
cyclist (i.e. traffic from the rail station direction, some of which goes
eastward toward M27, and some going round onto A32 southbound)
In addition, there is heavy traffic coming FROM M27 direction, some of which
goes left under the railway to A32 southbound, cyclist also has to cross
this flow.
I totally agree with another poster to this thread - its bloody hairy in a
car. I can assure you it's hairier still in a vehicle with slower
acceleration (ie a bus or a lorry).
To attempt to negotiate this route on a cycle is not recommended.
At the bottom of the "straight" bit of Hartlands Road (the "old" hartlands
road) there is a footbridge OVER the A27 giving access to A32 south (on the
wrong side of the road......) and also "KEEP CLEAR" markings (where A27
traffic from the rail station would be queuing in three lanes) more or less
under the bridge.
A direct route; saf(*er*) than cycling round the roundabout; leaves the
problem of crossing the A32 (there is a pelican crossing some fair way down
the road, which *could* be used). But this route would need to be planned
out by the user, it's not signposted, and it does involve "illegal" pavement
cycling.
The lesser of two evils, I beleive, is that pavement cycling ought to be
encouraged where road conditions are downright dangerous, with the caveat
that the cyclists ride responsibly, with regard for pedestrians....
Ian Henden
"[Not Responding]" <not_res...@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:igeb30penhgv42ecj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:38:05 -0000, "Ian Henden"
> <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >The roundabout carries just about *all* of Gosport's traffic to and from
> >the M27 and Fareham. It has traffic lights on the Gosport approach (from
> >the south) at
>
>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=458000&y=106000&z=3&sv=458000,10600
0&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&dn=803
> >
> >It is *very* difficult to get on to the roundabout in busy periods with a
> >car (from the rail station, and from Fareham town centre, Hartlands Rd
and
> >also Quay street)
> >
> >It is even more dificult to get on to it with a bus - less acceleration,
> >can't "nip in" to one of the infrequent gaps that come round fast....
>
> When I'm driving a car and it's congested I often slow up and let
> buses out. If I thought other bus drivers share your attitude to other
> road users I'd be inclined to stop doing this.
Nowt wrong with my attitude towards other road users - and neither has it
been implied. Common sense is the order of the day, read the road, act on
what you see, and, yes, OFTEN hold back and let cars - and pushbikes! - go;
it is often in my own interests to do so!
>
> >You have to be looking in about four directions at once.
> >
> >With a cycle, it is, honestly, madness to even attemt it
>
> Absolute bollocks. Lots of cyclists do it all the time. Including me.
> It is no worse than any other busy and congested junction; a
> description that covers most junctions in Fareham, Gosport and
> Portsmouth.
>
> >(the lady worked in
> >Fareham, was on way home to Gosport, so I presume came down Quay street,
or
> >possibly Hartlands Road, with the aim of passing under the A27 westbound
> >flyover, there isn't an eastbound one, under thae railway, and along the
> >A32.
>
> If you read the article you posted, it says Harlands Rd.
>
> >Without wishing to prejudice anyone,
>
> Ha Ha.
>
> > it is possible that the bus driver was
> >at fault, and made a misjudjement: I don't know (I DO know his name, and
> >rough age, he's not a tearaway type). If, in making such a misjudgement,
he
> >had hit a car, or a car had hit him, there is a 99% chance that it would
> >have been "damage only" to the vehicles, maybe some lost NCB and lost
pride,
> >but no-one, in all liklihood, would have been hurt.
> >
> >But people on cycles are MUCH MORE VULNERABLE ...... and, there ARE safe
> >alternative routes signposted via Bath Lane, through the park, and along
the
> >wide pavement between the A32 and the creek, towards Gosport.
>
> Total cobblers. Follow the link I put up earlier to see a map.
Which omits the footbridge over the A27 to the right of the RC church,
coming down Hartlands Road (where the tram will come out, if it ever gets
built!)
>
> To follow the detour you describe adds over 1km to your journey; the
> direct route is 150 metres. ie nearly ten times as far.
If your estimate is correct, then that makes 6.6666, not ten..... But it
still depends where you start from, as your approach route would be modified
appropriately.
>
> There is no cycle lane;
Never said there was. I said "cycle *route*
only narrow shared pavements. It takes you
> through the park which always has broken bottles and sometimes a few
> tramps.
Hardly ever seen either.
You pass through two grim and intimidating underpasses with 90
> degree turns and no view ahead. There is 100 metres of wide pavement
> (next to the creek) but the rest is impossible.
Why, thankyou. When I was using this route on a pushbike a few years ago, I
was achieving the impossible! So were all the rest of the cyclists from
Gosport and Bridgemary! (and some still are)
>
> From a cycling or personal safety viewpoint, the route you describe
> would be ridiculous. I might as well be saying that the roundabout
> would be far safer if only motorists stayed on the motorway.
>
> >No-one can
> >avoid the fact that, if the cyclist had used that route (maybe three or
four
> >minutes longer) this tragedy would not have occurred.
>
> You'd have to ride like a lunatic on speed to do it in 4 minutes and
> have no concern for your own safety or that of pedestrians. I did it
> once and it took me nearer 10 minutes.
Depends where you start from. Civic offices area? Wouldn't aim for
Hartlands Road in the first place!
>
> How do I get from Hartands Rd to Bath Lane? A choice of a 400m push
> through the pedestrian area (no thanks) or up Quay Street (in which
> case I've joined the roundabout anyway).
Depends where you start from.
>
> If I were to follow your logic a 5 mile trip to Gosport would take for
> ever. Quay St is nothing unusual round here and if I increased my
> journey time 10 fold at every busy junction it would be an impossible
> trip by bike.
>
> >Granted she had a *right* to be there ..... but it was an unnecessary
risk.
>
> Everyone has the right to be there; some at risk (cyclists,
> pedestrians) and some posing danger (cars mainly). Your attitude of
> criticising the vulnerable and, in this case, the dead stinks.
No more comment. None needed, your exaggerated diatribe speaks for itself.
>
Martin Family
"Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Point of clarification here....
>
> From Hartlands Rd, to A32 southbound is slightly more than halfway round the
> roundabout.
This roundabout here
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=458250&Y=106000&width=500&height=30
0&client=public&gride=&gridn=&keepicon=false&coordsys=gb&addr1=&addr2=&addr3
=&pc=&advanced=true&lang=&left.x=9&left.y=14&scale=5000
Looks a bit 'interesting' especially with lots of traffic.
> On the way, there are two lanes of fast traffic which cross the path of the
> cyclist (i.e. traffic from the rail station direction, some of which goes
> eastward toward M27, and some going round onto A32 southbound)
>
> In addition, there is heavy traffic coming FROM M27 direction, some of which
> goes left under the railway to A32 southbound, cyclist also has to cross
> this flow.
With right of way.
> I totally agree with another poster to this thread - its bloody hairy in a
> car. I can assure you it's hairier still in a vehicle with slower
> acceleration (ie a bus or a lorry).
>
> To attempt to negotiate this route on a cycle is not recommended.
>
> At the bottom of the "straight" bit of Hartlands Road (the "old" hartlands
> road) there is a footbridge OVER the A27 giving access to A32 south (on the
> wrong side of the road......) and also "KEEP CLEAR" markings (where A27
> traffic from the rail station would be queuing in three lanes) more or less
> under the bridge.
Foot bridge with a bike ramp or requiring carrying a bike up a load of
steps?
And then how do you cross the A32 again?
..d
Ian Henden
And on this particular roundabout, that risk is very real. (but not the
scenario which sparked this off).
>
>
JohnB
>
> I totally agree with another poster to this thread - its bloody hairy in a
> car. I can assure you it's hairier still in a vehicle with slower
> acceleration (ie a bus or a lorry).
>
> To attempt to negotiate this route on a cycle is not recommended.
>
> At the bottom of the "straight" bit of Hartlands Road (the "old" hartlands
> road) there is a footbridge OVER the A27 giving access to A32 south (on the
> wrong side of the road......) and also "KEEP CLEAR" markings (where A27
> traffic from the rail station would be queuing in three lanes) more or less
> under the bridge.
>
> A direct route; saf(*er*) than cycling round the roundabout; leaves the
> problem of crossing the A32 (there is a pelican crossing some fair way down
> the road, which *could* be used). But this route would need to be planned
> out by the user, it's not signposted, and it does involve "illegal" pavement
> cycling.
>
> The lesser of two evils, I beleive, is that pavement cycling ought to be
> encouraged where road conditions are downright dangerous, with the caveat
> that the cyclists ride responsibly, with regard for pedestrians....
Ian, with respect you certainly show no acceptance that other road users
have a right to a safe passage without being subjected to these
'downright dangerous road conditions'.
Rather than encourage cyclists or others to run away from the danger
(and into others), the encouragement should be to remove the danger
itself.
In your capacity as a bus driver have you taken any steps to get your
company to lobby the highway authority to remove the dangers you admit
to finding yourself in? Don't they have a duty towards yourself as an
employee?
It seems that you simply want to remove other road users because you
judge the conditions to be "hairy". They are "hairy" because the
bully-boy brigade on the road wish to speed, harass and intimidate the
slower more vulnerable users.
As a professional driver I question why do you support such a
philosophy, which leads on to the obvious - should you be driving at all.
John B
Ian Henden
"martian" <mar...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:1e847d7e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Simon Proven <simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote in message
news:<06aZb.104$m47.47@newsfe1-win>...
>
> ".......In general, bus drivers seem far less well trained than HGV
> drivers and are generally far less considerate as well........"
>
> In general, this is a slur on a very skilled workforce. Just for
> starters, try getting yourself a PSV licence (and yes, I do have one).
>
Thanks for that.
In over thirty years PCV driving, I reckon I have actually *saved* the skins
of more than a few cyclists and pedestrians, by reading their minds and
taking the necessary avoiding action *before* they started some dangerous
movement.....
Ian Henden
"Martin Family" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BC5C3357.E11B%martin...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On 20/2/04 9:38 pm, in article O6vZb.23$Ar...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net,
> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Point of clarification here....
> >
> > From Hartlands Rd, to A32 southbound is slightly more than halfway round
the
> > roundabout.
>
> This roundabout here
>
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?X=458250&Y=106000&width=500&height=30
>
0&client=public&gride=&gridn=&keepicon=false&coordsys=gb&addr1=&addr2=&addr3
> =&pc=&advanced=true&lang=&left.x=9&left.y=14&scale=5000
>
> Looks a bit 'interesting' especially with lots of traffic.
>
>
> > On the way, there are two lanes of fast traffic which cross the path of
the
> > cyclist (i.e. traffic from the rail station direction, some of which
goes
> > eastward toward M27, and some going round onto A32 southbound)
> >
> > In addition, there is heavy traffic coming FROM M27 direction, some of
which
> > goes left under the railway to A32 southbound, cyclist also has to cross
> > this flow.
>
> With right of way.
of vehicles accelerating off the roundabout towards M27... which is one of
the factors which makes the roundabout dangerous for cyclists!
>
>
> > I totally agree with another poster to this thread - its bloody hairy in
a
> > car. I can assure you it's hairier still in a vehicle with slower
> > acceleration (ie a bus or a lorry).
> >
> > To attempt to negotiate this route on a cycle is not recommended.
> >
> > At the bottom of the "straight" bit of Hartlands Road (the "old"
hartlands
> > road) there is a footbridge OVER the A27 giving access to A32 south (on
the
> > wrong side of the road......) and also "KEEP CLEAR" markings (where A27
> > traffic from the rail station would be queuing in three lanes) more or
less
> > under the bridge.
>
> Foot bridge with a bike ramp or requiring carrying a bike up a load of
> steps?
Sort of ramp (from memory) with small steps every couple of yards.
Negotiable by mums with buggies with no problem.
>
> And then how do you cross the A32 again?
As I said, that is a problem, there is a pelican a fair way up (past the
Mill Lane (much smaller) roundabout. The whole problem stems from the fact
that there (was) only one road out of Gosport, and the LSWR built a viaduct
over the area for the Portsmouth-Fareham railway in 18summat or other; and
there is a tidal creek to one side of the area.
Graeme
@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> It is a thread in ukt which someone has (by now) x-posted to urc.
>
Ah, sorry, I hadn't noticed that. That explains why it lost it's point even
earlier than normal.
Graeme
Nick Finnigan
>
> "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c15co2$1eisjs$1...@ID-118255.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > the right, so the cyclist has to wait for suitable gaps
> > in both lanes of traffic before emerging.
>
> Thats a rather crappy trick, that I really hate when driving (other cars).
> On a bike it sounds extremely dodgy unless its almost at a standstill or a
> very very large roundabout.
> > The cyclist may chose not to move right.
>
> It mentions something like this in the HC doesn't (/didn't) it?
> They would have to be mega-observant when passing each exit.
In the lh lane you have to be mega-observant, but using the
rh lane is a trick, and you have to be very observant as well.
Is there some other approach to cycling past the first exit
of a busy roundabout?
Nick Finnigan
news:O6vZb.23$Ar...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> A direct route; saf(*er*) than cycling round the roundabout; leaves the
> problem of crossing the A32 (there is a pelican crossing some fair way down
> the road, which *could* be used). But this route would need to be planned
> out by the user, it's not signposted, and it does involve "illegal" pavement
> cycling.
Not necessarily; walking on the pavement whilst pushing a pushbike is legal.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<O6vZb.23$Ar...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net>:
>On the way, there are two lanes of fast traffic which cross the path of the
>cyclist (i.e. traffic from the rail station direction, some of which goes
>eastward toward M27, and some going round onto A32 southbound)
But the cyclist circulating on the roundabout has right of way.
>In addition, there is heavy traffic coming FROM M27 direction, some of which
>goes left under the railway to A32 southbound, cyclist also has to cross
>this flow.
No, this flow has to wait for the cyclist.
>I totally agree with another poster to this thread - its bloody hairy in a
>car. I can assure you it's hairier still in a vehicle with slower
>acceleration (ie a bus or a lorry).
My bike can (and frequently does) out-accelerate a bus from a standing
start to about 20mph.
If this is the roundabout I think it is (and I'm fairly sure it is)
any speed much above 20mph circulating round it is pretty much
impractical.
>To attempt to negotiate this route on a cycle is not recommended.
By you. I used to negotiate Park Street Roundabout near St Albans on
my bike every day on the way to work. A405 (pre M25), M10 and A5. I
was hit twice: once at 8pm when the roundabout was pretty much
completely empty and some clueless cow drove straight into the side of
me while looking straight at me, and one bloke drove into the back of
me in the queue because he wasn't capable of seing a 4" square halogen
rear light mounted 3ft. above the ground. On days when the traffic
was heavy it was actually safer, because everybody was moving more
slowly and being more careful.
>At the bottom of the "straight" bit of Hartlands Road (the "old" hartlands
>road) there is a footbridge OVER the A27 giving access to A32 south (on the
>wrong side of the road......) and also "KEEP CLEAR" markings (where A27
>traffic from the rail station would be queuing in three lanes) more or less
>under the bridge.
And I wonder how car drivers would react if they were told there was
danger form buses along a certain stratech of road so they would have
to slow to walking pace, negotiate a narrow bridge, and rejoin the
carriageway just where the buses had got up to speed after the
roundabout? Much wiser just to keep with the traffic, assuming the
primary riding position and making sure you make your intentions plain
to those around you.
>The lesser of two evils, I beleive, is that pavement cycling ought to be
>encouraged where road conditions are downright dangerous, with the caveat
>that the cyclists ride responsibly, with regard for pedestrians....
No, a *much* better solution is that where road conditions are
downright dangerous they should be modified so they are no longer
downright dangerous.
Ian Henden
quite understand the motive of a cyclist, cycling, on that particular
pavement.
Ian Henden
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:p29e30d14657sr0lq...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:38:51 -0000, "Ian Henden"
> <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> <O6vZb.23$Ar...@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net>:
>
> >On the way, there are two lanes of fast traffic which cross the path of
the
> >cyclist (i.e. traffic from the rail station direction, some of which goes
> >eastward toward M27, and some going round onto A32 southbound)
>
> But the cyclist circulating on the roundabout has right of way.
>
> >In addition, there is heavy traffic coming FROM M27 direction, some of
which
> >goes left under the railway to A32 southbound, cyclist also has to cross
> >this flow.
>
> No, this flow has to wait for the cyclist.
They do. Oh yes. They do. Every time.........
(Pass the whitener for cloud 9, please)
Ian Henden
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:p29e30d14657sr0lq...@4ax.com...
Which relies on other people seeing you .... remember, VERY busy, all
drivers trying to look three ways at once, blind spots, certain roads going
on to the roundabout have very short "window" in which they can join .....
>
> >The lesser of two evils, I beleive, is that pavement cycling ought to be
> >encouraged where road conditions are downright dangerous, with the caveat
> >that the cyclists ride responsibly, with regard for pedestrians....
>
> No, a *much* better solution is that where road conditions are
> downright dangerous they should be modified so they are no longer
> downright dangerous.
I wouldn't argue with that.... so, HOW???
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<dTFZb.42$z%5....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>:
>> No, a *much* better solution is that where road conditions are
>> downright dangerous they should be modified so they are no longer
>> downright dangerous.
>I wouldn't argue with that.... so, HOW???
Ban the cars, obviously :-)
Peter B
> > Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
> >
There is a new roundabout on a by-pass near me. I use the cycle route to
try to overcome my predjudices but it reinforces them:
1. I have to cede right-of-way 3 times using the cycle route rather than
once if I used the road.
2. I nearly fell off due to ice on the untreated surface last month, all the
roads I used on that ride were treated and safe.
3. I still have to cross the dual carriageway if I use the cycle route so
the danger isn't totally eliminated.
4. If, while waiting off the road for a safe gap so I can cross, a motorist
loses control and leaves the road I may still get whacked.
--
Regards,
Pete
JNugent
>> "Ian Henden" <ian.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Sadly, lady cyclist killed under wheels of a bus on the roundabout.
>>> If *only she had used the cycle routes*.........
> There is a new roundabout on a by-pass near me. I use the cycle route
> to try to overcome my predjudices but it reinforces them:
> 1. I have to cede right-of-way 3 times using the cycle route rather
> than once if I used the road.
> 2. I nearly fell off due to ice on the untreated surface last month,
> all the roads I used on that ride were treated and safe.
> 3. I still have to cross the dual carriageway if I use the cycle
> route so the danger isn't totally eliminated.
> 4. If, while waiting off the road for a safe gap so I can cross, a
> motorist loses control and leaves the road I may still get whacked.
(4) could happen at any time (though it isn't exactly a common occurrence in
normal weather conditiopns). And a cyclist could lose control and "whack"
another road-user (or another road-user's property).
JNugent
> mar...@talk21.com says...
> > Simon Proven <simon....@ntlworld-ptang.com> wrote:
> > ".......In general, bus drivers seem far less well trained than HGV
> > drivers and are generally far less considerate as well........"
> > In general, this is a slur on a very skilled workforce. Just for
> > starters, try getting yourself a PSV licence (and yes, I do have one).
> Try looking at the bus drivers around Chester.
> The concept of a stopping at a red light seems to be totally alien to 95%
of
> them.
Snap.
London (at least, Central London) is very similar.
Tony Raven
>> 4. If, while waiting off the road for a safe gap so I can cross, a
>> motorist loses control and leaves the road I may still get whacked.
>
> (4) could happen at any time (though it isn't exactly a common occurrence in
> normal weather conditiopns). And a cyclist could lose control and "whack"
> another road-user (or another road-user's property).
>
I believe (4) is known as "unintentional accelerator syndrome"
http://tinyurl.com/ywjua
Tony
Peter B
"JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c17k6r$vn5$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> pet...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > 4. If, while waiting off the road for a safe gap so I can cross, a
> > motorist loses control and leaves the road I may still get whacked.
>
> (4) could happen at any time (though it isn't exactly a common occurrence
in
> normal weather conditiopns). And a cyclist could lose control and "whack"
> another road-user (or another road-user's property).
I'm not trying to turn this into another cyclists V motorists argument, I
drive far more, both in miles and time, than I cycle and use the same
roundabout as a motorist. In fact I've probably driven far more miles than
you but let's not get into a peeing contest.
I'm trying to get across the idea that cycle facilities are not a panacea to
dangers faced by cyclists and even if marginally safer (rare) are often far
more inconvenient.
Cyclists do lose control and "whack" others property but that wasn't under
discussion.
--
Regards,
Pete
Clive
Responding]" <not_res...@dev.null.invalid> writes
>
>I would never dream of using the 'cycle routes'. They are utterly
>useless and downright dangerous. Not to mention the fact that they add
>a hell of a distance and lots of stop-give-way.
I recently drove to London and was surprised by the suicidal nature of
cyclists who cut up car drivers and expect them to give way. Why
should car drivers give way, when cyclists don't?
--
Clive
Tony Raven
> I recently drove to London and was surprised by the suicidal nature of
> cyclists who cut up car drivers and expect them to give way. Why
> should car drivers give way, when cyclists don't?
Because they are driving a ton of potentially lethal metal? Or has summary
execution become the penalty for transgression these days?
Tony
Clive
<raymond...@HATschofields.com> writes
>> Consider a pavement cycle path, ungritted, covered with ice,
>> snow and ruts, and a gritted road which is clear of these
>> problems. Which do you think is more likely to put you
>> under a bus?
>>
Incorrectly using the road when a cycle lane is provided for you, or do
you want to tell me that I can drive a bus on a cycle lane without
fault?
--
Clive
Martin Family
<cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
You surely don't think that just because there is a cycle lane, bikes cannot
use the road? Whatever led you to that fallacy? Its like saying cars can
only drive on motorways.
If cycles are incorrectly using the road, then the presence of a cycle lane
(or what seems to pass for one) is irrelevant. Most of the half-assed
efforts I have seen in London have required the white line to be broken so
that the cycle symbol will fit. They are not even wide enough to take the
width of a bikes handlebars..
and if you still believe the fallacy that becasue lots of moneyhas been
spent on cycle paths so they must be used, get out of your car, onto a bike
and you'll rapidly discover why they aren't. Seing as the average bit of
road costs more than a bike path, by your rule of 'must use it because money
was spent on it' we should be using the road as it has more money spent on
it (and roads were initially tarmacced for the benefit of cycles, not cars.)
..d
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pet...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
<c17r8p$o5f$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>:
>Cyclists do lose control and "whack" others property but that wasn't under
>discussion.
How can you be so callous? According to the proprietor of Marshalls
he once had tp pay /out of his own pocket/ to repair the scratches
caused ot his precious penis extension by a cyclist - whreas when a
car "whacks" a cyclist the car driver's insurance will /always/ stump
up for the funeral - unless they leave the scene and fail to report
the crash, of course.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <JNu...@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> pet...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>> 4. If, while waiting off the road for a safe gap so I can cross, a
>>> motorist loses control and leaves the road I may still get whacked.
>> (4) could happen at any time (though it isn't exactly a common
>> occurrence in normal weather conditiopns). And a cyclist could lose
>> control and "whack" another road-user (or another road-user's
>> property).
> I'm not trying to turn this into another cyclists V motorists
> argument,
Neither am I.
Just pointing out facts.
> I drive far more, both in miles and time, than I cycle and
> use the same roundabout as a motorist. In fact I've probably driven
> far more miles than you but let's not get into a peeing contest.
> I'm trying to get across the idea that cycle facilities are not a
> panacea to dangers faced by cyclists and even if marginally safer
> (rare) are often far more inconvenient.
You don't need to convince me of that, I assure you.
> Cyclists do lose control and "whack" others property but that wasn't
> under discussion.
Losing control can happen to anyone, in/on any sort of vehicle. From my own
experience, I'd say it's easier to lose control on two wheels than it is on
four. I can't remember the last time I saw a driver who had fallen off his
car, lorry, van or bus. I saw a novice motor-cyclist do it today. He told me
it was his first day out on the road with L plates (he was OK, BTW).
Clive
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>The lesser of two evils, I beleive, is that pavement cycling ought to
>pedestrians....
keeping you on the right side of the law.
--
Clive
JNugent
> "Peter B" <pet...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Cyclists do lose control and "whack" others property but that wasn't
>> under discussion.
> How can you be so callous? According to the proprietor of Marshalls
> he once had tp pay /out of his own pocket/ to repair the scratches
> caused ot his precious penis extension by a cyclist - whreas when a
> car "whacks" a cyclist the car driver's insurance will /always/ stump
> up for the funeral - unless they leave the scene and fail to report
> the crash, of course.
What is "Marshalls"?
Nick Finnigan
news:81F+kSMF...@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
>
> Incorrectly using the road when a cycle lane is provided for you, or do
> you want to tell me that I can drive a bus on a cycle lane without
> fault?
Are there some cycle [only] lanes along bus routes?
Peter B
As a cyclist, ped and motorist I agree.
It pisses me off when I go on a bike ride and use the road quite happily
then a couple of hours later when using the pavement alongside the same
road as a ped some twat flies by me on a bike.
I feel like shouting "What's up, is the road broken?", but life's too short
for silly arguments ;-)
Cyclists have a right to use most roads and should defend that right but
that means respecting others rights.
--
Regards,
Pete