[censored] Cyclists!

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greetings,

as somebody who commutes 100+ miles a week to work in London on my trusty slick tyred MTB, this
may appear an unusual header. However, I have to comment on the most bizarre SMIDSY moment I've
ever encountered which happened this morning.

Halfway into my commute to work I only just managed to avoid a fellow cyclist who shot off the
pavement to my left between two parked cars,

almost

Quoted message said:

"T-boning" me, as our American cousins would say. Having swerved to my right to avoid an impact,
and even more quickly to my left to avoid a car,

I

Quoted message said:

was not best pleased.

I followed the other cyclist over a 580 metres (the joys of a Shimano Flightdeck) to the next red
light, noting that not once did they check

over

Quoted message said:

their shoulder when passing parked cars, skips, etc., and also noting

their

Quoted message said:

complete lack of lights and reflectors at 7am on a winter morning, as they rode their all black
bike, dressed from head to toe in black, right up to the woolly hat.

At the lights I pulled along side them, and in the politest terms I could muster said, "do
you want to get run over? Have you ever thought of some lights? It would be a good idea on
these roads." Can you guess the reply of the young lady of about 20 to me? "Sorry mate, I
didn't see you!"

I did a quick double take of my fluoro jacket, glowing Lumicycles,

multiple

Quoted message said:

Cateye LEDs, Ron Hill Bikester Reflects, and all the Scotchlite on my kit, pannier, and frame,
sighed deeply, and headed off.

Sometimes I can almost, but only almost, sympathise with the cagers.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

Natural selection in action....

Don't you just love nature.

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Greetings,

as somebody who commutes 100+ miles a week to work in London on my trusty slick tyred MTB, this
may appear an unusual header. However, I have to comment on the most bizarre SMIDSY moment I've
ever encountered which happened this morning.

Halfway into my commute to work I only just managed to avoid a fellow cyclist who shot off the
pavement to my left between two parked cars,

almost

Quoted message said:

"T-boning" me, as our American cousins would say. Having swerved to my right to avoid an impact,
and even more quickly to my left to avoid a car,

I

Quoted message said:

was not best pleased.

I followed the other cyclist over a 580 metres (the joys of a Shimano Flightdeck) to the next red
light, noting that not once did they check

over

Quoted message said:

their shoulder when passing parked cars, skips, etc., and also noting

their

Quoted message said:

complete lack of lights and reflectors at 7am on a winter morning, as they rode their all black
bike, dressed from head to toe in black, right up to the woolly hat.

At the lights I pulled along side them, and in the politest terms I could muster said, "do
you want to get run over? Have you ever thought of some lights? It would be a good idea on
these roads." Can you guess the reply of the young lady of about 20 to me? "Sorry mate, I
didn't see you!"

I did a quick double take of my fluoro jacket, glowing Lumicycles,

multiple

Quoted message said:

Cateye LEDs, Ron Hill Bikester Reflects, and all the Scotchlite on my kit, pannier, and frame,
sighed deeply, and headed off.

Sometimes I can almost, but only almost, sympathise with the cagers.

looks like they are out inforce today:

Newsgroups: cam.transport Subject: Bl**dy cyclists! ;-) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:37:08 Today I
suffered an interesting misfortune: I was "right hooked" by a cyclist who thought it was a good idea
to turn right from the left-hand side of Trinity Street without looking for overtaking traffic,
signalling or slowing down noticeably ...

Spencer,

I can sympathise. See the "Bl**dy cyclists!" thread on cam.transport.

I have a theory that I'd like to test: the idiots who do that sort of thing on bikes are one and the
same as the people who do it in cars. Can anyone back this up (or down)?

DJA

--
Daniel Auger

Please remove "_nospam" from address to reply.

jamie g said:

Newsgroups: cam.transport Subject: Bl**dy cyclists! ;-) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:37:08 Today I
suffered an interesting misfortune: I was "right hooked" by a cyclist who thought it was a good
idea to turn right from the left-hand side of Trinity Street without looking for overtaking
traffic, signalling or slowing down noticeably ...

Well done, you beat me to it. ;-)

You're missing part of the header:

From: Daniel Auger <[email hidden]>

Fortunately nobody was hurt and damage to my bike is probably no more than the cost of his.

--
Daniel Auger

Please remove "_nospam" from address to reply.

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Greetings, snipped I followed the other cyclist over a 580 metres (the joys of a Shimano
Flightdeck) to the next red light, noting that not once did they check over their shoulder when
passing parked cars, skips, etc., and also noting their complete lack of lights and reflectors at
7am on a winter morning, as they rode their all black bike, dressed from head to toe in black,
right up to the woolly hat.

At these moments I console myself with the thought that if you remove accidents involving these
stealth cyclists (along with cyclists who get "doored" due to incorrect road positioning) from the
accident stats urban cycling is fairly safe. With or without helmets. Iain

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Greetings,

as somebody who commutes 100+ miles a week to work in London on my trusty slick tyred MTB, this
may appear an unusual header. However, I have to comment on the most bizarre SMIDSY moment I've
ever encountered which happened this morning.

Halfway into my commute to work I only just managed to avoid a fellow cyclist who shot off the
pavement to my left between two parked cars, almost "T-boning" me, as our American cousins would
say. Having swerved to my right to avoid an impact, and even more quickly to my left to avoid a
car, I was not best pleased.

I followed the other cyclist over a 580 metres (the joys of a Shimano Flightdeck) to the next red
light, noting that not once did they check over their shoulder when passing parked cars, skips,
etc., and also noting their complete lack of lights and reflectors at 7am on a winter morning, as
they rode their all black bike, dressed from head to toe in black, right up to the woolly hat.

At the lights I pulled along side them, and in the politest terms I could muster said, "do
you want to get run over? Have you ever thought of some lights? It would be a good idea on
these roads." Can you guess the reply of the young lady of about 20 to me? "Sorry mate, I
didn't see you!"

I did a quick double take of my fluoro jacket, glowing Lumicycles, multiple Cateye LEDs, Ron Hill
Bikester Reflects, and all the Scotchlite on my kit, pannier, and frame, sighed deeply, and
headed off.

Sometimes I can almost, but only almost, sympathise with the cagers.

T.T.F.N.

SPENNY

Where would the UK organ donor program be without these 'donors'? Just think what good condition the
organs will be in with all that aerobic exercise, at the time of donation!

In message <[email hidden]>, Daniel Auger
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I have a theory that I'd like to test: the idiots who do that sort of thing on bikes are one and
the same as the people who do it in cars. Can anyone back this up (or down)?

One idiot cycling on a narrow section of pavement along Wandsworth Bridge Road this afternoon
narrowly avoided me, but his handlebars hit the arm of my friend, who was walking just behind me,
then he nearly collided with a couple wheeling their kid in a stroller. My friend told him to watch
where he was going and the couple also said something to the effect that he should be using the road
rather than the pavement.

The guy, I'd guess in his mid-20s, stopped a few yards back and

He was clearly in the wrong but obviously wasn't prepared to be challenged about it.

--
congokid Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google congokid.comcongokid.comOpen ↗

"Spencer Bullen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snipped story of irresponsible pavement cyclist>

I had a similar experience some time ago when cycling through a village one morning. I saw a paper
boy riding on the pavement and correctly assumed he may drop of the kerb onto the road without
looking, so was prepared when he did so and left space. Unfortunately I didn't assume he'd then ride
diagonally across the road without looking so when he did so sudden evasive action was neccessary
which put me a few inches to his right. As I lightly made contact to wake him up I merely said "if I
was a car you'd probably be dead now", he looked shocked but hopefully it's a lesson he'll remember.

More worrying was the adult [censored] approaching from the opposite direction on the track around Rutland
water a couple of weeks ago. At that point the track was straight, flat and quite wide so I stuck to
my LHS but he approached on the same side. Thinking that he was an adult used to using roads he'd
stick to convention and move to his LHS but he didn't, he headed straight at me and I decided that
to avoid ambiguity I wouldn't move as we could end up both moving at the last minute and collide.
His evasive action? To mount the grass on my LHS and pass that way even though we were the only two
people using the track. Frightening to think he may also drive.

--
Pete /Playtime.html"]http:[email hidden]/Playtime.html

Spencer Bullen said:

Halfway into my commute to work I only just managed to avoid a fellow cyclist who shot off the
pavement to my left between two parked cars, almost "T-boning" me, as our American cousins would
say. Having swerved to my right to avoid an impact, and even more quickly to my left to avoid a
car, I was not best pleased.

How I hate those. I've had a few close calls with pavement cyclists suddenly swerving into the road.
They never seem to look. When I was a child you almost never saw anyone over the age of about 6
riding on the pavement. I think pavement cyclists are now in the majority, at least round my way. At
night they're almost always unlit. I suppose the rationale is "I'm only on the pavement so I
obviously don't need lights". The problem is only going to get worse until the police start getting
heavy with pavement cyclists, unlit cyclists, and red light runners. If we want to be treated as
vehicles we need to behave as vehicles.

--
Dave...

In message <[email hidden]>, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

the pavement. I think pavement cyclists are now in the majority, at least round my way. At night
they're almost always unlit. I suppose the rationale is "I'm only on the pavement so I obviously
don't need lights". The problem is only going to get worse until the police start getting heavy
with pavement cyclists, unlit cyclists, and red light runners. If we want to be treated as vehicles
we need to behave as vehicles.

My Clown of the Year for 2001 was riding along a broad pavement with tall old trees at intervals
along the kerbside. A few branches hang down below the streetlights causing pools of shadow. The
unlit Clown came to the crossing of my road, dropped off the pavement to cross in front of me then
mounted the pavement on the other side -

- only to ride straight into a park bench hidden in a patch of shadow. If he'd had a front light
he'd have seen it.

Moral: pavements are cluttered with all sorts of stuff. If you've forgotten your lights it's safer
to ride in the road.
--
Sue ];(🙂

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:15:04 +0000, Sue <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Moral: pavements are cluttered with all sorts of stuff. If you've forgotten your lights it's safer
to ride in the road.

Nah - if you've forgotten your lights it's safer to walk.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

you know? said:

Sue said:

Moral: pavements are cluttered with all sorts of stuff. If you've forgotten your lights it's safer
to ride in the road.

Nah - if you've forgotten your lights it's safer to walk.

This has worried me for some time.

Suppose I'm cycling down an unlit country lane. No pavement.

I hit a pothole and my lights fly off the bike, hit the dirt and fall into many unmendable pieces. I
have no spares. I'm wearing a refelective waistcoat and have a tail reflector on my bike.

Do I:

1) Walk the 3 miles home, perfectly legally, taking about an hour?

2) Ride, illegally, but reduce my exposure to danger to about 9 minutes?

Tim

Tim Hall wrote: .

Quoted message said:

This has worried me for some time.

Suppose I'm cycling down an unlit country lane. No pavement.

I hit a pothole and my lights fly off the bike, hit the dirt and fall into many unmendable pieces.
I have no spares. I'm wearing a refelective waistcoat and have a tail reflector on my bike.

Do I:

1) Walk the 3 miles home, perfectly legally, taking about an hour?

2) Ride, illegally, but reduce my exposure to danger to about 9 minutes?

I'm trying to imagine this scenario. Thinking of country lanes near me that I might possibly be
cycling down at night.

OK. Unlit country lane. I assume that the traffic is not constant. You can hear motor vehicles
coming from some way off at night on a country lane. I'd ride until I heard something approaching.
Get off move as far off road as poss whilst alowing reflectors to still work. After vehicle has
passed remount and continue until hearing next vehicle. Repeat untill home.

I'll now admit that this is exactly what my sons and I did on a very dark lane near Athens Ohio this
summer. Although it was only about a mile and a half. (Borrowed bikes, no lights, drinks party,
stayed too late, oops)

--
Cheerful Peddling John Mallard

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This has worried me for some time. Suppose I'm cycling down an unlit country lane. No pavement. I
hit a pothole and my lights fly off the bike, hit the dirt and fall into many unmendable pieces. I
have no spares. I'm wearing a refelective waistcoat and have a tail reflector on my bike.

Quoted message said:

Do I:
1) Walk the 3 miles home, perfectly legally, taking about an hour?
2) Ride, illegally, but reduce my exposure to danger to about 9 minutes?

I really don't know because I do:

3) carry on with the two other lights at each end of the bike.

FWIW I have made up some short lengths of brake cable with ring connectors crimped on each end,
which I've screwed into the backs of those lamps which have flimsy-looking brackets, looped through
a fixed object such as the rack. The lamp on the back has P-clips looped around the rack and hoooked
over the fixing screws, so if the lamp bracket fatigues (which has happened more than once) I don't
lose the lamp.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, PK <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"John Abramson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I've frequently had similar
experiences on the Kennet and Avon Canal
. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a well-known

Quoted message said:

(except to me) rule that cyclists keep to the right when off-road.

I think that some people go into "pedestrians on the right mode" even when on a bike.

Can't say I'm familiar with that concept. The only place I can think of offhand where peds get told
which side to be on is the London Underground and there it's 'keep left' as a rule.

ttfn

Martin

--
'I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.' Steven Wright

Martin Harlow [email hidden]

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

... More worrying was the adult [censored] approaching from the opposite direction on the track around
Rutland water a couple of weeks ago. At that point the track was straight, flat and quite wide so
I stuck to my LHS but he approached on the same side. Thinking that he was an adult used to using
roads he'd stick to convention and move to his LHS but he didn't, he headed straight at me and I
decided that to avoid ambiguity I wouldn't move as we could end up both moving at the last minute
and collide. His evasive action? To mount the grass on my LHS and pass that way even though we
were the only two people using the track. Frightening to think he may also drive. ...

I've frequently had similar experiences on the Kennet and Avon Canal towpath - if a cyclist is
approaching from the opposite direction it seems about evens whether they keep left when passing, or
attempt to collide with me. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a well-known (except to me)
rule that cyclists keep to the right when off-road.

--
Cheers

John

"John Abramson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I've frequently had similar experiences
on the Kennet and Avon Canal
. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a well-known

Quoted message said:

(except to me) rule that cyclists keep to the right when off-road.

I think that some people go into "pedestrians on the right mode" even when on a bike.

pk

"Martin Harlow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, PK <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"John Abramson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I've

frequently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had similar experiences on the Kennet and Avon Canal
. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is a well-known

Quoted message said:

(except to me) rule that cyclists keep to the right when off-road.

I think that some people go into "pedestrians on the right mode" even

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on a bike.

Can't say I'm familiar with that concept. The only place I can think of offhand where peds get
told which side to be on is the London Underground and there it's 'keep left' as a rule.

Highway code:

<<If there is no pavement or footpath, walk on the right-hand side of the road so that you can see
oncoming traffic>>

pk

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<<If there is no pavement or footpath, walk on the right-hand side of the road so that you can see
oncoming traffic>>

And since only a small proportion of people ever walk on such roads, it's amazing that they seem to
follow the rule when walking on the very thing whose absence is mentioned in this rule ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗