Cycling wrong way up one way street

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:43 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
>
> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.

Name those laws then. Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
although that may be a difficult task for some laws.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Steve Firth]

Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:43 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
> >>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
> >
> > You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> > cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> > Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> Name those laws then.

They would be Newton's laws.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:40:43 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
> >>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.
> >
> > You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
> > cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> > Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> Name those laws then. Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
> although that may be a difficult task for some laws.

I assume that:
1: he is being an ****
2: he is referring to the 'laws of physics'

You could possibly argue that pedestrians should get out of the way of
trucks if you were an absolute anarchist, but he clearly isn't - he's
not proposing absolute 'might is right' on the roads - he wants
motorised traffic to remain on a predictable side of the road, and
does not seem to suggest that HGVs should be permitted to shunt cars
out of their way.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:50:15 -0500, Andy Leighton
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>In this country there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists
>>>should "get out of the way" of other traffic.

>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.

>Name those laws then.

Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
collisions between objects constructed of different strength
materials.

> Also Parliament has the power to change any law -
>although that may be a difficult task for some laws.

I was unaware that they had such power. Revoking the law of gravity
could give us an advantage in space research.

--
Cynic

 

[Clive George]

"Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
> where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
> side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
> alternating directions.

You do know that where that rule is in place, there are more crashes, don't
you? Ie it's less safe than our current rules.

clive

 

[Cynic]

On 14 May 2008 19:30:30 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>You could possibly argue that pedestrians should get out of the way of
>trucks if you were an absolute anarchist

I'll *definitely* get out of the way of anything that could kill me.
You can insist on your right-of-way if you like.

--
Cynic

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 20:45:19 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> My experience in the opposite-direction rules has only been on roads
>> where the lane is wide enough to accomodate a bicycle and a car
>> side-by-side, so yes, there were in effect 4 lanes, each in
>> alternating directions.
>
>You do know that where that rule is in place, there are more crashes, don't
>you? Ie it's less safe than our current rules.

No, I was unaware of that. Is the difference due to that rule or
possibly other factors that are different in the countries in question
(e.g. a higher volume of bicycle traffic in general)?

Do you have a cite?

--
Cynic

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Paul Boatang, as Home Office minister said,
> "'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
> cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear
> of
> the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users
> when
> doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for
> enforcement,
> acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
> people, are afraid to cycle in the road... "

This surely must be one of the most memorably silly statements any
government minister, of any party, has ever made. It shows that the
man is not fit to be in parliament, let alone government.

Once a law is passed, IT'S THE LAW. It's the law for all. If the
caveats that Boetang says have to be made actually do have to be
made, then that tells us we have a bad law. There is no way, by
looking at random people on the street, to see whether anyone is
"responsible". Therefore any enforcement is guaranteed to be
arbitrary and capricious. That automatically ought to get you off,
if stopped, on civil rights grounds, and perhaps let you sue the
police as well.

Who knows what the various chiefs of police will actually do, let
alone the various policemen out in the street on their own. The
government does show occasional signs of megalomaniac
authoritarianism, but I doubt if even they will lower Boetangs
responsibilities to have him overseeing the police's law enforcement
efforts against pavement cyclists throughout the length and breadth
of Britain. Boetang's aims are irrelevant to what will actually
happen.

This reminds me of a quote I've seen about Wernher von Braun, the
rocket scientist. "He aimed for the stars, but sometimes hit London"

Jeremy Parker

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>>TimB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>>>cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
>>>travelling at a very leisurely pace
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> Quite possible to have an exemption for emergency vehicles.

Yes, I know. Any traffic order with such an exemption is unlikely to
specify that the emergency vehicles has to be rushing to an incident.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Cynic wrote:
>
> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the way.

In this country cyclists and pedestrians don't, and in many instances
can't, get out of the way of motorised traffic. But they could at least
stop some distance away from the vehicles which have had to stop.

 

[JNugent]

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:19 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.
>
>> Citation, please?
>
>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?
>
> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
> journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
> years ago?

If you say it was the law - yes.

Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.

 

[Lord Turkey Cough]

No charge.
He was probably in hot pursuit.


"TimB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
> way system, on the pavement. It may or may not have said "Community
> Support Officer" in smaller writing underneath.
>
> Unfortunately, I was too far behind the officers to challenge them
> about their behaviour. I managed to get a few photos on my phone, but
> they're very poor quality and wouldn't allow for identification. What
> would be the best route to take to report these officers? As a
> cyclist, I despise inconsiderate cycling at the best of times, but
> from people who are a) supposed to be enforcing the law, and b) whose
> inconsiderate cycling is much more noticable because of their
> position, it's unacceptable.
>
> If this was a normal cyclist, what would be the expected penalty if
> caught doing this?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Cynic wrote:

>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>> way.
>
>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>
> So I see.
>
> It takes all sorts.
>
> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.

Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
of other road users.

It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
there.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 20:50:44 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 May 2008 19:30:30 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You could possibly argue that pedestrians should get out of the way of
>>trucks if you were an absolute anarchist
>
> I'll *definitely* get out of the way of anything that could kill me.
> You can insist on your right-of-way if you like.

Are you seriously suggesting that might is right?
Will you get out of the way of artics and other massive vehicles then?
After all if they didn't follow the rules of the road and just drove
straight through you and your car you would most likely be killed. How
is that supposed to work - do you pull over onto the hard shoulder or
grass verge?

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Jon]

On 14 May, 19:40, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
>
> You are gravely mistaken.  There are definitely laws that dictate that
> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>
> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
> cyclist

Read those two points again.

Jon

.

 

[Jon]

On 14 May, 20:44, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 13:50:15 -0500, Andy Leighton
>  There are definitely laws that dictate that
> >> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
> >> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
> >Name those laws then.
>
> Various laws relating to momentum, kinetic energy and inelastic
> collisions between objects constructed of different strength
> materials.
>
Given that the differential between the mass of an HGV and of a car is
greater than that between that of a cycle + rider and of a car, are
you also proposing that cars and HGV's should be on opposite sides of
the road?

Jon

 

[Adrian]

Jon <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> You are gravely mistaken.  There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>>
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist

> Read those two points again.

They don't contradict each other, unless you're forgetting about the
sentence at the end of the first paragraph.

 

[Palindrome]

Jon wrote:
> On 14 May, 19:40, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
>>
>> You are gravely mistaken. There are definitely laws that dictate that
>> cyclists and pedestrians should get out of the way of cars and trucks.
>> Laws that Parliament is powerless to change.
>>
>> The duty is on the overtaking cyclist to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
>> Which is the same situation as a car driver has to avoid hitting a
>> cyclist
>
> Read those two points again.
>
OK, I've read them again. They still make perfect sense.

In the general case, drivers do try very hard to avoid hitting anything,
including pedestrians and cyclists. As do cyclists. For all sorts of
reasons, including that there could be legal and financial implications.

However, in a situation where a collision appears inevitable,
pedestrians do have the unique ability to almost instantaneously
accelerate orthogonally to the collision vector. They are not usually
legally required to do so - the law of self-preservation may not be on
the statute book, but applies never the less. Cyclists, too, can execute
manoeuvres not available to other wheeled vehicles which can remove
them from the collision vector, usually involving "falling off". Again,
the law of self-preservation applies, even if the other participant is
the one legally in the wrong.

The idea of cyclists travelling against the traffic flow would certainly
reduce cyclist accident rates. After a short blip removing almost all of
them from the roads, the rate would fall to an all-time low..

--
Sue













As a pedestrian I can achieve something that few road vehicles can
manage - an almost instantaneous acceleration orthogonal to my current
direction of motion.

 

[IanAl]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:31:07 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected],
>JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Cynic wrote:
>
>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>> way.
>>
>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>>
>> So I see.
>>
>> It takes all sorts.
>>
>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>
>Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians taught to
>ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing so, to the alarm
>of other road users.
>
>It is an idead so far beyond Barking that the District Line doesn't even go
>there.

It's recommended for pedestrians in the Highway Code.

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:07 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago.

>>> Citation, please?

>>> And do you mean the rule, or some sort of guidance?

>> My memory of how we were instructed to cycle and how every other
>> cyclist behaved - though there were dedicated cycle paths for most
>> journies. I'm afraid that I was not collecting documents pertaining
>> to the Road Trafic Act or other legal instruments in junior school.
>> Do you really expect me to have any documentary proof from over 40
>> years ago?

>If you say it was the law - yes.

>Well, not have themn, but at least be able to point to a source.

Sorry that at the age of 12 I didn't foresee a newsgroup discussion
taking place over 40 years later in which I would be tasked with
proving something that was common knowlege at that time.

I do not know whether it was part of the national law, or simply a
local rule. At 12 there was not a big distinction between the two.

--
Cynic