Cycling wrong way up one way street

[Cynic]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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?

Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
*mass* of the vehicles?

The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
of its relatively low visibility.

--
Cynic

 

[Cynic]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 02:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

The difference is in the probability that the "see and avoid" action
will take place successfully.

It is more likely that a cyclist facing a car will see it than a car
driver will see a cyclist up ahead.

--
Cynic

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>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.

If it specifies emergency vehicles, it specifies emergency vehicles.
Having a POLICE badge on doesn't make it an emergency vehicle if there
is no emergency.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 15 May 2008, Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >Alan Braggins wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> If it specifies emergency vehicles, it specifies emergency vehicles.
> Having a POLICE badge on doesn't make it an emergency vehicle if there
> is no emergency.

Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
responding to an emergency. Hence the recent case of the lying copper
who was caught out by his mates - he had to find an emergency to
pretend to be responding to, it wasn't good enough that he was just
driving a police vehicle.

Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.

Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.

I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
orders would, I'd think.

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

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
> *mass* of the vehicles?
>
> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles

So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
me by?

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

 

[Palindrome]

Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>> *mass* of the vehicles?
>>
>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>
> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
> me by?
>

A driver should not have to expect to encounter some lunatic on a bike
trying to use the remaining width of a lane to scrape* by. If the lane
has a car or larger in it - the lane is occupied and the cyclist should
wait, use a different lane or get off and push the bike up the pavement.

*Often literally.

However, in the real world, drivers are forced to the edge of the lane
in order to allow determined cyclists through with as little damage as
possible. Not quite "pull off the road" - but significantly decreasing
the margin of safety between themselves and drivers coming the other way.
--
Sue

 

[_]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic wrote:


> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
> and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
> of its relatively low visibility.

Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.

There - fixed.

 

[Steve Firth]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
> > *mass* of the vehicles?
> >
> > The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>
> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
> me by?

Cyclists certainly seem to think so. Maximum stupidity points given to
the pair in heavy traffic yesterday who cycled between lanes of traffic
on a dual carriageway swerving between the moving vehicles (i.e. through
the space between the bonnet of one car and the boot of the next) as
they did so. I was ever so impressed when they chose to do that to me
and one of them caught his foot on the pedal somehow and came to a halt.
How fortunate one of us was paying attention and driving well within the
capabilities of his vehicle, so I didn't turn him into twatburger as he
deserved.

 

[Steve Firth]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

BTW, setting follow ups without mentioning the fact is plain rude.

> Indeed, but the relevant laws normally do require the vehicle to be
> responding to an emergency.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part. The actual phrase used is
about not hindering a policeman in the execution of his duty. No mention
of responding to an emergency. So police officers can ignore traffic
restrictions without necessarily responding to an emergency.

Examples include training where police officers in cars and on
motorbikes routinely exceed the speed limit and ignore other traffic
restrictions. There's no emergency.

> Hence the recent case of the lying copper who was caught out by his mates
> - he had to find an emergency to pretend to be responding to, it wasn't
> good enough that he was just driving a police vehicle.

He could have availed himself of the "training" or "familiarising myself
with the vehicle" defence. However I believe in the case that you refer
to he was in his own vehicle, not a police car.

> Unfortunately (for him) the emergency he claimed to be responding to
> hadn't actually been broadcast on the radio.
>
> Unfortunately for anyone that believes traffic law should be obeyed,
> he was then let off anyway, despite having broken the law, then lied
> about it, then systematically set out to pervert justice.
>
> I don't know whether a traffic order would also include the
> requirement, but since the laws do, there's a good chance traffic
> orders would, I'd think.

The case of PC Mark Milton shows that the courts treat police drivers
very differently from other motorists even when the police driver's
behaviour seems far outside what is regarded as acceptable. He was
(IIRC) found to be not guilty, then guilty but given an absolute
discharge and then found to be not guilty again.

So even if he had been guilty of dangerous driving he would have
received an absolute discharge.

 

[Me]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic wrote:
>
>
> > The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
> > and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
> > of its relatively low visibility.
>
> Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>
> There - fixed.
>
What, even cyclists wearing dark clothes, and a dark bike, with no
lights and no reflectors, on a rainy evening?

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, _ says...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic wrote:
>
>
> > The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
> > and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
> > of its relatively low visibility.
>
> Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>
So I should be banned because a cyclist chooses to stick themselves in
the well publicised blindspot of my lorry?


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Palindrome wrote:
>Ian Smith wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>>> *mass* of the vehicles?
>>>
>>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>>
>> So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
>> teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
>> me by?
>
>A driver should not have to expect to encounter some lunatic on a bike
>trying to use the remaining width of a lane to scrape* by. If the lane
>has a car or larger in it - the lane is occupied and the cyclist should
>wait, use a different lane or get off and push the bike up the pavement.

i.e. you want cyclist to have to wait for slower cars, but for them
to get out of the way of faster cars.

*plonk*

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington 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.

Used to have?

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

Exactly.

 

[JNugent]

Cynic wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
his position but cannot reference it.

> 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.

OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

 

[Cynic]

On 15 May 2008 12:46:25 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Whatever makes you believe that the differentiating factor is the
>> *mass* of the vehicles?

>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles

>So, on my commute for the majority of which I am cycling faster than
>teh cars, do you think that teh cars should pull off teh road and let
>me by?

Yes of course, if it is practical for them to do so - usually there is
space for a cyclist to get past without the car pulling *right* off
the road. If I am stuck in slow moving traffic I will almost always
position so as to allow motorcyclists and bicycles to get past me
safely. I see no justifyable reason to unnecessarily impede the
progress of any other road user.

Of course, there is the danger that a car driver you are overtaking on
your bicycle will not see you approaching from behind, and may turn
off left or right into a side street or to perform a U turn or open a
door etc. IIUC quite a few accidents of that sort occur.

If the cyclist was passing the row of cars from the opposite
direction, there is a far greater probability that the car driver will
see the cyclist approaching and not turn in front of him. The cyclist
can also better see the drivers for warning signs.

--
Cynic

 

[Cynic]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:12:54 GMT, _
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>> and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
>> of its relatively low visibility.
>
>Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>
>There - fixed.

You must be a New Labour supporter who thinks that simply making up a
new rule will immediately stop the thing happening.

--
Cynic

 

[Mark]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:31:57 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, _ says...
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The differentiating factors are (1) the relative speed of the vehicles
>> > and (2) the probability that a driver will not see the vehicle because
>> > of its relatively low visibility.
>>
>> Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>>
>So I should be banned because a cyclist chooses to stick themselves in
>the well publicised blindspot of my lorry?

Fix your lorry so there is no blindspot.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Cynic]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:51:50 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

>Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
>the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
>his position but cannot reference it.

Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
from the past. I do so IRL all the time. You'll hear many people
discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
find documentary proof of what they say.

Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
their life some years before you were born?

>> 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.

>OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
>at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything.

--
Cynic

 

[JNugent]

Cynic wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:51:50 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> 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.

>> Yes, but discussion and argument cannot be satisfactorily conducted on
>> the basis that one party can remember a case which completely vnbdicates
>> his position but cannot reference it.

> Of couse you can discuss matters by reference to things you recall
> from the past. I do so IRL all the time. You'll hear many people
> discussing all sorts of things without disappearing every 5 minutes to
> find documentary proof of what they say.

You're not following this. There are loads of things I can remember from
when I was a child. Where they were sufficiently general experiences,
there'll usually be some way of getting a reference to them on the web.

> Are you similarly incredulous when your parents describe an aspect of
> their life some years before you were born?

Only when they tried to tell me something ridiculous (such as the days -
and places - when cyclists were forced by law to cycle on the wrong
side of the road).

>>> 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.

>> OK then... name one of the other several countries where it is the rule
>> at present or in the past. Try to find a referemnce to it.

> If you choose to disbelieve what I have said or believe that my memory
> is faulty, that is your perogative and I do not regard the issue
> important enough to spend time attempting to prove anything

....is the best answer to give, in the circumstances.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:15:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> BTW, setting follow ups without mentioning the fact is plain rude.

Quite possibly.

However, since the very first line of my posting was "["Followup-To:"
header set to uk.rec.cycling.]", I wonder why you chose to make that
observation.

You did read the message you're replying to, didn't you?

> However I believe in the case that you refer to he was in his own
> vehicle, not a police car.

Really? His own vehicle is a tactical aid group range rover with blue
lights and police radio?

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