Cyclists win police court battle!



In message
<20060628090731.0ee8c982.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.c
om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
>I would position myself in the primary position to prevent someone
>overtaking at a pinch point, because I don't think that overtaking at
>that point is safe.

Why don't you dismount and walk that section?
--
Clive
 
In message <[email protected]>, Fod
<[email protected]> writes
>the primary position you take is on your side of the road, you're not
>preventing them from overtaking as for a car to overtake a bike it
>should be crossing to the other side of the road anyways
>
>highway code "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as
>much room as you would a car when overtaking "
>
>and in the circumstances you mentioned above it wouldn't be safe for
>the car to use that side of the road. If it could then it could still
>overtake you.
>
>In the primary position you are not preventing them from overtaking as
>they can still overtake you using the other side of the road when its
>safe for them to do so.

Here was me thinking that the first rule of the road was KEEP LEFT.
--
Clive
 
Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Fod
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> If your a cycle driving one or two abreast in a steady and
>> straightforward manner then you won't be in anyoneways when when they
>> overtake

>
> What utter tripe. Two abreast is as wide a a normal car and much
> slower, when in congested areas they should only be one abreast or they
> are causing more congestion. No wonder motorists are angry with
> cyclists, I feel exactly the same as tractors that don't pull over into
> available parks whilst all the held up motorist get by.


If there's enough space to overtake one cyclist, there's enough to
overtake two abreast.

Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.
 
Clive wrote:
> In message
> <20060628090252.26e30dca.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.c
> om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
>
>> But there's seldom any glass or other debris in the constriction,
>> because the cars and 'buses sweep the road clear. The adjacent cycle
>> path is not swept in the same manner.

>
> So you're selfishly expecting others to remove the debris for you to
> ride in comfort. How much do you give to motoring organisations for
> the replacement of tyres on motor vehicles damaged by such debris?


No, it's a natural effect of motor traffic using roads.

And, please tell me which organisations repalce damaged tyres. I'd like
to join.
 
Clive wrote:
> In message
> <20060628090731.0ee8c982.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.c
> om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
>
>> I would position myself in the primary position to prevent someone
>> overtaking at a pinch point, because I don't think that overtaking at
>> that point is safe.

>
> Why don't you dismount and walk that section?


Why would I do that? It would delay my journey.
 
Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> iiiiDougiiii <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Cyclists have all most as much right to use public roads as motorists,
>> except wher they are denied access to some A roads and Hitlerian style
>> motorways, where they are plainly discriminated against.
>>
>> --
>> UK Radical Campaigns

>
> You're like a bad penny.


What, even when he's (nearly) right?

Actually, cyclists have more right to use public roads.
 
Clive wrote:

> Here was me thinking that the first rule of the road was KEEP LEFT.


No, the first rule of the road is drive/ride safely.

And as no sane, safe, motorist would attempt to overtake at a pinch
point it makes absolutely no difference where the cyclist is riding.

OTOH, the 80% or so of motorists who do attempt to overtake at or
dangerously close to a pinch point (TRL) have their murderous
intentions thwarted.

Tim.
 
Clive wrote:

>
> Here was me thinking that the first rule of the road was KEEP LEFT.


Shows how little you know then, doesn't it.
 
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:36:57 +0100, Clive <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In message
><20060628090731.0ee8c982.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.c
>om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
>>I would position myself in the primary position to prevent someone
>>overtaking at a pinch point, because I don't think that overtaking at
>>that point is safe.


>Why don't you dismount and walk that section?


Because I'd have to dismount and walk every time I pass a parked car
on the left.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F
<[email protected]> writes
>Clive wrote:
>> In message
>><20060628090252.26e30dca.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail>>.c
>> om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
>>
>>> But there's seldom any glass or other debris in the constriction,
>>>because the cars and 'buses sweep the road clear. The adjacent cycle
>>>path is not swept in the same manner.

>> So you're selfishly expecting others to remove the debris for you to
>>ride in comfort. How much do you give to motoring organisations for
>>the replacement of tyres on motor vehicles damaged by such debris?

>
>No, it's a natural effect of motor traffic using roads.
>
>And, please tell me which organisations repalce damaged tyres. I'd
>like to join.

Those outlets that motorist pay to by new tyres at.
--
Clive
 
In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F
<[email protected]> writes
>Clive wrote:
>
>> Here was me thinking that the first rule of the road was KEEP LEFT.

>
>Shows how little you know then, doesn't it.

You're entitled to your opinions.
--
Clive
 
In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F
<[email protected]> writes
>If there's enough space to overtake one cyclist, there's enough to
>overtake two abreast.
>
>Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
>cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.

I could make absurd assumptions, but I try not to.
--
Clive
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On 27 Jun 2006 21:51:02 -0700, "iiiiDougiiii" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Cyclists have all most as much right to use public roads as
> >motorists

>
> Cyclists have more right to use most roads.
>
> A motorist's need to earn their *right* to use the road by
> demonstrating basic motoring competence, and their *right* can be
> taken away for extreme or serial law breaking. A cyclist's right
> doesn't need to be earned and cannot usually be taken away.
>

Thankyou for demonstrating that cyclists are unfit to be on the road. I
guess such lack of basic instruction explains why so many cyclists go
through red lights and ride on the pavement.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...

> If there's enough space to overtake one cyclist, there's enough to
> overtake two abreast.
>

WRONG.

> Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
> cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.
>

Yes there is. Perhaps if you'd ever had any lessons in how to use the
roads you ride on, you'd know.



--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
ian henden wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I tend to cycle in the primary position when approching road
> > narrowings or width restrictions to prevent overtaking. If that goes
> > against the highway code, then that section of the highway code is an
> > ass.

>
> No problem with that. UNLESS there happens to be an adjacent cycle track
> which would take the slower cyclist out of the constriction.


There's a shared use cycle/footpath going for about 3 miles along a
30mph road near where I live. The road is straight, with right of way
everywhere. The cycle track (which you can't expect to go at full speed
on, apparently) has multiple turnings and give ways at every junction
(about 10 of them in total)

That means slowing, stopping, waiting, every few hundered yards.

Of course the correct thing for a cyclist to do is ride along the road
as they have every right too, but people like you expect them to be on
the cycle paths. Many cycle paths, through parks etc, end in a
"cyclists dismount" order, to cross the pavement. I don't see drivers
of park vehicles getting out of their vehicles and pushing them across
the pavement to access the road. I don't see why cyclists have to do
anything other than stop, then proceed when safe, and the way is clear,
same as when you go in/out of your driveway in your car.

Unreasonable "Cyclists Dismount" signs are the one law that I regularly
break cycling (after ensuring its safe for all involved of course).
Well, that and occasionally have the front half of my wheel over the
stop line depending how far the taxi behind has encroached on the cycle
advanced stop line.

In many caes you can make better progress on the road than on an
equivelent cycle path.

Personally I often go into the outside lane on a 2 lane road to
overtake slow moving buses, lorries etc. I ride assertively so nobody
attempts an illegal, dangerous, double-overtake, and obviously move
back into the inside lane when there is no longer slower moving traffic
obstructing me. Only time I safely and legally filter through the
inside or between vehicles (depending on junction layout) is when
1) Vehicle on right is not turning left
2) Vehicle on left is not turning right
3) Vehicles on both sides have stopped and aren't going to pull off
while I'm between them (red light, stopped vehicles in front, etc)
4) There is enough room to comfortably pass between the vehicles
without risking impact.
 
> Thankyou for demonstrating that cyclists are unfit to be on the road. I
> guess such lack of basic instruction explains why so many cyclists go
> through red lights and ride on the pavement.


With most schools not providing training, most/many/some are unfit to be on
the road. We need better training for school kids. Hopefully we'll see an
improvement when they get behind the wheel of a car too.