Cyclists win police court battle!

[Mark Thompson]

>>Actually, cyclists have more right to use public roads.

> Utter ****.

Motorists use it under licence, cyclists use it by automatic "right".

We could go down the VED route, but people who cycle are more likely to own
a car than the average person so that's out. All that's left is 3rd party
insurance, but that comes for pennies with most peoples' house insurance.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:49:36 +0100, Conor <[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.

And what's the motorists' excuse for their vastly more frequent
infringments of road laws and parking regulations?

 

[wafflycat]

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

Tsk ;-)

When we are using the highways as a motorist, we don't have a *right* to be
using the road as a motorist; we have a *licence* to be a motorist. On the
other hand, pedestrias, cyclists and horseriders do have a right to use the
roads... Far too many of we motorists assume we have a right, when we don't
have any such thing.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Al C-F]

Conor wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
Perhaps you'd care to explain that assertion. Please feel free to use
diagrams from the Highway Code if you think they'll help you.

 

[Al C-F]

Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Why would I do that? It would delay my journey.
>
> It may save your life.

I doubt it. But I'd like to hear why you think this should be so.

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat <?@?.com.invalid>
writes
>. On the other hand, pedestrias, cyclists and horseriders do have a
>right to use the roads..
If you really believe that, I challenge you to try it when you're drunk.
I doubt you'll get beyond the local nick.
--
Clive

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul
Weaver <[email protected]> writes
>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.
>
Absolute rubbish from start to finish.
--
Clive

 

[John B]

Paul Weaver wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.

We musn't forget that Ian has a cycle route named after him.

This is the one he would like all cyclists to use in Southampton instead of the
perfectly suitable adjacent road.

http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/avenuecyclelane.html

John B

 

[Adam Lea]

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

Some cyclists are unfit to be on the road, just like some motorists are
unfit to be on the road.

 

[Gizmo]

"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> 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.

On the up side ... at least next time you get forced into the kerb while
riding 2 abreast with one of your mates, you'll know why.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> As we are not in the cities you quote, it's just meaningless rubbish.

There was this one below, and the link I provided had more, and it's not an
exhaustive list - there are more studies just a google search away. Rather
than dismiss something that is at odds with your world view, perhaps read
'em and learn why cycle paths and lanes are not necessarily safer for
cyclists - they don't have to add to the danger.

>Morgan. TRL/Institute of Civil Engineers, UK, 1995.
>
>Only 3% of injury accidents on cycle tracks and off-road are recorded.
>Cycle facilities not improving use or safety. What we are doing now is
>either insufficient or just plainly wrong.

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]>
writes
>We musn't forget that Ian has a cycle route named after him.
>
>This is the one he would like all cyclists to use in Southampton
>instead of the perfectly suitable adjacent road.
>
>http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/avenuecyclelane.html
So if he wants to use a road designed for motorised vehicles, instead of
a dedicated cycle way, he has only himself to blame if he comes to grief
under one of them.
--
Clive

 

[ian henden]

"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Paul Weaver wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> We musn't forget that Ian has a cycle route named after him.
>
> This is the one he would like all cyclists to use in Southampton instead
> of the
> perfectly suitable adjacent road.
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/avenuecyclelane.html
>
> John B
Indeed!!
Mind you, the photos have *maybe* been engineered a bit!

Anyone notice the badly parked pushbike encroaching on the cycle track at
http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/Resources/ianspath3.jpeg ?

)

Regards
IanH

 

[Simon Bennett]

John B wrote:

> This is the one he would like all cyclists to use in Southampton
> instead of the perfectly suitable adjacent road.
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/avenuecyclelane.html


I know that path. Certainly very pleasant for an evening stroll up the
Avenue (as illustrated), shame to spoil it by putting cyclists into the mix.
The on-road cycle/bus lane is much more suited to cyclists' needs --
especially if you're turning right down to Portswood.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:04:54 +0100, Clive <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat <?@?.com.invalid>
> writes
>>. On the other hand, pedestrias, cyclists and horseriders do have a
>>right to use the roads..

> If you really believe that, I challenge you to try it when you're drunk.
> I doubt you'll get beyond the local nick.

How do you define drunk?

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

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:06:41 +0100, Clive <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]>
> writes
>>We musn't forget that Ian has a cycle route named after him.
>>
>>This is the one he would like all cyclists to use in Southampton
>>instead of the perfectly suitable adjacent road.
>>
>>http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/avenuecyclelane.html
>
> So if he wants to use a road designed for motorised vehicles,

Was the road designed specifically for motorised vehicles or for mixed
vehicle use?

I've even heard rumours that there are roads that were designed and
built before motorised vehicles existed. I don't say such stupid things
as motorised vehicles shouldn't use them. Nearly all roads in this
country are designed for mixed vehicle use.

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

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
> >
>
> Some cyclists are unfit to be on the road, just like some motorists are
> unfit to be on the road.

But there are many more lawbreaking motorists than cyclists and drivers
pose a much greater risk to other road users anyway.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Carbon trading is a bit like paying
to release sewage onto the streets.

 

[Al C-F]

Gizmo wrote:
> "Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.
>
>
> On the up side ... at least next time you get forced into the kerb while
> riding 2 abreast with one of your mates, you'll know why.
>
>

You'd better make sure your exit is clear.

 

[Yorkie]

ian henden wrote:
> Imagine a road twenty feet wide.
> The powersthatbe decide that at a particular point there will be "traffic
> calming".
> They build a little island, about two feet wide, with a path for cycles
> about three feet wide between the new little island and the original kerb.
>
> The road for traffic is now only fifteen feet wide, instead of twenty feet,
> and the lycra brigade have their own dedicated through route.
>
> Not too difficult?

I will choose the route I use, depending on which I feel is safest and
most suitable for me at the time. You won't tell me which route to use,
I will choose.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Clive wrote:
> So if he wants to use a road designed for motorised vehicles

A motorway? I do remember a case a few yars ago of a couple of cyclists
on the hard shoulder of the M61. Very rare.