The Times

Martin Dann said:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features//article1746923.ece

John Franklin:
“In fact the proposed changes to the Highway Code will make the
situation worse. One of the golden rules of cycling is never to go up
the inside of lorries. The new code effectively tells you to do this. It
is another instance where cycle lanes actually introduce hazards of the
road.”

.....

“As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who
has any experience of cycling,” he says. “Until there is a proper
discussion about what works and what doesn’t, the problem of cyclists
dying on the roads will only get worse.”

Martin Dann said:

John Franklin:
“As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who
has any experience of cycling,” he says.

unbelievable - surly JF must be wrong (please!)? The HC wouldn't really
disseminate cycling advice provided by non-cyclists, would it? What's
the point of that?

Tony B

I know it probably won't do any good, but is there a petition to oppose the
changes somewhere?

Jc

Josey' jc@nospam said:

I know it probably won't do any good, but is there a petition to oppose the
changes somewhere?

Here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

But you're right; it won't do much good.

Better to send an email:

http://www.writetothem.com/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Better still, send a letter via the Royal Mail.

Best of all, send a campaign contribution(!)

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony B

(') said:

Martin Dann said:

John Franklin:
“As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who
has any experience of cycling,” he says.

unbelievable - surly JF must be wrong (please!)? The HC wouldn't really
disseminate cycling advice provided by non-cyclists, would it? What's
the point of that?

Keeping cyclist scum out of the way of People Who Really Matter?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

Marc Brett said:

Josey' jc@nospam said:

I know it probably won't do any good, but is there a petition to oppose the
changes somewhere?

Here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

I heard on the grapevine that John Franklin's name is on the petition!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/roads4bikes/

I heard on the grapevine that John Franklin's name is on the petition!

Grapevine? Pah! I *read* on the petition that he's there :-)

(number 2231 if you wanna look it up)

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

Quoted message said:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features//article1746923.ece
Danger lane: are new rules making cycling riskier?

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article1746929.ece
Jumping red lights is plain sensible

The jumping red lights article mentions looking for stuff comming from the
right..... Works fine if the traffic with the green light is T right on your
Right. But a bit flawed if the green light is a T Left on your left
(Though if it was an option between t-boning a double decker and being
t-boned by one.....)

Niall

in message <[email hidden]>, Josey

('jc@nospam') said:

I know it probably won't do any good, but is there a petition to oppose
the changes somewhere?

There is, yes, on the number ten website - I can't recall the URL just now,
but if someone doesn't come up with it in an hour or two I'll have a look
later.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

Simon Brooke wrote on 06/05/2007 14:00 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There is, yes, on the number ten website - I can't recall the URL just now,
but if someone doesn't come up with it in an hour or two I'll have a look
later.

Will minus four and a quarter hours or two do?
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 06 May 2007 06:55:28 +0100,

Tony B said:

Martin Dann said:

John Franklin:
“As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who
has any experience of cycling,” he says.

unbelievable - surly JF must be wrong (please!)? The HC wouldn't really
disseminate cycling advice provided by non-cyclists, would it? What's
the point of that?

I loved this post from (I think) Ian Smith:

Quoted message said:

Actually, it's not just for for blind people - the paving is to
encourage cyclists to ride on the cyclist side. Apparently, you see,
the cyclists will prefer to ride on the ones laid like tramlines.
That's because cyclists just love riding along tramlines. The
official guidance actually describes it as aligned like tram lines,
and states that cyclists will naturally favour riding on these things
like tram lines.
So, that'll be, the cyclist will naturally tend to ride on the side
that's most likely to throw him (or her) off their bike. Of course!
Here we go: direct quote from DfT document "guidance on the use of
tactile paving":
"On the cyclist side, the surface should be laid with the bars running
in the direction of travel (Figure 29 ). This arrangement was chosen
because it was felt the rumble effect created by the transverse
pattern would deter cyclists from entering on the pedestrian side."
Figure 28 actually shows the orientation better than figure 29.
Figure 28 describes the cyclist side as "tramline pattern on the cycle
track"
So there you go - you'll be deterred from entering the side which is
safe to ride on. Pillocks.
And who thought "it was felt" was a good enough basis for writing
policy? The author ambled down to the coffee machine and asked some
other equally ignorant workmates what they 'felt' might be a spiffing
wheeze?
They're worse than pillocks.
Imbeciles. Cretinous ones at that.
It's the most explicit proof that no-one that writes cycle facility
guidance actually rides on any cycle facility.

What has google done to their groups interface. konqueror now has a box about 8
lines high to read the text (been like this for a few weeks) and lynx gives

Google
Error

Bad Request

Your client has issued a malformed or illegal request.

on:
lynx http://groups.google.co.uk/

Which is why its an "I think" to Ian Smith writing this.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

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

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features//article1746923.ece

John Franklin:
“In fact the proposed changes to the Highway Code will make the situation
worse. One of the golden rules of cycling is never to go up the inside of
lorries. The new code effectively tells you to do this. It is another
instance where cycle lanes actually introduce hazards of the road.”

....

“As far as I know there is no one at the DfT’s road safety section who has
any experience of cycling,” he says. “Until there is a proper discussion
about what works and what doesn’t, the problem of cyclists dying on the
roads will only get worse.”

List,

Apologies for my biased politics, but this is from the past few years direct
observations;-

This and possibly previous governments are utterly [censored] scared of motorists/
lobbyists. Future governments will probably be just as craven.
Some examples are the quick cave in on "fuel prices" and their genuine
fright of giving us some legal protection
similar to that in Holland and Germany.

Every day I see chronically badly designed road features that physically
endanger us. Quite honestly I'm fed up of attending local authority forums
whose opinions and conclusions are ignored. Forget about central or
local authorities - try to look after yourself - no-one else will.

John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

John Clayton said:

Some examples are the quick cave in on "fuel prices" and their genuine
fright of giving us some legal protection
similar to that in Holland and Germany.

Whoa. Stop right there. What legal protection do you think we have in
Holland?

'Cos I can't find any reference to it. Well, only to the effect that we
don't have any legal protection.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:16:48 GMT

John Clayton said:

This and possibly previous governments are utterly [censored] scared of
motorists/ lobbyists. Future governments will probably be just as
craven.

Don't assume that's permanent. A problem reaches crippling proportions,
and someone will eventually tackle it, and get popular support *despite*
high-profile thugs and the meeja opposing them.

It happened in 1979, when trade union power and behaviour had gone
so far OTT as to be crippling the economy.

And Red Ken in London has somewhat successfully taken on the motoring
lobby, despite having his hands tied behind his back by central
government. Unfortunately that does nothing for us out in the sticks.

And press support for cyclists seems to be improving somewhat.
I'd say the "many bike lanes are worse than useless" point is
becoming mainstream.

--
not me guv

On Sun, 06 May 2007 16:50:40 -0500, mb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Clayton said:

Some examples are the quick cave in on "fuel prices" and their genuine
fright of giving us some legal protection similar to that in Holland and Germany.

Whoa. Stop right there. What legal protection do you think we have in
Holland?

'Cos I can't find any reference to it. Well, only to the effect that we
don't have any legal protection.

This sort of thing?

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=256

"the legal position in the UK is that the person suing has to prove the
facts, (contrary to the position in many EU countries where the bigger
vehicle is presumed responsible or where motorised vehicles are strictly
liable for personal injuries to non-motorised road users)"

Not much noise about the EU Proposal since 2002. I presume it died in
Brussels or Strasburg or wherever, but can find no confirmation one way
or another.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:27:31 +0100

Marc Brett said:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=256

"the legal position in the UK is that the person suing has to prove
the facts, (contrary to the position in many EU countries where the
bigger vehicle is presumed responsible or where motorised vehicles
are strictly liable for personal injuries to non-motorised road
users)"

UK: Everyone is presumed equally responsible, and liability only
exists where guilt can be proved in a criminal court.

Alternative: A person in charge of a lethal weapon has a duty of
care and, in the absence of evidence one way or the other,
has (civil) liability for damage done in an accident.

The UK press twists that from liability (makes sense) into guilt
(obviously stupid and hence so like the EU).

--
not me guv

Nick Kew said:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:27:31 +0100

Marc Brett said:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=256

"the legal position in the UK is that the person suing has to prove
the facts, (contrary to the position in many EU countries where the
bigger vehicle is presumed responsible or where motorised vehicles
are strictly liable for personal injuries to non-motorised road
users)"

UK: Everyone is presumed equally responsible, and liability only
exists where guilt can be proved in a criminal court.

Wrong. The UK, as do many other nations around the world, uses the
civil "fault liability" system, regardless of criminal liability.
Liability is based on blame.

Quoted message said:

Alternative: A person in charge of a lethal weapon has a duty of
care and, in the absence of evidence one way or the other,
has (civil) liability for damage done in an accident.

Some European countries have a civil "risk liability" system for road
collisions involving motor vehicles and pedestrians or cyclists. With
this system the motorist is assumed to be liable for a certain
percentage, which varies by country, but is 50% in the Netherlands if
the vulnerable party is an adult, 100% if a child, and the remainder is
determined by fault.

In all European countries criminal liability is based purely on fault,
as in the UK.

--
Matt B

Nick Kew wrote on 07/05/2007 11:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

UK: Everyone is presumed equally responsible, and liability only
exists where guilt can be proved in a criminal court.

Not so. Failure to follow the Highway Code in the UK is presumed in law
to create liability (Road Traffic Act 1988) which is what all the fuss
is about because it would automatically make cyclist liable for riding
on the road when there is a pyschlepath available.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:27:31 +0100

Marc Brett said:

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=256

"the legal position in the UK is that the person suing has to prove
the facts, (contrary to the position in many EU countries where the
bigger vehicle is presumed responsible or where motorised vehicles
are strictly liable for personal injuries to non-motorised road
users)"

UK: Everyone is presumed equally responsible, and liability only
exists where guilt can be proved in a criminal court.

Alternative: A person in charge of a lethal weapon has a duty of
care and, in the absence of evidence one way or the other,
has (civil) liability for damage done in an accident.

The UK press twists that from liability (makes sense) into guilt
(obviously stupid and hence so like the EU).

OK I will have to show my ignorance here and ask what is the difference (in
law) between being liable and being guilty?