Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
15-05.-2008, 03:20 AM
|
#46 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:
> Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all > roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right). > Drivers of motor vehicles have no right at all. They have a licence, which is a very different thing. Cyclists need nothing - their right to use the roads exists ab initio. Drivers must fufill a number of conditions, pay fees, etctera. |
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:29 AM
|
#47 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
In article <f53m24lndej6gvigbafrn4cj0rl6njar1t@4ax.com>,
Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely. >> >>Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of >>others, collisions are more, not less, likely. > >If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to >the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between >motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little >difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user >is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the >cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming. I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends: "If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and * be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light * keep close to the side of the road It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend." Francis |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:30 AM
|
#48 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On May 14, 5:09 pm, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago. In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and cyclists were black and deemed to be less important? Tim |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:31 AM
|
#49 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
In article <1igxxgq.ai0xequdugykN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: >> Which I believe is a sensible rule. > >Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the >wrong side of the road for the same reason. You're right - there's only one reason for anything being done, which applies in all situations. Francis |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:41 AM
|
#50 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than >> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up. >> >He can do that *anyway*. >> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so. >So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges >cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you >regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should >defer to everyone else. Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users. >Some news for you: >Cyclists are traffic. Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so. I have the same attitude toward any slow-moving vehicle - tractors for example. >Cyclists have at least as much right to make as full use of almost all >roads as do drivers of motor vehicles. (Some would argue more right). And are just as obliged to treat other users with respect (some would argue they have a greater obligation). >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago. >As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too? You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be. I can't say I'm a big fan of apartheid, no. But it would appear to be better than the alternative has repeatedly proven to be. Sauce for the goose may well be sauce for the gander, but not necessarily the best sauce for a duck. If you have never eaten duck, you may of course be completely ignorant of that fact. -- Cynic |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:51 AM
|
#51 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
Francis Burton wrote:
> In article <f53m24lndej6gvigbafrn4cj0rl6njar1t@4ax.com>, > Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Collisions are almost certainly *less* likely. >>> Nonsense. Once you start acting counter to the reasonable expecations of >>> others, collisions are more, not less, likely. >> If it were a general rule of the road, it would not *be* counter to >> the expectations of other road users. The speed differntial between >> motorised and non-motorised road users is such that it makes little >> difference to the car driver in most situations whether the other user >> is approaching or receding. It does however make a difference to the >> cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming. > > I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends: > > "If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road > so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care > and > > * be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads > or in poor light > * keep close to the side of the road > > It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand > bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. > Cross back after the bend." It gives that guidance to pedestrians. Not to cyclists. |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:52 AM
|
#52 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:19 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> 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? -- Cynic |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:52 AM
|
#53 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:41:15 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14 May 2008 16:17:57 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote: > > >> >> 2) The cyclist will get out of the way of the traffic rather than > >> >> keeping to the middle of the road and holding it up. > > >> >He can do that *anyway*. > > >> But unlike the head-on situation, he is not obliged to do so. > > >So in your opinion contraflow cycling is better because it obliges > >cyclists to get out of the way of the 'traffic'? In other words, you > >regard cyclists as, by definition, inferior road users who should > >defer to everyone else. > > Not inferior, no. But they are *slower* road users. They generally have a lower unconstrained top speed, yes. Are you saying any vehicle should get out of the way of a following vehicle, if the following vehicle has a potentially greater speed? That would be a very silly (and completely unworkable) traffic law, in my opinion. Over most of my commute, I travel faster than the cars on the same stretch of road. You presumably propose that they pull off the road as I approach? > >Some news for you: > >Cyclists are traffic. > > Yes, and as such should have consideration for other road users and > not hamper the progress of others unnecessarily. Which means getting > out of the way of motorised traffic whenever it is practical to do so. No, it does not mean that (unless you are adopting a meaning of 'whenever practical' that includes 'at no inconvenience or detriment to the cyclist', but I doubt that you are). _Do_ you think the cars should pull off the road as I approach on my commute? > >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago. > > >As was apartheid. Were you a big supporter of that too? > > You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better > place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be. No, I will not. > I can't say I'm a big fan of apartheid, no. But it would appear to > be better than the alternative has repeatedly proven to be. You appear to be saying that you believe apartheid South Africa was better than current South Africa. Is that so? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:53 AM
|
#54 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:20:09 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
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. > >Ah righto, so obviously it's also better for drivers to drive on the >wrong side of the road for the same reason. Well, in most countries that's exactly what they do! -- Cynic |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:56 AM
|
#55 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On 14 May, 14:59, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Ivan wrote: > > Neil Williams wrote: > > actually being lectured the by a cop for > > 'pushing' a bicycle the wrong way down a one way street as a shortcut, > > I've never been absolutely certain, but was that, is that illegal? > > Only in the ultimate nit-picking sense (in the same way as it might be > unlawful to push a pram the wrong way down a one-way street A pram in law is a 'natural accompaniment of a pedestrian' not a carriage and so can be taken on footways and footpaths. The point at issue is that the footway is as much a part of the road as is the carriageway (hence people raising the 'no road tax = should not be on road' stuff are talking nonsense when they reply to the point that peds pay no so-called 'road tax' by saying they do not use the road, they use the pavement). Theoretically, taking a carriage onto the footway cannot therefore justify doing anything which cannot be done on that road, as it is still in the road. (However in practice someone walking with a cycle is to all intents & purpose a pedestrian, and could probably win an arguement that they were so, perhaps by comparing themselves with a person pushing a faulty or semi-dismantled cycle along - they are clearly a ped.). Jon |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 03:58 AM
|
#56 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On Wed, 14 May 2008 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT), TimB <timburford@onetel.net>
wrote: >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago. >In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and >cyclists were black and deemed to be less important? IIRC most cyclists were either black or under the age of 18. Car drivers were about 50/50 black & white, and most HGV drivers were black. -- Cynic |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 04:00 AM
|
#57 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
In article <-Iudnf9mlMc7u7bVnZ2dnUVZ8sLinZ2d@pipex.net>,
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote: >>> cyclist or pedestrian in that he can see what's coming. >> >> I suppose that's why the Highway Code recommends: >> >>[snip] > >It gives that guidance to pedestrians. > >Not to cyclists. I was specifically addressing the mention of pedestrians. However, I think the same principle could reasonably be applied to cyclists too (as long as they didn't take up much space in the lane, by sticking to single file). Francis |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 04:02 AM
|
#58 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
In article <ec397bcb-8278-4f50-bd00-28a311259e9d@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
TimB <timburford@onetel.net> wrote: >> It was the rule where I lived in South Africa some years ago. > >In the days when most drivers were white and most pedestrians and >cyclists were black and deemed to be less important? So would it have been safer for black pedestrians to walk with their backs to the passing cars? Francis |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 04:07 AM
|
#59 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On 14 May, 16:28, Cynic <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> 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 there is no law saying that either peds. or cyclists should "get out of the way" of other traffic. In fact the law is the opposite: peds. should walk on the right of roads without footways, but oncoming vehicles should move over out of their way. What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn vehicles? Where do they go? Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two? What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the 'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams, reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very complex task observing all of the streams. Jon |
|
|
|
15-05.-2008, 04:40 AM
|
#60 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Cycling wrong way up one way street
On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Jon
<jonathan.gurney@wlc.ac.uk> 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. >What do the countries cited do about equestrians and animal-drawn >vehicles? Where do they go? I have no idea. I was too young to drive a motor vehicle, and did not encounter either horses or animal drawn vehicles on the highways. >Dosn't having peds. and cyclists on the same side of a footwayless >road lead to a higher risk of collisions between these two? 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 in this country. The difference being that (1) it is less likely that a cyclist will fail to see a pedestrian than a car driver will fail to see a cyclist and (2) the consequence of a collision betweeen a cyclist and a pedestrian is usually less serious than a collision between a car and a cyclist. >What happens when traffic conditions or law keep motor traffic speeds >down at cycling speeds (e.g. on parts of my commute, 15/20 mph is the >norm)? Combined with a high volume of both types of vehicles, the >'opposite sides' rule would mean four separate vehicle streams, >reqiuring a wide road and meaning peds. crossing would have a very >complex task observing all of the streams. 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. -- Cynic |
|
|
Linear Mode
