Cycling wrong way up one way street

Conor

In article <1iqz8xxz584f7.1fey53bjk8gxc$.dlg@40tude.net>, _ 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 <2wWWj.189534$3k2.49746@fe10.news.easynews.com>, Palindrome wrote:
>Ian Smith wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:31 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> 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:-K2dnR8n2arolbbVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net,
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> 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 <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?

>> 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 <ian@astounding.org.uk> 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, _
<jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> 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 <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <1iqz8xxz584f7.1fey53bjk8gxc$.dlg@40tude.net>, _ 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 <JN@NPPTG.com> 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 <JN@NPPTG.com> 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 <ian@astounding.org.uk> 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|
|/ \|

Daniel Barlow

Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> writes:

> In article <1iqz8xxz584f7.1fey53bjk8gxc$.dlg@40tude.net>, _ says...
>> 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?

Since the discussion is about cyclists being rear-ended, your
well-publicised blind spot is irrelevant to it.

Do you have a less-well-publicised blind spot directly in front of
you?



-dan

_

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:48:01 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote:

> Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> In article <1iqz8xxz584f7.1fey53bjk8gxc$.dlg@40tude.net>, _ says...
>>> 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?
>
> Since the discussion is about cyclists being rear-ended, your
> well-publicised blind spot is irrelevant to it.
>
> Do you have a less-well-publicised blind spot directly in front of
> you?
>

Check his posts; I think he's publicising it quite well.

Andrew Price

On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:41:15 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[---]

>You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
>place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be.

Point of order: although there was disenfranchisement of the black
population, there was never apartheid in Rhodesia. That was specific
to South Africa.

Nick Finnigan

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Paul Boatang, as Home Office minister said,
>>"'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
>>cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear
>>of
>>the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users
>>when
>>doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for
>>enforcement,
>>acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
>>people, are afraid to cycle in the road... "
>
>
> This surely must be one of the most memorably silly statements any
> government minister, of any party, has ever made. It shows that the
> man is not fit to be in parliament, let alone government.
>
> Once a law is passed, IT'S THE LAW. It's the law for all.

It is still the law. There are different penalties in different
circumstances, the same as there ever were.