Emma Davies Jones hit and run

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

Emma Davies in hit and run

Great Britain's leading female track endurance rider Emma Davies
(Vlaanderen-Capri Sonne-T Interim) was involved in a hit and run
accident last Monday, October 10. Emma was riding to the Manchester
Velodrome for a training session. She was on a cycle path when a car
turned directly across her. "I turned to try and avoid the vehicle but
he turned directly into me," said Emma.

The driver left the scene of the accident and despite another vehicle
chasing him, managed to escape. Fortunately a witness took the
registration number and police subsequently arrested the driver.

Glad they've got the tw@t who hit her. No doubt it'll be a small fine & a
few points on the licence rather than GBH... attempted murder... etc., etc.

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

Emma was initially taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary, and then on the
advice of her Orthopaedic Consultant she was transferred to the Spinal
Injury Unit at Hope Hospital, Salford, where she is making excellent
progress and is under the care of Consultant Neurological Surgeon Mr
James Leggate - who expects Emma to make a full recovery.

Emma's father John Davies said, "She is making excellent progress, and
the support of everyone at the British World Class Plan and Vlaanderen
has been superb and I am convinced it's helping greatly in the recovery
process. The medical team are ruling nothing out in terms of the speed
of recovery, and so Emma is very positive."

Emma was recently married and will subsequently be known as Emma Davies
Jones.

Any enquires or messages can be sent via [email hidden] or text
+447989306554.

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

Emma Davies in hit and run

Scary. Even the pros aren't immune from dangerous driving. Really hope
she does recover fully. Spinal Injury Unit sound very worrying.

wafflycat said:

Glad they've got the tw@t who hit her. No doubt it'll be a small fine & a
few points on the licence rather than GBH... attempted murder... etc., etc.

I have this nearly daily, they've seen you but won't wait. God, what's
with these car drivers? I know having to drive is a right pain in the
[censored] and an unpleasent experience, and I can't really blame them for
wanting to get the journey over as fast as possible, but can they not
wait a couple of seconds?

It's just lucky that the new Clarkson Traffic Act (2006) hasn't come
into force yet, otherwise she'd be guilty of "Impeding the Progress of
a Motorist"

Lets hope Emma makes a good recovery as is soon back riding.

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

Emma Davies in hit and run

Emma was riding to the Manchester Velodrome for a training session.
She was on a cycle path when a car turned directly across her. "I
turned to try and avoid the vehicle but he turned directly into
me," said Emma.

Cycle path or cycle lane? From the description of the incident it
sounds more like the latter. Dangerous places, cycle lanes. :-(

Here's hoping Emma makes a quick and full recovery.

--
Dave...

True to form the BBC makes no mention of this being yet another 'hit
and run'. Oh well, at least they didn't try to use the story as an
excuse to act as a mouthpice for P*** S****, as they often do when
running stories on road crashes!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/4343410.stm

"sothach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

It's just lucky that the new Clarkson Traffic Act (2006) hasn't come
into force yet, otherwise she'd be guilty of "Impeding the Progress of
a Motorist"

One of my little pleasures is to cycle around our gridlocked city centre and
bus lanes in the evening rush hour to see all of these cars held up by their
own kind. Strangely they don't seem to rev their engines or sound their
horns at the cars, even though they might be held up by 100's of them.
Strange.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Quoted message said:

True to form the BBC makes no mention of this being yet another 'hit
and run'.

Of course they wouldn't. The journalist terminology for hit and run is
she collided with the car and scared it off.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Simon Mason said:

One of my little pleasures is to cycle around our gridlocked city centre and
bus lanes in the evening rush hour to see all of these cars held up by their
own kind. Strangely they don't seem to rev their engines or sound their
horns at the cars, even though they might be held up by 100's of them.
Strange.

One of the stranger quirks is the habit of some drivers to rev their
engines as if to give chase despite being gridlocked. It's a bizarre
habit which just serves to me me a) laugh and b) smug!

Jon

Blonde said:

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

From cyclingnews.com:

Emma Davies in hit and run

Scary. Even the pros aren't immune from dangerous driving.

I think you mean even pros aren't always smart enough to recognise the
hazards of cycle lanes. Sounds like a classic case of a cycle lane
introducing a hazard that wouldn't have existed in its absense.

Quoted message said:

Really hope
she does recover fully. Spinal Injury Unit sound very worrying.

Ditto.

Tim

Tim Downie said:

I think you mean even pros aren't always smart enough to recognise the
hazards of cycle lanes. Sounds like a classic case of a cycle lane
introducing a hazard that wouldn't have existed in its absense.

Maybe, but the classic dangerous driving moves of overtaking a cyclist
and then immediately turning left across the cyclist's path, or making
a right turn across the path of an oncoming cyclist happen just as much
on roads without cycle lanes as with...

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

Quoted message said:

Tim Downie said:

I think you mean even pros aren't always smart enough to recognise the
hazards of cycle lanes. Sounds like a classic case of a cycle lane
introducing a hazard that wouldn't have existed in its absense.

Maybe, but the classic dangerous driving moves of overtaking a cyclist
and then immediately turning left across the cyclist's path, or making
a right turn across the path of an oncoming cyclist happen just as much
on roads without cycle lanes as with...

Hmm, less often I think if you're riding in the primary position forcing the
motorist to acknowledge your position.

Tim

Hi Tim,

Yes I do see your point here. One of my pet hates are cycle lanes which
not only deny the cyclist the right to position themselves correctly,
they force them right into the zone where they are most at risk from
being 'doored'.

In addition, research shows that where cycle lanes are marked out
drivers feel more confident about overtaking cyclists as they feel the
cyclist is unlikely to deviate from the space 'allocated' to them and
so will overtake cyclists both more closely at at a higher speed than
if no lane were marked. Also, following the 'Highway Code' drivers
should always indicate and move out across the centerline or into the
next lane in order to overtake a cyclist, this is something they are
even less likely to do when a 'cycle lane' is marked out.

Quoted message said:

Yes I do see your point here. One of my pet hates are cycle lanes which
not only deny the cyclist the right to position themselves correctly,

Only in the minds of the ignorant. The presence of a cycle lane
denies nothing to the cyclist.

Quoted message said:

Also, following the 'Highway Code' drivers
should always indicate and move out across the centerline or into the
next lane in order to overtake a cyclist,

No it doesn't. Where do you think it says that?

Personally I think inaccurate advocacy, where someone either claims a
group suffers from legal obstruction when it doesn't, or claims that
legal 'rights' are not granted when they actually don't exist at all,
can be more damaging than no advocacy at all.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

The presence of a cycle lane denies nothing to the cyclist.

Try telling that to a driver who acts aggressively because they think a
cyclist should be 'In the f*ucking cycle lane,

Last time I did so it didn't seem to make a great deal of difference,
but the fact that a selected driver is ignorant of the law in no way
discredits my posting.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, following the 'Highway Code' drivers
should always indicate and move out across the centerline or into the
next lane in order to overtake a cyclist,

No it doesn't. Where do you think it says that?

Rule 139 states: 'Overtake only when it is safe to do so...signal when
it is safe to do so...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horseriders at
least as much room as you would a car when overtaking.'

Are you going to answer the question? Where does it say drivers must
cross the centreline or move into the next lane?

Quoted message said:

Next to this it an illustration showing the proper procedure to take
when overtaking a cyclist. It shows a car indicating and overtaking
after having crossed the centreline.

So what? That it is necessary in one illustrative example has no
bearing on your assertion that it is always required.

Quoted message said:

I don't see any advice anywhere to the effect that it is acceptable for
drivers to overtake cyclists in the same traffic lane and in the face
of oncoming traffic...

I see no-one claiming it is. I certainly have not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally I think inaccurate advocacy, where someone either claims a
group suffers from legal obstruction when it doesn't, or claims that
legal 'rights' are not granted when they actually don't exist at all,
can be more damaging than no advocacy at all.

But not as damaging as the actions of those who argue that the
illustrations in 'the Highway Code' are purely there for decorative
effect...

No-one has done so (that I have seen). However, the illustrations are
very poor, and do show a number of things that official advice is to
avoid (for example, I don't think any illustration shows a cyclist in
the primary position).

In fact, the illustrations are (surprise) illustrative. Just because
something is shown in the one case illustrated, does not mean it
essential always that that happen. Or do you believe it's illegal to
have mudguards on a bike, because the bikes in rule 45 don't have
them? Presumably, it is likewise illegal to cycle wearing shorts, and
the long trousers worn must always be blue?

Are you going to tell me where it says you must cross a centreline or
into another lane to overtake a cyclist? Or are you just going to
make stupid and irrelevant observations about what it doesn't say,
while implying I've said something that I have not?

Do you really think your advocacy is benefitted by claiming things
that aren't true? By claiming laws exist that don't, and by claiming
that laws that don't exist do?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

The presence of a cycle lane denies nothing to the cyclist.

Try telling that to a driver who acts aggressively because they think a
cyclist should be 'In the f*ucking cycle lane,

Last time I did so it didn't seem to make a great deal of difference,
but the fact that a selected driver is ignorant of the law in no way
discredits my posting.

I disagree. Cycle facilities of all sorts create a view amongst a
proportion of motorists that you should be on the cycle facilities and
not the road - something that nearly all of us have experienced. So
they do deny cyclists the ability to be treated as equal rights users of
the road. YMMV

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith wrote:

> The presence of a cycle lane denies nothing to the cyclist.
Try telling that to a driver who acts aggressively because they think a
cyclist should be 'In the f*ucking cycle lane,

Last time I did so it didn't seem to make a great deal of difference,
but the fact that a selected driver is ignorant of the law in no way
discredits my posting.

I disagree. Cycle facilities of all sorts create a view amongst a
proportion of motorists that you should be on the cycle facilities and
not the road - something that nearly all of us have experienced. So
they do deny cyclists the ability to be treated as equal rights users of
the road. YMMV

The OP claimed teh presence of a lane denies cyclists teh right to
position themselves on teh road. They do not. The fact that they
encourage other road users to act as if cyclists have no right on teh
road is a different issue.

Teh presence (or otherwise) of lanes on the road do not affect teh
rights of cyclists. That is simple, straightforward fact. If you
think otherwise, can you provide more detail?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, following the 'Highway Code' drivers
> > should always indicate and move out across the centerline or
> > into the next lane in order to overtake a cyclist,

[He's snipped the bit where I pointed out the highway code made no
such demands, and asked him to prove me wrong. This he has so far
failed to do.]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Next to this it an illustration showing the proper procedure to take
when overtaking a cyclist. It shows a car indicating and overtaking
after having crossed the centreline.

So what? That it is necessary in one illustrative example has no
bearing on your assertion that it is always required.

Sorry, I had thought you were trolling, I did not realise you were just
being pedantic. Yes, I guess you could say that the illustrations are,
er just illustrative, as in illustrating what the correct procedure is
for overtaking a cyclist.

For overtaking a particular cyclist in a particular simplified
scenario, and therfore of no use in deducing general rules, especially
legal requirements. The accompanying rule does not require what you
have claimed. Read it. Quote it, and highlight where it directs that
drivers should always move across the centreline or into the next
lane. Easy, surely? If that is what it says?

Quoted message said:

You could say much the same about the
illustration alongside rule 158 which 'illustrates' that drivers should
wait bheind a cyclist when turning left and not overtake them and cut
across their path,

No, because the rule states that. That is an entirely different case.
The rule states something. We are discussing the case where the rule
does not state something that you claim it does. Likewise your other
examples.

Come on, if the rule states what you claim, simply quote it. Where
does it say the driver should always cross the centreline or into the
adjacent lane? Which rule requires that?

Quoted message said:

After all these are also just 'illustrative' and so one might
try to argue don't always have to be followed, even at the risk of
reversing over a child or whatever.

Right, so you _are_ just going to make stupid and irrelevant
observations about things that haven't been said. Glad we've got that
cleared up.

Quoted message said:

If you are just upset about the word 'always' I would be quite happy to
say something like 'The Highway Code clearly illustrates that drivers
should indicate and move out over the centre line when overtaking
cyclists'

Bollocks. Tosh. You are not accurately reporting what it says. You
are making things up. How many times does it need saying? The
highway code does not say what you claim it says.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just because
something is shown in the one case illustrated, does not mean it
essential always that that happen. Or do you believe it's illegal to
have mudguards on a bike, because the bikes in rule 45 don't have
them? Presumably, it is likewise illegal to cycle wearing shorts, and
the long trousers worn must always be blue?

This really is a totally stupid argument.

Exactly. You can't deduce things from the illustrations. Read what
the words say, because they address the general case rather than a
single isolated illustrative example. (Note: what it says, not what
you imagine you might like it to say).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you going to tell me where it says you must cross a
centreline or
into another lane to overtake a cyclist? Or are you just going to
make stupid and irrelevant observations about what it doesn't say,
while implying I've said something that I have not?

I never said that the above is stated in a written rule

So who said "following the 'Highway Code' drivers should always
indicate and move out across the centreline or into the next lane in
order to overtake a cyclist" then?

Quoted message said:

requirement). I said that this what drivers do if they follow the
'Code, which naturally includes it's illustrations.

You've missed the "always" in your re-writing of your statement.
You've also failed to show where the highway code says something that
requires this. The reason for that is probably because it doesn't.

Quoted message said:

I really don't see why you are making such an issue of this.

Because, as I said, inaccurate advocacy is often more detrimental than
no advocacy at all. Claiming that the highway code requires something
it doesn't is damaging to the case of cyclists getting the treatment
they are entitled to on the highway.

You are claiming the highway code advises motorists to do something it
doesn't. ('Oh no, another idiot cyclist who pontificates loudly but
doesn't actually know his facts - did you know he thinks it's
compulsory to cross a white line when overtaking a cyclist?'😉

Quoted message said:

Doubtless you would also object to someone saying

I am objecting to someone claiming the highway code says something it
simply does not say. Why don't you address that facts of what you
have said rather than continue with your idiot observations about
things people have not said?

While you're at it, please do not slander me. Do not tell me what I
believe. Do not ascribe to me opinions I do not hold, but which you
would find it easier to argue with than what I have stated. To do so
is logically fallacious, and liable to be damaging to your argument.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Tony Raven said:

Ian Smith said:

On 16 Oct 2005, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> The presence of a cycle lane denies nothing to the cyclist.
>

The OP claimed teh presence of a lane denies cyclists teh right to
position themselves on teh road. They do not. The fact that they
encourage other road users to act as if cyclists have no right on teh
road is a different issue.

I was answering you first line above that it denies nothing to the
cyclist. It does. As for your more specific point the Highway Code
Rules 47 and 49 already says they should be used and it is likely that
if it came to Court it would count against the cyclist, at least as far
as contributory negligence, for not following the Highway Code
recommendations. So I would say that is denying the cyclist the right
to position themselves on the road without risk of penalty.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony, I wouldn't bother mate. I think this guy has come straight over
from the Monty Python 'argument' sketch. Ignore him and perhaps he will
go away and take that long lie down in a darkened room which he so
obviously needs ;-)