Bail-out, blood, bruises (bike OK)



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No, I believe that the traffic engineers designed the junction without adequately
> considering bikes.
>
Which is roughly what the speeding crowd say when they say the current laws were drawn up when Ford
Prefects were the state of the art.

Your point is?

E
 
"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Speed is not the issue for me. I travel by bike because it's cost effective, it keeps me fit, and
> it is gets me where I want in the time I want.

My 4 mile commute takes me 15 minutes by bike, and can be 40mins-1hour by car, and is *very* tedious
at rush hour. As I cycle at other times and do other sport I am not concerned about getting fit
during my commute. Having an extra 45 minutes in bed in the morning is the thing that mainly draws
me to using my cycle as a commuting device.
 
Eddie Dubourg wrote:
> Moving to the front of a traffic queue will always cause inconvenience - cars will position
> themselves before you arrive on the scene, and mess up what they were thinking of doing - by your
> own admission you have to move past the cars to the front - how do you know what the cars were
> going to do before you arrived?

You can always tell what the motorists are planning to do by their road positioning and what their
indicators are doing ;-)

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Eddie Dubourg wrote:
>
> > How come the bike is next to the car - if I'm at the front of a lane, I stop in the middle, and
> > if a car gets there first I stay behind it, in the middle, thus avoiding the angst of worrying
> > if I'll be seen.
>
> Because the traffic has stopped, so one trundles up the middle of the road nice and safe like
> (several hundred yards in my most common instance),
gets
> to the front of the queue and the cars are all nose to tail. Slipping in
a
> phantom ASL 8ft in front of the white line is not putting anyone at risk.

Now you see, the question I ask myself is, why did the planners put the stop line where they did -
they make much the same calculations as they do when planning where to place speed limits - they put
the stop line so as to stop traffic before it might impede the traffic across the junction - many
times when I'm driving I find drivers turning right have postioned themselves in such a way that I'm
having to move far to the left to go straight on, only to find a car, or bike, overrunning the stop
line prevents me from moving.

IMO, and I speak only for myself, we cannot say that rules concerning one area of traffic law can be
arbitrarily overruled because we have convinced ourselves that we are safe and because of that we
are in the right, any more than a driver can arbitrarily decide that speed limits are optional, and
if we claim that we know better than the engineers and planners in where to position ourselves for
safety then we are as guilty of hubris as the drivers who speed.

For the record, I never over or undertake a line of stationary traffic, unless there is a
clearly defined alternative lane - I consider the time "saved" versus the increase in my danger
a very bad risk.

E
 
"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> For the record, I never over or undertake a line of stationary traffic, unless there is a clearly
> defined alternative lane - I consider the time "saved" versus the increase in my danger a very
> bad risk.

I can't see what is wrong with passing a line of stationery traffic, so long as you watch out for
opening car doors, zombie peds etc. After all this is one of the main reasons why commuting by bike
in city traffic is usually a lot faster than going by car. If you never take the advantage of being
able to use gaps of less than a full lane width then the time saving advantage is all lost.
 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:40:32 GMT, "Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I quite agree. If I got nicked I would put my hands up, not bleat like a Gatsoed cager. I
>> absolutely do not claim the moral high ground on this issue, but I do think the risk to others is
>> low, and I never do it if it would cause any inconvenience.

>Which is exactly what Paul Smith says.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In SmithWorld(TM) speed enforcement is dangerous, and he has created an
entire website devoted to whining about it. See how much of my website is devoted to whining about
enforcement of stop lines (note: not red lights, I don't enter the junction - how Clintonesque is
that?). I freely admit that I am in the wrong.

I *do* write to my MP and the DfT on issues where I think the law is wrong, and even if the law is
completely absurd I do my best to comply, with the spirit if the letter is impossible[1].

>I think the risk is low, and I would not do it if it were unsafe.

The facts, in Smith's case, even facts he himself uses, are against him. Risk of crashing rises
above the median speed (31mph on a 30mph road) - and risk of fatality increases with the fourth
power of speed. Believing it's safe in this case is largely a matter of deluding yourself that your
selfish desire to speed is not /really/ dangerous to others, despite the evidence to the contrary.

If you could show me any evidence of danger posed to others by a cyclist being at the front of a
queue, a foot in front of the stop line, I personally guarantee that I will rethink my actions.
Danger existing solely due to the presence of boy racers doesn't count, though :)

>Moving to the front of a traffic queue will always cause inconvenience - cars will position
>themselves before you arrive on the scene, and mess up what they were thinking of doing - by your
>own admission you have to move past the cars to the front - how do you know what the cars were
>going to do before you arrived?

I generally clear the junction before they do. If that weren't the case I wouldn't do it, because it
would inconvenience people. I do my best not to inconvenience people when I'm on the road.

[1] In one case I am required by law to fit a pedal reflector on my bike which is "clearly visile
from the rear." This is not physically possible, and I've written to them telling them so.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:49:29 GMT, "Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If I never did that I would spend an extra ten minutes a day sucking in traffic fumes and it
>> would take me longer than it used to take to drive.

>Is that all that matters? That it is faster than when you drove?

Um, no, exposure to traffic fumes is also a factor.

>Speed is not the issue for me. I travel by bike because it's cost effective, it keeps me fit, and
>it is gets me where I want in the time I want.

So do I. The fact that it's also quicker is just a nice bonus :)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >IMO, and I speak only for myself, we cannot say that rules concerning one area of traffic law can
> >be arbitrarily overruled because we have
convinced
> >ourselves that we are safe and because of that we are in the right, any
more
> >than a driver can arbitrarily decide that speed limits are optional,
>
> I quite agree. If I got nicked I would put my hands up, not bleat like a Gatsoed cager. I
> absolutely do not claim the moral high ground on this issue, but I do think the risk to others is
> low, and I never do it if it would cause any inconvenience.
>
Which is exactly what Paul Smith says.

I think the risk is low, and I would not do it if it were unsafe.

Moving to the front of a traffic queue will always cause inconvenience - cars will position
themselves before you arrive on the scene, and mess up what they were thinking of doing - by your
own admission you have to move past the cars to the front - how do you know what the cars were going
to do before you arrived?

E
 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:02:50 GMT, "Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I believe that the traffic engineers designed the junction without adequately considering bikes.

>Which is roughly what the speeding crowd say when they say the current laws were drawn up when Ford
>Prefects were the state of the art.

The problem with that is that the consequences of their being wrong are measured in deaths and
serious injuries, and the consequences of my being wrong are, as far as I can tell, zero. I am ready
to be corrected on this. And by the time the cars have found a gear and started to move, I'm round
the corner and out of the way.

>Your point is?

Wasn't aware I was making one.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Okey dokey. Sketch a junction, now draw a car at the stop line, now draw a bike pulled up about
> 1/3 of the way across the carriageway and just in fornt of the car. Not impeding the junction in
> any way. If I were, rest assured I wouldn't be there. Unlike the drivers who stop *every day* on
> the "keep clear" box at the end of Tuns Lane, so they have to move in order to let me into the
> road. And in doing so they cross the line at the lights.... If I never did that I would spend an
> extra ten minutes a day sucking in traffic fumes and it would take me longer than it used to take
> to drive. That's a YMMV situation. Having said which I very rarely pass on the left.

So you therefore believe that the law is arbitary and that individual perception of what is safe
should be the guideline that people observe.

E
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I generally clear the junction before they do. If that weren't the case I wouldn't do it, because
> it would inconvenience people. I do my best not to inconvenience people when I'm on the road.
>
Likewise and forsooth.

But how do you know before you get there?

My predictive faculties are minimal, I choose to behave on what I perceive in my immediate vicinity
rather than predict what is happening elsewhere - the lights could change before I arrive, and then
what do I do?

And how do the people who arrived before me cope with the change in conditions with my arrival?

E
 
"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But how do you know before you get there?
>
> My predictive faculties are minimal, I choose to behave on what I perceive in my immediate
> vicinity rather than predict what is happening elsewhere - the lights could change before I
> arrive, and then what do I do?

You just adust your speed to re-merge with the moving traffic stream....can't see a problem here.

> And how do the people who arrived before me cope with the change in conditions with my arrival?

You mean that a cyclist in front of them might mean it's slightly longer before they reach the next
traffic queue?
 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:27:49 GMT, "Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Now you see, the question I ask myself is, why did the planners put the stop line where they did -
>they make much the same calculations as they do when planning where to place speed limits - they
>put the stop line so as to stop traffic before it might impede the traffic across the junction

Okey dokey. Sketch a junction, now draw a car at the stop line, now draw a bike pulled up about 1/3
of the way across the carriageway and just in fornt of the car. Not impeding the junction in any
way. If I were, rest assured I wouldn't be there. Unlike the drivers who stop *every day* on the
"keep clear" box at the end of Tuns Lane, so they have to move in order to let me into the road. And
in doing so they cross the line at the lights....

Or the people who stop on the yellow box. Or the ones who cross the line, move up to the junction,
and then stop because the light changes, leaving them in the middle of nowhere (and usually with
cars backed up behind them so they can't clear the junction by reversing). Or indeed the people who
park on the hatched area at the side of the road to get their kebabs, causing chaos when vans can't
get into Greys Road.

>IMO, and I speak only for myself, we cannot say that rules concerning one area of traffic law can
>be arbitrarily overruled because we have convinced ourselves that we are safe and because of that
>we are in the right, any more than a driver can arbitrarily decide that speed limits are optional,

I quite agree. If I got nicked I would put my hands up, not bleat like a Gatsoed cager. I absolutely
do not claim the moral high ground on this issue, but I do think the risk to others is low, and I
never do it if it would cause any inconvenience.

>and if we claim that we know better than the engineers and planners in where to position ourselves
>for safety then we are as guilty of hubris as the drivers who speed.

Um, up to a point. ASLs are becoming very common.

>For the record, I never over or undertake a line of stationary traffic, unless there is a clearly
>defined alternative lane

If I never did that I would spend an extra ten minutes a day sucking in traffic fumes and it would
take me longer than it used to take to drive. That's a YMMV situation. Having said which I very
rarely pass on the left.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
Eddie Dubourg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now you see, the question I ask myself is, why did the planners put the stop line where they did -
> they make much the same calculations as they do when planning where to place speed limits

What? You mean , "Will this shut the local councilor- that lives on this road- up?"
 
"Eddie Dubourg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uCS6a.7117$%[email protected]...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > No, I believe that the traffic engineers designed the junction without adequately considering
> > bikes.
> >
> Which is roughly what the speeding crowd say when they say the current
laws
> were drawn up when Ford Prefects were the state of the art.
>

Both facts are true, but they mean quite different things. The speeding crowd's argument, as a
justification for exceeding the limits, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny since it neglects other
factors. The fact that traffic planners generally either do not understand or take into account the
needs of cycle users is well known and stands alone.

Do you really believe that the government and its faceless non-cycling bureaucrats know what is
best for cyclists all the time - so much so that you would rather rely on the plans laid in the
comfort of their offices for your safety, than your own real-time perception of everything going on
around you?

Do you, perhaps, think that all laws are equally important, and that all crimes are equally serious
- petty theft is just as bad as murder? The argument that speeding in a motor vehicle is no
different from a cyclist who advances beyond an ASL is just as vacuous.

Rich
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> [1] In one case I am required by law to fit a pedal reflector on my bike which is "clearly
> visile from the rear." This is not physically possible, and I've written to them telling
> them so.

The logical consequence of this, of course, is that it is illegal to use any recumbent manufactured
after 1/10/85 on British roads.

Dave...
 
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:21:12 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> [1] In one case I am required by law to fit a pedal reflector on my bike which is "clearly
> visile from the rear." This is not physically possible, and I've written to them telling
> them so.
>
It isht eavsy. You musht use U-235 pedals wif a plomb schelding to the fwont. Any nutron schource
from the rear should be suficsent to make a visile weaction. :)

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/
 
Dave Kahn wrote:

>> [1] In one case I am required by law to fit a pedal reflector on my bike which is "clearly
>> visile from the rear." This is not physically possible, and I've written to them telling
>> them so.

> The logical consequence of this, of course, is that it is illegal to use any recumbent
> manufactured after 1/10/85 on British roads.

Only after dark. Ironic, given that we are the Dark Side :)

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
Eddie Dubourg wrote:

>> I generally clear the junction before they do. If that weren't the case I wouldn't do it, because
>> it would inconvenience people. I do my best not to inconvenience people when I'm on the road.

> Likewise and forsooth. But how do you know before you get there?

Since I do the same journey most days, I know how long it takes me to clear the junction and so on.
And people don't race away form the lights in question, becuase they are followed almost immediately
by more lights.

> My predictive faculties are minimal, I choose to behave on what I perceive in my immediate
> vicinity rather than predict what is happening elsewhere - the lights could change before I
> arrive, and then what do I do?

Merge. Which is what I do. And watch the other phases.

> And how do the people who arrived before me cope with the change in conditions with my arrival?

The same way they cope with a pedestrian crossing at the end of the all-red phase.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
"Adrian Boliston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I can clearly see the logic of cutting across an "on-ramp" sliproad, where cyclists are at risk
> from being hit by drivers who are looking over their right shoulder to check for cars in lane 1
> before joining, (and sometimes
I
> use this tip myself in such situations), but I cannot see the risk from crossing the "off-ramp" as
> drivers will be looking straight ahead (rather than over their shoulder) so would not have the
> same risk of taking their eyes off the road ahead and failing to see a slower cyclist in lane 1.

Doesn't stop it happening though. The one slip road accident I know of was on the off ramp.

(not sure if it was the case in this one, but people diving for the exit at the last minute seems
happen sufficiently recently for it to be a problem).

cheers, clive
 
Status
Not open for further replies.