Criminals on TV



"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The other Troll, there is one you
> know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm wrote:
>
> Sorry for some reason I read your post my mistake.
>
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm
>>
>> Read through that and come back.
>
> Ok rule 45, how does a magic foam hat improve my visibility to other road
> users.

That rule is for the benefit of the cyclist, not other motorists.

> And rule 62, if you are serious about this rule, then you must live on the
> plant Zog.

The bit about keeping left but then turning right on a roundabout sounds
like a real recipe for disaster: unless you are very clear about your right
turn signal, you are going to come a cropper because drivers who are going
straight ahead will expect from your positioning on the road that you are
going to do the same.
 
Martin Dann wrote:
> The other Troll, there is one you
> know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm wrote:
>
> Sorry for some reason I read your post my mistake.
>
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm
>>
>> Read through that and come back.
>
> Ok rule 45, how does a magic foam hat improve my
> visibility to other road users.

Are you really so dumb that you need that question answered.

> And rule 62, if you are serious about this rule, then you
> must live on the plant Zog.

So tell us your procedure for negotiating a large roundabout.
 
Mark T wrote:
>> Not sure about this one. On the one hand, making such clothing
>> mandatory would appear nannying and victim-blaming, on the other it does
>> make sense to be sure you can be seen.
>
> Whilst wearing dark clothing would appear to be a silly thing to do, the
> stats show that cycling is about 30% safer, per mile, than walking. Hi vis
> should be prioritised for pedestrians, before we cyclists nab it all.
>
> Therefore my lack of hi-vis is due to concern for the more vulnerable road
> user than it is to my desire not to look like a bit of a nob ;)
>

When I walk the lanes in the dark to my local I always wear a
fluorescent waistcoat and I walk facing the oncoming traffic, although
that isn't too relevant given the width of some of the roads. I don't
see what the problem is, unless cycling is such a "fashion statement"
that you don't want to be shown up, or show up.

Strange to relate the nearest I have come to an accident was, on a dark
and stormy night, having two cyclists (well, they were riding bikes)
dressed in dark clothing and with no lights at all missing me by inches.
They did scream abuse at me for "getting in their way".

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mortimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I presume the objection to dynamo lights is that they go out when the
>> bike is stationary or moving very slowly, and therefore the bike becomes
>> much less visible in those conditions.
>
> The law copes with that - you have to pull over to the side of the road
> rather than stop in the middle.

Ah, does it? I've never ridden a bike with dynamo lights so the issue has
never arisen with me.

>> Is that because they are worried about people letting the batteries go
>> flat?
>
> I'd guess it's because they want people to have working lights fitted to
> the bike, available at all times. So a little more than "letting the
> batteries go flat", but the right intent.

There are two separate issues here: 1) all bikes must be sold with lights;
2) those lights must be powered by a dynamo (maybe with battery backup as
well). I'm surprised we don't have a rule in the UK making lights a
compulsory part of a bike. Having said that, I think I've only used my
lights once since I've had my bike because I normally only ride (for
pleasure/exercise, rather than to/from work) during daylight. Once when my
car was in the garage for the week I cycled everywhere. I misjudged how long
it would take me to cycle into town for fish and chips: by the time I was
coming back along a densely-wooded cycle track it was getting dark. That's
when I discovered how ineffective a bike headlight is for lighting your way
ahead, firstly because it doesn't light the road very far ahead and secondly
because its beam wavers so much as you make very slight movements of the
handlebars!

Have there ever been any alternatives suggested to hand signals, such as
flashing amber indicator arrows worn on the cyclist's shoulders and operated
by a switch on the handlebars? It's always struck me as ironic that the very
time you need most control of your bike, namely when you are making turns,
you need to take one hand off the handlebars to indicate.
 
Clive George wrote:
>>
>> Technically you need lights to conform to BS 6102 part 3 (1986) which
>> you can't (AFAIK) do with dynamo lights.
>
> Two ways to contradict this:
>
> 1) I can't find BS 6102 pt 3 online. But I can see a precis of it, where
> it does mention generators. So I think it's unlikely to forbid dynamo
> lights. Post a contradiction if you can find one :)
>
> 2) The rules are actually BS 6102 pt 3 _or_ a standard providing an
> equivalent level of performance from an EEA state (or some such
> wording). DIN is normally used here, especially since dynamo lights are
> mandated in Germany and are hence legal there.
>
> So, you can go and use your bike again :)
>

What about acetylene lights for really old bikes ;-)

Tony
 
®i©ardo wrote:
>
> When I walk the lanes in the dark to my local I always wear a
> fluorescent waistcoat and I walk facing the oncoming traffic, although
> that isn't too relevant given the width of some of the roads. I don't
> see what the problem is, unless cycling is such a "fashion statement"
> that you don't want to be shown up, or show up.
>

I presume you paint your car fluorescent orange too. If not why not, it
can't just be a fashion thing surely?

Tony
 
Mortimer wrote:

>
> I'm surprised we don't have a rule in the UK making lights a
> compulsory part of a bike.

The law has far more important things to do like mandating a bicycle
bell at the point of sale ;-)

Tony
 
®i©ardo wrote:
> Pyromancer wrote:
>> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as marc
>> <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:33:46 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> General standards of cycling portrayed in the video were IMO low with
>>>>> scant regard to traffic law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this how cyclists wish to be seen by the general public? Self
>>>>> righteous tits who consider that the law applies only to others?
>>>> IMO this is the behaviour of most commuting cyclists.
>>>> I do a (car) run into a city each day for work. Most cyclists I see
>>>> are running red lights/stop lines at junctions, on the road when there
>>>> is a good safe cycleway,
>>> No such thing as a "good safe cycleway" they are all less safe than a
>>> road.
>>
>> Not entirely true, just no such thing in the UK. I spent the weekend
>> in Holland, and it was a complete revelation to see what a country
>> that takes cycling as transport seriously can be like.
>>
>>> cutting cars up, swapping from road to
>>>> pavement to take small short cuts and back to the road etc. etc. In
>>>> the winter many don't have lights,
>>
>>> Are lights required in the winter? Which bit of the RTA or HC does
>>> that come under?
>>
>> ISTR lights are a requirement in the dark. It's usually dark in
>> winter at most people's commuting time.
>>
>>> most don't have any bright clothing
>>>> at any time.
>>>
>>> I think it's the fashion police you need to take this one up with.
>>
>> Not sure about this one. On the one hand, making such clothing
>> mandatory would appear nannying and victim-blaming, on the other it
>> does make sense to be sure you can be seen.
>>
>> I usually ride in black - but then I own very little that isn't black.
>> But I do have some nice bright lights on the bike.
>>
>>> You are confusing "people on bikes" with cyclists, in the same way
>>> that many people confuse "people who drive cars " with motorists.
>>
>> Non-members of the various groups don't make the distinction. As far
>> as the general public is concerned, person on bike = cyclist.
>>
>> NP: Within Temptation - Mother Earth.
>
> So if someone on a bike is not a cyclist, what is he - or she?

A POB Person on bike..

are all drivers "motorists", ie someone interested in something more
about the car than a place to pick their nose and listen to the radio?
>
 
Mortimer wrote:

>
> Have there ever been any alternatives suggested to hand signals, such as
> flashing amber indicator arrows worn on the cyclist's shoulders and operated
> by a switch on the handlebars? It's always struck me as ironic that the very
> time you need most control of your bike, namely when you are making turns,
> you need to take one hand off the handlebars to indicate.
>

You indicate before you turn, not during.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony Raven
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Pyromancer wrote:

>> Not sure about this one. On the one hand, making such clothing
>>mandatory would appear nannying and victim-blaming, on the other it
>>does make sense to be sure you can be seen.

>I look forward to the mandatory painting of cars dayglo orange.

Given we insist on trains having yellow ends for visibility reasons, it
could be argued that all cars should have bright fronts. Granted, I
don't see much chance of this actually becoming law... :)

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as John Wright
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Pyromancer wrote:
>> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as marc
>><[email protected]> gently breathed:

>>> Are lights required in the winter? Which bit of the RTA or HC does
>>>that come under?

>> ISTR lights are a requirement in the dark. It's usually dark in
>>winter at most people's commuting time.

>Nit pick time - while the requirement for battery operated lights
>improves safety, for people like me who try to maintain old bicycles in
>original condition (with dynamo lights) this means I can't use it after
>dark - which means anytime during winter, if I don't use the bicycle
>during the working day.

??? ISTR the requirement is for electric[1] lights, but doesn't really
care whether they are powered by a battery, a wheel-driven dynamo, a
diesel-driven generator, a house elf in a treadmill, or a tank of
coupled-up electric eels, as long as they work.

My bike is only a year old and came with a hub dynamo, they're certainly
not restricted to old bikes only.

[1] I understand there is a theory this was mandated to kill off
flame-worked lights, not sure how true this is.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
 
"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> Have there ever been any alternatives suggested to hand signals, such as
>> flashing amber indicator arrows worn on the cyclist's shoulders and
>> operated by a switch on the handlebars? It's always struck me as ironic
>> that the very time you need most control of your bike, namely when you
>> are making turns, you need to take one hand off the handlebars to
>> indicate.
>
> You indicate before you turn, not during.

Normally, yes, though there are some situations such as turning right on a
roundabout where you need to keep on signalling, either continuously or else
separately as a reminder as you approach each road leading into the
roundabout. And anyway, when you are indicating that you are turning off a
straight road, you are usually slowing down at the same time so you need
both hands on the handlebars to operate both brakes.
 
"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> So if someone on a bike is not a cyclist, what is he - or she?
>
> A POB Person on bike..
>
> are all drivers "motorists", ie someone interested in something more about
> the car than a place to pick their nose and listen to the radio?

Seems a bit nit-picky: I'd use "cyclist" and "motorist" as shorthand
synonyms for "person riding a bike" and "person driving a car/lorry". It's
never occurred to me that either word implies an interest over and above
using the bike/car as a means of transport. My dictionary (New Oxford
Dictionary of English, OUP) defines "cyclist" as "a person who rides a
bicycle" and "motorist" as "the driver of a motor car".

Are you defining "cyclist" to mean " someone who rides a bike as a
competitive sportsman eg in the Milk Race"?
 
Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Last week on TV there was a short video featuring the antics of a
> > cyclist in Lancashire. The programme was supposed to be advocating the
> > benefits of cycling as a means of getting to work.
>
> Just watched the Vid on youtube, and I spotted four
> criminals crossing double white lines to pass him.

This is not illegal, you could do with learning your Highway Code. See
rule 108.
 
Pyromancer wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony
> Raven <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>> Pyromancer wrote:
>
>>> Not sure about this one. On the one hand, making such clothing
>>> mandatory would appear nannying and victim-blaming, on the other it
>>> does make sense to be sure you can be seen.
>
>> I look forward to the mandatory painting of cars dayglo orange.
>
> Given we insist on trains having yellow ends for visibility reasons,

Errr no, that was purely a BR requirement for diesel and electric
locomotives. It doesn't affect other railways.

> it could be argued that all cars should have bright fronts.

Not a bad idea, except that it wouldn't make any difference to people who
don't bother looking.

> Granted,
> I don't see much chance of this actually becoming law... :)

Sadly not.
 

> Still doesn't make it a safe cycleway. The City of Copenhagen recently
> installed a number of new cycleways allowing a study of before and after
> accident rates. Turns out they accident and injury rates increased 10%
> after they were built. Studies in the Netherlands and Germany have
> similarly shown cycle tracks to be more dangerous than cycling on the road.
>

So who are you going to blame for the increase in accidents?

Can't be the motorists....Must be the cyclist themselves :)

If I was to believe bike safety facts that I have been used in this
group.

I would have come to the conclusion that;
Helmets kill, it's safer to ride a bike that walk and safer to ride on
the road than a cycle path.

Not much commonsense around is there....
 
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i2tvh5.1pi9e9b16oye7tN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>> > Last week on TV there was a short video featuring the antics of a
>> > cyclist in Lancashire. The programme was supposed to be advocating the
>> > benefits of cycling as a means of getting to work.
>>
>> Just watched the Vid on youtube, and I spotted four
>> criminals crossing double white lines to pass him.
>
> This is not illegal, you could do with learning your Highway Code. See
> rule 108.

I nearly mentioned that, but I wasn't sure whether I'd imagined it or
whether it was enshrined in the HC. I'd thought the limit was 20 rather than
10 mph. The problem with the rule is that you have to slow down to the speed
of the bike in order to judge how fast it is going and therefore whether it
is going slow enough for you to be allowed to overtake it ;-)

I presume the rule about zig-zag lines on approach to a zebra crossing or
pelican crossing forbids you overtaking a cyclist there - that's what I've
always assumed. At a quick glance through my paper HC, I can't find the bit
about zig-zag lines.
 
Mortimer said the following on 14/08/2007 09:25:

> Are you defining "cyclist" to mean " someone who rides a bike as a
> competitive sportsman eg in the Milk Race"?

The Milk Race - blimey - there's a blast from the past :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
> I would have come to the conclusion that;
> Helmets kill, it's safer to ride a bike that walk and safer to ride on
> the road than a cycle path.

Took you long enough to see the light but you got there in the end,
well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.
Replies
124
Views
9K
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
J
Re: Who decided that all motorists were criminals?
Replies
0
Views
764
UK and Europe
John Hearns
J
N
Who decided that all motorists were criminals?
Replies
7
Views
855
UK and Europe
Nuxx Bar
N
D
New technology to punish traffic criminals
Replies
11
Views
314
UK and Europe
Pyromancer
P
U
British Government supports speed criminals and drink drivers...
Replies
63
Views
916
UK and Europe
Nick Kew
N
Top Bottom Back