Criminals on TV



>> 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.


ITYM not necessarily illegal. The cyclist could have been travelling at
10mph or less. This is as unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at
more than that.

--
Mark T
 
Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

> >> 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.

>
> ITYM not necessarily illegal.


The hair-splitting debate is over there -->

> The cyclist could have been travelling at 10mph or less. This is as
> unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at more than that.


Most cyclists grossly over estimate their speed, few have speedometers
and none of thsoe are calibrated.
 
In message <[email protected]>
"The other view point, there is one you know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
>
> 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....
>


Common sense is often far from sensible and sensible solutions are
often counter-intuitive. What I can tell you as medical researcher is
that the RTA statistics support the views you have stated above.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:33:46 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
<snip>

Off with his head! lol

seriously though, what a prat.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
 
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:13:13 +0100, "Mortimer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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).


Why the latter? Just to cater for those folk who can't be arsed to
make sure they have a fully-charged battery? A bit like making
everyone carry spare bulbs really.

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


In many other countries that is the case. Certainly in France, Germany
and Switzerland they all have to be sold with lights, bell, reflectors
and mudguards. Unless they're intended for off-road use only (in
France, at least).

>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?


When I was a kid such devices (bike-mounted, though) were generally
available. They were very much in keeping with the Raleight Chopper
style of things that was briefly popular in the '70s; the more
gadgets, mirrors, arials etc the cooler the chopper.

But they were shite, really heavy on batteries, and relied on
direction arrows as the flashers were too close together.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom
 
Steve Firth wrote:
>
>> The cyclist could have been travelling at 10mph or less. This is as
>> unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at more than that.

>
> Most cyclists grossly over estimate their speed, few have speedometers
> and none of thsoe are calibrated.


I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately. Few cyclists are
travel as slow as 10mph and I am usually between 15-20mph dropping to
maybe 8 or 9 on steeper hills. Next?

Tony
 
Mike Clark wrote:
>
> Common sense is often far from sensible and sensible solutions are
> often counter-intuitive. What I can tell you as medical researcher is
> that the RTA statistics support the views you have stated above.
>


As Einstein said "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired
by age eighteen"

Tony
 
On 14 Aug, 02:15, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other Troll, there is one you
>
> know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htmwrote:
>
> 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.
>
> And rule 62, if you are serious about this rule, then you
> must live on the plant Zog.
>
> Martin "Two leading, two trailing" Dann.


They are not my rules...But the rules that you should be applying for
the privilege of using the roads.

What if motorists picked and chose what rules they wanted to use ;-)
At least the motorists have a huge amount of legal requirements to be
on the road, cyclists = none.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>> The cyclist could have been travelling at 10mph or less. This is as
>>> unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at more than that.

>>
>> Most cyclists grossly over estimate their speed, few have speedometers
>> and none of thsoe are calibrated.

>
> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately. Few cyclists are
> travel as slow as 10mph and I am usually between 15-20mph dropping to
> maybe 8 or 9 on steeper hills. Next?
>


How did you get it calibrated?
 
marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> No such thing as a "good safe cycleway" they are all less safe than a road.


Nonsense. There are good safe cycle tracks. They are just vanishingly
rare in the UK and, in general, cycle tracks are less safe than the
road network. I suspect safety is a function of the number of junctions
and volume of traffic. For example, NCN 1 from the Freebridge to
Millfleet in K.Lynn is safer than the comparable A148 road route.

I've not seen the video mentioned to know whether the one in it is a
good cycleway or not, but it's probably not...

Recovering after being SMIDSY'd yesterday (he missed),
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
Brimstone wrote:
> 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.



Hold that thought, now extrapolte to cycles.

If someone is not looking there is no point in wearing dayglo, if they
are looking there is no point in wearing dayglo.
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> >> The cyclist could have been travelling at 10mph or less. This is as
> >> unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at more than that.

> >
> > Most cyclists grossly over estimate their speed, few have speedometers
> > and none of thsoe are calibrated.

>
> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately.


And how do you know this?
 
>> The cyclist could have been travelling at 10mph or less. This is as
>> unlikely, as even most trundlies potter about at more than that.

>
> Most cyclists grossly over estimate their speed


Whilst the speedometer on my bike isn't independently calibrated, it is
pretty accurate. I very rarely come across a cyclist at less than 10mph.
The slower ones pootle about at 12mph, the modal average seems somewhere
around 14-15mph.

I somehow doubt you would be prosecuted, even if the police thought the
cyclist was significantly over 10mph, so you can rest easy.

--
Mark T
 
On 14 Aug, 09:53, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you
> know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htmsaid the following on
> 14/08/2007 09:34:
>
> > 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.

>
> So, you've finally got the message.
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/


Only about the bit you delete
> Not much commonsense around this group is there.
 
NM wrote:
>>
>> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately. Few cyclists are
>> travel as slow as 10mph and I am usually between 15-20mph dropping to
>> maybe 8 or 9 on steeper hills. Next?
>>

>
> How did you get it calibrated?


Very easy. Cycle computers are nothing more than wheel revolution
counters which multiply the number of revolutions per second by the user
entered wheel circumference. Measure the circumference in a roll out
test, enter it and voila, calibrated speedometer. Most of us here will
have done that and its good to about 0.1mph from cross calibration with
GPS on a straight road.

Tony
 
On 14 Aug, 10:25, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "The other view point, there is one you know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > 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....

>
> Common sense is often far from sensible and sensible solutions are
> often counter-intuitive. What I can tell you as medical researcher is
> that the RTA statistics support the views you have stated above.
>
> Mike


RTA are usually only recorded if KSI

I want to see A&E stats.
 
Mortimer wrote:
> "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"?



I mean a cyclist is someone who is interested in cycling, a POB is
someone on a "bike shaped object" BSO , normally this BSO comes from
Halfords, has no lights and the POB has no interest in cycling apart
from getting from A to B ( normally via C if C is a pavement).

In much the same way the majority of car users don't care about their
skills, other road users, or their vehicle.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> NM wrote:
>>>
>>> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately. Few cyclists are
>>> travel as slow as 10mph and I am usually between 15-20mph dropping to
>>> maybe 8 or 9 on steeper hills. Next?
>>>

>>
>> How did you get it calibrated?

>
> Very easy. Cycle computers are nothing more than wheel revolution
> counters which multiply the number of revolutions per second by the user
> entered wheel circumference. Measure the circumference in a roll out
> test, enter it and voila, calibrated speedometer. Most of us here will
> have done that and its good to about 0.1mph from cross calibration with
> GPS on a straight road.
>


A roll out test? I assume you mean you push the bike for one wheel
revolution measure the distance, do a bit of maths? Do you correct for
the difference in rolling diameter between a loaded and an empty bike or
don't you go to that level of accuracy?
 
> 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.


Do you really think that a cyclist, who is already higher than most cars;
with front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights does not show up?

Do you wear reflectives when walking around town? What is the problem? Do
you not want to show up?

--
Mark T
 
marc wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> 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.

>
>
> Hold that thought, now extrapolte to cycles.
>
> If someone is not looking there is no point in wearing dayglo, if they
> are looking there is no point in wearing dayglo.


Of course there is a point to dayglo clothing, all the H&S officers at
all these tinpot companies need something to feel important about.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
0
Views
206
Road Cycling
Callistus Valerius
C