Criminals on TV

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

marc wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Even that could be useful if people learned how to use it.
>
> Yes, if fitted with a quick release so that you could throw it at a
> driver to attract their attention.

....or throw it at the ignorant pedestrian in front of you, blocking the
pavement.


--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Tony Raven]

MJ Ray wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Are you sure about that? The Milton Keynes Redways (and the Stevenage
equivalents) are less safe than the grid roads which include many
unrestricted and A road sections of single and dual carriageway.

Tony

 

[marc]

®i©ardo wrote:
> Mark T wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> What "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights"? You're living in a
> dream world, or you probably live in a town with brightly lit roads with
> the alternative of plenty of pavements to cycle on.
>


If you haven't noticed the "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus
lights" you aren't looking hard enough, if you have noticed that a bike
hasn't got "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights" then you were
looking hard enough that maybe they didn't need them.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

David Martin wrote:
> On Aug 14, 11:15 am, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> ®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
>> No, my car is metallic bronze and it has lights on it, which I use in
>> appropriate weather conditions or to meet the requirements of the time
>> of day/night.
>
> My bike is bright red and it has lights on it yada yada yada
>
> So why do I need to wear light clothing again?
>
> Can't you see my lights?
>
> If you can't then what hope do you have of being able to see me?
>
> ..d
>

Ah, you're the one with the lights! My journey to work covers some
twenty miles on country lanes, A and B roads, mostly unlit, and is
undertaken in the dark. In the past month I have seen only one cyclist
with working front and rear lights out of ten or so. The majority seem
to have none at all.

You carry on, sport, I'm sure that your faith will see you through.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

Tony Raven wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> ®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
>>
>> No, my car is metallic bronze and it has lights on it, which I use in
>> appropriate weather conditions or to meet the requirements of the time
>> of day/night.
>>
>
> So if I have lights on my bike (which I do) and use them "in appropriate
> weather conditions or to meet the requirement of day/night" there is no
> problem with my being seen without wearing fluorescent clothing in just
> the same way that there is not with your non-fluorescent painted car?
>
> Tony

As I've said elsewhere, if you have lights it becomes a different
matter. The majority of cyclists do not seem to bother.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[marc]

Steve Firth wrote:
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I check mine about once a month against my GPS.
>
> Is your name "Tony Raven"?

No Tony doesn't seem to spend as much time calibrating.

 

[Brimstone]

Tony Raven wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Even that could be useful if people learned how to use it.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
> And more importantly learned how to hear it. I've lost count of the
> number of time I have been berated for not having a bell having spent
> several seconds previously ringing it to no effect other than
> occasionally somebody checking whether their mobile phone was
> ringing.

You don't surely mean that car occupants should reduce the volume of their
boom boxes?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

marc wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Mark T wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>
>> What "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights"? You're living in
>> a dream world, or you probably live in a town with brightly lit roads
>> with the alternative of plenty of pavements to cycle on.
>>
>
>
> If you haven't noticed the "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus
> lights" you aren't looking hard enough, if you have noticed that a bike
> hasn't got "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights" then you were
> looking hard enough that maybe they didn't need them.

They also have a duty of care when using the roads!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Brimstone]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately.
>>
>> And how do you know this?
>
> Because I calibrated it using time honoured methods of calibration in
> which I am well versed. True I made some assumptions such as the tape
> measure I used being accurately calibrated by the manufacturer.

Sound like sloppy workmanship to me.

No wonder the country is going to the dogs.

 

[marc]

®i©ardo wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> Mark T wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> What "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights"? You're living in
>>> a dream world, or you probably live in a town with brightly lit roads
>>> with the alternative of plenty of pavements to cycle on.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you haven't noticed the "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus
>> lights" you aren't looking hard enough, if you have noticed that a
>> bike hasn't got "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights" then
>> you were looking hard enough that maybe they didn't need them.
>
> They also have a duty of care when using the roads!
>


As a car user do you really want to open up that can of worms?

 

[Trevor A Panther]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Well I was not going to enter into this long topic .... but .........

I ride on road every day and on a very busy road every day since it runs past
my house -- A630..... so all my journeys start on it and I am much safer on
road than on any of the few ( and bad) cycle paths round here.
I generally ride at least in the left hand wheel track on the road or wider at
necessary times. On approaching roundabouts I move into the appropriate lane
as marked on the road surface for vehicles ( I am a vehicle). If I am turning
right I take up a position centrally in the right hand lane and indicate that
I am turning right. Indeed I do exactly the same thing as if I were driving my
car.
As I progress round the roundabout I adjust my lane appropriate to the exit I
am heading for and I signal my intentions very clearly.
I can only say that I have never ( touches my wooden head) had a problem on a
roundabout --except on the very rare occasion I have followed an "on road
cycle track" -- which puts you in totally the wrong position all the way round
the system.

So I stay on road and position me just as a motorist should! I reckon that
like that other vehicles have a fair chance of understanding what I am doing!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Short summary, it's not calibrated.

Long summary as I disagree?

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote:
>
> Uh huh, and the speedometer on muy car is "pretty accurate". It only
> over-reads the speed by about 10%+ 2 mph.

So there is no chance then of you breaking the law by overtaking on
double whites when you speedo says the vehicle in front is doing 10mph
or less.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> I have one and it is calibrated pretty accurately.
>>> And how do you know this?
>> Because I calibrated it using time honoured methods of calibration in
>> which I am well versed.
>
> A simple "it's not calibrated" would have been sufficient.
>

Would you have preferred me to go back to primary reference standards at
NPL? Any pointers to errors in the methodology that result in it not
being calibrated would be welcome to see if its my error or yours.

Tony

 

[Mark T]

>> Whilst the speedometer on my bike isn't independently calibrated, it is
>> pretty accurate.
>
> Uh huh, and the speedometer on muy car is "pretty accurate". It only
> over-reads the speed by about 10%+ 2 mph.

Ouch. The speedometer on the bicycle prolly has a much less than 1% error,
given the lengths I went to to get it accurate.

--
Mark T

 

[Tony Raven]

®i©ardo wrote:
>
> Ah, you're the one with the lights! My journey to work covers some
> twenty miles on country lanes, A and B roads, mostly unlit, and is
> undertaken in the dark. In the past month I have seen only one cyclist
> with working front and rear lights out of ten or so. The majority seem
> to have none at all.

I'm surprised you found ten cyclists out before 5:30 in the morning on
country lanes. Are you sure you haven't just seen the same cyclist nine
different times?

Tony

 

[Mark T]

> What "front, rear and pedal reflectors plus lights"? You're living in
> a dream world

The front, rear and pedal reflectors that are on every bike sold. Oh, and
those funny reflectors on the wheels too.

>> Do you wear reflectives when walking around town? What is the
>> problem? Do you not want to show up?
>
> Not if I'm not walking in the middle of the road, no.

Wires crossed?

--
Mark T

 

[Tony Raven]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
> Well I was not going to enter into this long topic .... but .........
>
> I ride on road every day and on a very busy road every day since it
> runs past my house -- A630..... so all my journeys start on it and I am
> much safer on road than on any of the few ( and bad) cycle paths round
> here.
> I generally ride at least in the left hand wheel track on the road or
> wider at necessary times. On approaching roundabouts I move into the
> appropriate lane as marked on the road surface for vehicles ( I am a
> vehicle). If I am turning right I take up a position centrally in the
> right hand lane and indicate that I am turning right. Indeed I do
> exactly the same thing as if I were driving my car.
> As I progress round the roundabout I adjust my lane appropriate to the
> exit I am heading for and I signal my intentions very clearly.
> I can only say that I have never ( touches my wooden head) had a
> problem on a roundabout --except on the very rare occasion I have
> followed an "on road cycle track" -- which puts you in totally the
> wrong position all the way round the system.
>

Ditto.

Tony

 

[Mortimer]

"®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>>> The law has far more important things to do like mandating a bicycle
>>>> bell at the point of sale ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> Even that could be useful if people learned how to use it.
>>
>> Yes, if fitted with a quick release so that you could throw it at a
>> driver to attract their attention.
>
> ...or throw it at the ignorant pedestrian in front of you, blocking the
> pavement.

Yes, I find that most people treat a pavement or cycle track as a one-way
street, and think that if there are several of them they are allowed to walk
n-abreast, where n is limited only by the width of the pavement, thus
blocking the path for any approaching bike or pedestrian. When I'm walking
with friends, I always treat a pavement as if it were a road with a white
line down the middle, and don't stray onto the right hand side unless I've
overtaking someone. It's a shame more people don't do this.

It's also a shame that cyclists on a cycle track don't reliably keep left:
quite commonly when I see an oncoming cyclist I find that I move left (since
traffic drives on the left, that's a reasonable convention for cyclists on a
side-of-the-road cycle track as well) and find that he moves to his right.
So we both move the opposite way - and so on...

On one cycle track (disused railway track, now The Phoenix Trail) I nearly
ran over a child who ran into my path. I'd been approaching at a fairly
typical 15-20 mph but I'd seen the parents and the children from a long way
off so slowed right down. I rang my bell, the parents saw me and told the
children "there's a bike coming". Once I could see that they'd turned round,
seen me and moved aside, I rode past at almost-falling-off speed (probably
about 3 mph) giving them a wide berth - and yet lo and behold one of the
children suddenly darted across into my path. Loose gravel is not the best
surface for an emergency stop! Not sure what extra precaution I could have
taken other than getting right off to go past them!

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:53:46 +0100, John Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
> > "John Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Nit pick time - while the requirement for battery operated lights
> >> improves safety,
> >
> > What requirement for battery operated lights? No such thing (in the UK
> > at least).
>
> Technically you need lights to conform to BS 6102 part 3 (1986) which
> you can't (AFAIK) do with dynamo lights.

Are you sure you don't need lights that, if battery powered, comply
BS6102?

I believe dynamo lights are legal in teh UK, although you have to
modify your riding style (specifically with reference to turning
right).

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