Cycling wrong way up one way street

[Daniel Barlow]

Conor <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, _ says...
>> Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>>
> So I should be banned because a cyclist chooses to stick themselves in
> the well publicised blindspot of my lorry?

Since the discussion is about cyclists being rear-ended, your
well-publicised blind spot is irrelevant to it.

Do you have a less-well-publicised blind spot directly in front of
you?



-dan

 

[_]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:48:01 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote:

> Conor <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, _ says...
>>> Drivers who cannot see cyclists should be banned.
>>>
>> So I should be banned because a cyclist chooses to stick themselves in
>> the well publicised blindspot of my lorry?
>
> Since the discussion is about cyclists being rear-ended, your
> well-publicised blind spot is irrelevant to it.
>
> Do you have a less-well-publicised blind spot directly in front of
> you?
>

Check his posts; I think he's publicising it quite well.

 

[Andrew Price]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:41:15 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]>
wrote:

[---]

>You'll be telling me next that non-racial Zimbabwe is a far better
>place than apartheid Rhodesia used to be.

Point of order: although there was disenfranchisement of the black
population, there was never apartheid in Rhodesia. That was specific
to South Africa.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Paul Boatang, as Home Office minister said,
>>"'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
>>cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear
>>of
>>the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users
>>when
>>doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for
>>enforcement,
>>acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
>>people, are afraid to cycle in the road... "
>
>
> This surely must be one of the most memorably silly statements any
> government minister, of any party, has ever made. It shows that the
> man is not fit to be in parliament, let alone government.
>
> Once a law is passed, IT'S THE LAW. It's the law for all.

It is still the law. There are different penalties in different
circumstances, the same as there ever were.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

"Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> writes:

> This [pavement cycling] surely must be one of the most memorably silly statements any
> government minister, of any party, has ever made. It shows that the
> man is not fit to be in parliament, let alone government.

Frankly, it's about as memorable as all the rest.

> Once a law is passed, IT'S THE LAW. It's the law for all.

I know you would like this to be true. I think I would like it to be
true too, as a general principle. But realistically, it's a long way
from true. Nobody (except for eight year olds and computer
programmers) honestly believes that the the law in general is applied
evenly and without special favour, and if we got all het up every time
it isn't we'd never relax. See any anti-terrorism or public order
legislation for further details.

7 people listening to a tape recording of Ravel's Bolero in a public
park? Illegal rave, bring the riot police. Heaven help them if the
park is within the parliamentary exclusion zone, too.



-dan

 

[Doug]

On 14 May, 08:30, "joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Of course police are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and
> > are rarely prosecuted, even when they kill someone.
>
> Yes they are subject, however the second part seems true.
>
Then why are they very seldom prosecuted, unlike the rest of us?
>
> > The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
> > scared to ride on our very dangerous roads, where almost anyone is
> > allowed to loose control of their lethal machine in a so-called
> > 'accident'.
>
> Who is 'allowed to loose control?(sic)
>
Drivers who loose control of their dangerous machines in public
places, obviously, and who only receive derisory punishments, if at
all.

BTW cycling on pavements is much more of a hassle than cycling on
roads, due to the presence of pedestrians and street furniture and a
lack of dropped kerbs.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

 

[Brimstone]

Doug wrote:
> cycling on pavements is much more of a hassle than cycling on
> roads, due to the presence of pedestrians and street furniture and a
> lack of dropped kerbs.

Oh dear, I'm so upset to learn that. But, it does provide even more reason
for cyclists to use the road doesn't it?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>>> way.
>>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>>> So I see.
>>>
>>> It takes all sorts.
>>>
>>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>>
>> Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians
>> taught to ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing
>> so, to the alarm of other road users.
>
> Used to have?

Yes, you know, they had it, but then they changed the law so that they
didn't have it any more. Like.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The System is well pleased with this Unit's performance, which
falls within expected parameters.

 

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 14 May, 08:30, "joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Of course police are not subject to the same laws as everyone else and
>>> are rarely prosecuted, even when they kill someone.
>> Yes they are subject, however the second part seems true.
>>
> Then why are they very seldom prosecuted, unlike the rest of us?
>>> The only reason people cycle on pavements is because they are too
>>> scared to ride on our very dangerous roads, where almost anyone is
>>> allowed to loose control of their lethal machine in a so-called
>>> 'accident'.
>> Who is 'allowed to loose control?(sic)
>>
> Drivers who loose control of their dangerous machines in public
> places, obviously, and who only receive derisory punishments, if at
> all.
>
> BTW cycling on pavements is much more of a hassle than cycling on
> roads, due to the presence of pedestrians and street furniture and a
> lack of dropped kerbs.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>

So pedestrians get in the way of cyclists on pavements, what shall we do
about them (the pedestrians)?

--
Tony the Dragon

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>> In news:[email protected],
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> In some countries it is a rule of the road that pedestrians and
>>>>> cyclists must travel on the opposite side of the road to motorised
>>>>> traffic so that they will see it coming in time to get out of the
>>>>> way.
>>>>> Which I believe is a sensible rule.
>>>> So I see.
>>>>
>>>> It takes all sorts.
>>>>
>>>> PS: You've intrigued me. Name one of those countries.
>>> Large swathes of the USA used to have such a rule. Older USAnians
>>> taught to ride a bicycle thus are sometimes to be found still doing
>>> so, to the alarm of other road users.
>> Used to have?
>
> Yes, you know, they had it, but then they changed the law so that they
> didn't have it any more. Like.

They used to have slavery. And Prohibition.

Usually, there's a particular reason why rules are scrapped or amended.

That, of course, only applies in this case if the USA ever *did* have a
rule requiring cyclists to travel along the wrong side of the road. I
have the impression that we might have heard about it before now had it
been the case.

 

[judith]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:31 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>TimB wrote:
>> What's the law on cycling the wrong way up a one way street? A few
>> days ago, I was walking home, and saw two people on white Police
>> cycles, wearing hi vis jackets with POLICE emblazoned on the back,
>> travelling at a very leisurely pace, the wrong way round a local one
>> way system, on the pavement.
>
>I expect you know it's illegal. It's not especially dangerous, if you
>do it on the road. But to many cyclists it seems less illegal, or at
>least safer, to use the pavement. It isn't, despite some drivers
>intimidating illegal on-road contraflow cyclists.
>
>But before condemning too much, consider
>- the one-way was introduced without any consideration of its effects
>on cyclists, and very possibly despite objections by local cyclists
>- the alternative route is almost certain to be longer and contain
>more junctions, which make it more dangerous
>- the alternative route may be a fast gyratory or dual carriageway,
>which many cyclists will not cycle on, because they're frightening and
>may be dangerous.
>
>One-way streets are anti-cycling measures, and as such, should be
>returned to 2-way operation, possibly with plugs or mode filters to
>restrict undesirable motor vehicle use.
>
>Colin McKenzie


Is it illegal for a cyclist to walk against the traffic in a one way
street?

If not - why not do that - in my experience very few one way streets
are of such a length to make this prohibitive time wise.

 

[Mortimer]

"judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is it illegal for a cyclist to walk against the traffic in a one way
> street?
>
> If not - why not do that - in my experience very few one way streets
> are of such a length to make this prohibitive time wise.

There is a marked cycle route (the sort with a number that appears on
cycling maps and on little plates along the route) which at one point
directs cyclists the wrong way up a one-way street near where I live.
There's a sign "Cyclists Dismount" as you turn onto the one-way street. This
suggests that while cycling against the flow of traffic is illegal (and
dangerous when cars aren't expecting anything coming towards them), walking
your bike, either on the road or the pavement, is not illegal.

I might add that whenever I use this route, I'm one of the few cyclists who
dismounts and walks!

 

[Me]

In article <20e25232-ec63-40b3-8fec-3eb0addf8205
@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> Drivers who loose control of their dangerous machines in public

Oh, hello Dug.

 

[Steve Firth]

Doug <[email protected]> wrote:

> Drivers who loose control of their dangerous machines in public
> places, obviously, and who only receive derisory punishments,

You're claiming that drivers are put in the stocks and exposed to public
ridicule?

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:52:05 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Paul Boatang, as Home Office minister said,
>> "'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
>> cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear
>> of
>> the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users
>> when
>> doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for
>> enforcement,
>> acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
>> people, are afraid to cycle in the road... "

>This surely must be one of the most memorably silly statements any
>government minister, of any party, has ever made. It shows that the
>man is not fit to be in parliament, let alone government.

>Once a law is passed, IT'S THE LAW. It's the law for all.

But it does not have to be enforced in all circumstances. In a just
society, if a policeman can see that there is a good reason for
breaking a law, and that no harm is likely to be caused, he has the
ability to use his discretion and ignore the act.

And yes, if it is the case that breaking the law is more beneficial in
a great many situations than not breaking the law, then either the law
should be modified, or changes made elsewhere so that people can
adhere to the law without significant disadvantage.

--
Cynic

 

[Cynic]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:20:17 +0100, judith <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Is it illegal for a cyclist to walk against the traffic in a one way
>street?

Strictly speaking, it is legal only if they *carry* the bicycle rather
than wheeling it.

--
Cynic

 

[Mortimer]

"Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:20:17 +0100, judith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Is it illegal for a cyclist to walk against the traffic in a one way
>>street?
>
> Strictly speaking, it is legal only if they *carry* the bicycle rather
> than wheeling it.

I'd love to know why the law was made that way, and why pedestrians pushing
pushchairs/prams are allowed whereas pedestrians pushing bicycles are not
(if you apply the law strictly).

Even more bizarre are the streets in the centre of Oxford where it is legal
for a bus to drive along them but illegal (at certain times of day ) to
cycle along them. If great big vehicles like buses are allowed, why are
bikes banned? Weird!

Is there any difference between pushing a bike on a pavement and pushing it
in the road, close to the kerb? Is it strictly speaking illegal to push a
bike on a pavement or in a pedestrianised street?

Are there any cases of people being prosecuted (or even cautioned) for
pushing a bike in a place where riding it would be illegal?

What is the legal situation about pushing a bike along a public footpath (as
opposed to a bridleway) where you are not allowed to ride it?

 

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:23 +0100
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> That, of course, only applies in this case if the USA ever *did* have
> a rule requiring cyclists to travel along the wrong side of the road.
> I have the impression that we might have heard about it before now
> had it been the case.

I heard about it, although I'm not sure if it was legally required or
just considered to be good practice. The idea is that on country roads
you can't expect drivers to notice anything smaller than a truck -
it's best to face them so you can dive out of the way when they nearly
splat you.

 

[Mortimer]

"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20080516133434.6da301b6@bluemoon...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:23 +0100
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That, of course, only applies in this case if the USA ever *did* have
>> a rule requiring cyclists to travel along the wrong side of the road.
>> I have the impression that we might have heard about it before now
>> had it been the case.
>
> I heard about it, although I'm not sure if it was legally required or
> just considered to be good practice. The idea is that on country roads
> you can't expect drivers to notice anything smaller than a truck -
> it's best to face them so you can dive out of the way when they nearly
> splat you.

The one thing I noticed when I drove in Massachusetts was that people
invariably walked with their back to traffic on country roads with no
pavement (sorry, "sidewalk") rather than walking facing oncoming traffic as
they usually do here in the UK. I never saw any cyclists cycling on the
wrong side of the road - maybe that varies from one state to another.

 

[Francis Burton]

In article <YbGdnX9NUdb26rDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>If I'm walking along a road with no pavement, and a lorry comes the other
>way, it takes a fraction of a second to stop and position myself as far from
>the road as possible. With a bike, I have a very real stopping
>distance/time, would need to find a rather larger place to position
>myself/the bike, and would also need to consider dismounting as I'd be off
>the road.
>
>Your idea may work slightly better in areas where road edges aren't well
>defined (though it'll still be more dangerous). But that's not the case
>here - doing what you suggest simply isn't practicalbe.

How does having the lorry coming up behind you compare? Is it
better not to see it coming or to glance continually behind?

Francis