Good News!



Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've seen that going along the A316 at Twickenham.

I used to see Ed China's works of automotive art quite often around Farnborough. IIRC there's the
sofa, the bed and the shed and the skip. There may well be more.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers?
Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> > Zero tolerance already exists for motorists.
>
> Yeah, bollocks it does. I drove over 50 miles yesterday in excess of 80mph. I overtake a police
> car while doing 75mph,

Is that 75mph (indicated) or 75 mph? If the former then you most probably overtook the police car
at 68mph, which is why he didn't bat an eyelid, hsi speddometer is calibrated yours is set to over
read by 10%.

> and I passed a police car in a 30mph limit doing 33mph.

And on this instance exactly 30 mph if you are trusting your car's speedometer.

> If zero tolerance already existed, there wouldn't be the repeated calls for zero tolerance that we
> keep hearing.

The calsl for zero tolerance are from rabid lunatics who consider it's high time that every car was
preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag. Sadly the government prefers to listen to the lunatics
at present.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers?
Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
Stevie D wrote:
> ¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤ wrote:
>
>> That cyclists like to criticise everyone else and view themselves as the angels of the road,
>> whereas the truth is often somewhat different.
>
> I don't know *any* cyclist who will claim that all cyclists are angels and all motorists are the
> spawn of Stan. On the contrary, most cyclists will denounce idiots such as those who ride on
> pavements, in much the same way that drivers will denounce Revvin Kevin and Dithering Doris.

I would respectfully suggest that the following post in response to my recent Stealth Cyclist rant
goes some considerbaly way to being just that:

>>Oh, so at least 110W of lights up front and probably street lights too
weren't enough? Any able bodied human would see cyclists in these conditions. My 'friendly' advice:
What kind of lazy git pops out to the shops in a car anyway? What's your bike for? Posing? Hanging
on the wall?<<

pk
 
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:15:02 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Do the sums of you want, I just don't think they would tell us anything.

> So, you don't think your conviction could be justified by
> looking at accident statistics, even if the detail was there.

No, I just don't have any confidence that I can find the stats for low-speed car crashes, those with
speed prior to impact being 25mph or less, and I'm not confident I could isolate the stats for
pedestrians killed and injured by cyclists not on the footway. That's the sort of thing you'd need
to prove whether a car at speed X is more or less deadly than a bike at the same speed. Apart from
anything else, speed is not recorded in cycle crashes.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
JNugent wrote:
>
>
> Motor vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights as though they were green
> - and never have done.

What utter rubbish! In Leicester they do it all the time, buses, cars, bicycles, the lot. The only
difference is that the cyclists generally make sure it is safe to do so as in a collision they'd
come off worse, not that I condone it. I have a junction near me, classed as a black spot, where the
game is to go onto the wrong side of the road whilst accelerating to the right turn lane when the
lights are green. If the lights change before they get there they seem committed so carry on at high
speed to run the light, the high speed then adds to any potential collisions damage.

Pete
 
"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I am completely convinced that a bike at speed x is less dangerous to a ped than a car at speed
> > x. Not only is the bike smaller, making it less likely that they will end up trying to ocupy the
> > same space at the same time, but the car has over ten times the mass.

One thing you may be forgetting is the invisibility of bikes. Accident stats - as the Nick F.
threadlet - have to have this. Anyone who uses a bike in town will have seen this, but theres plenty
of people who step straight out into the road without warning (they have probably made a mental note
"no cars" seconds before). The worst I have ever seen was a pedestrian looking in my direction
walking straight out. I was far enough away to make gentle avoiding action, but she did seem rather
surprised _eventually_.

> Assuming, of course, that the likelihood of the pushbike and the car
coming
> into conflict with pedestrians is identical. And do pushbikes have pedestrian-friendly
> crumple zones?

Yes. Arms. Most of the impact would come from the mass of the person.

> I would imagine a narrow tyre hitting a limb at 25 mph would do more damage than a broad bumper.

Tyres ARE made out of rubber you know. (not to mention that they are lightweight things on hinges).
 
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:07:26 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I don't know what motivates cyclists to ride on the pavement, maybe perceived dangers of the
>> road, convenience, thoughtlessness etc.

>...or possibly having lost control of the bike (obviously only of application in cases where the
>cyclist wasn't deliberately on the footway to begin with)...

Most unlikely. Getting from road to pavement without having your wheels dragged out from under you
by the kerb requires a deliberate action. Some shared-use footways have insufficiently dropped
kerbs. The first casualty on one notable one in Reading was apparently the wife of the traffic
engineer who "designed" it. So that was fixed quite quickly - only three years later.

>Let us start by restating the obvious: one cannot legislate against error, illness or adverse
>sudden incident; one *can* legislate (and enforce the law) against deliberate, selfish,
>endangerment of others with a view only to one's own convenience.

Quite. Speeding being the most obvious and common of the last.

>We all know whch of those two arises from out-of-control motor vehicles and which from footway
>cyclists, don't we?

Yes, the out-of-control motor vehicles due to reckless speed or poor maintenance are a
serious problem.

>BTW, if I ever hear of a case of a motor vehicle being driven *on* and *along* a footway, in
>preference to being on the adjacent or parallel carriageway, with all wheels on the footway, at
>*normal travelling speed for the vehicle*, not merely crossing the footway or moving onto a parking
>bay (ie, travelling along a footway in the same way that some cyclists do, rather than merely
>having a tyre on the kerb at 1mph or something), and then hitting a pedestrian legitimately using
>the footway, I shall start to take apologists for footway cycling a little more seriously.

Nice set of conditions, neatly excluding the 4x4 with two wheels on the pavement bypassing the queue
at the lights at a brisk pace (the pavement not being actually wide enough to acommodate it in its
entirety) and conveniently ignoring the fact that "normal travelliong speed" for a pavement numpty
is well below normal travelling speed for road cyclists.

Not that any of us have show anything other than robust contempt for pavement cyclists.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:07:26 -0000, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

snip

>Let us start by restating the obvious: one cannot legislate against error, illness or adverse
>sudden incident; one *can* legislate (and enforce the law) against deliberate, selfish,
>endangerment of others with a view only to one's own convenience.

Yes please. Speed cameras everywhere for starters.

>We all know whch of those two arises from out-of-control motor vehicles and which from footway
>cyclists, don't we?
>
>BTW, if I ever hear of a case of a motor vehicle being driven *on* and *along* a footway, in
>preference to being on the adjacent or parallel carriageway, with all wheels on the footway, at
>*normal travelling speed for the vehicle*, not merely crossing the footway or moving onto a parking
>bay (ie, travelling along a footway in the same way that some cyclists do, rather than merely
>having a tyre on the kerb at 1mph or something), and then hitting a pedestrian legitimately using
>the footway, I shall start to take apologists for footway cycling a little more seriously.

I can help out there. Not 6 months ago I was sitting in a queue at traffic lights. A cyclist driving
a car (well, he must have been by the logic standards I've seen here) mounts all 4 wheels onto the
pavement, 'overtakes' a long line of cars and turns left going *around* the traffic lights while
still on the pavement. As he was going at a fair lick on a usually congested road (ie he was going
faster than normal vehicle speed) I reckon he passes all of your highly selective criteria.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Motor vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights as though they were green
>> - and never have done.

> What utter rubbish! In Leicester they do it all the time, buses, cars, bicycles, the lot. The only
> difference is that the cyclists generally make sure it is safe to do so as in a collision they'd
> come off worse, not that I condone it. I have a junction near me, classed as a black spot, where
> the game is to go onto the wrong side of the road whilst accelerating to the right turn lane when
> the lights are green. If the lights change before they get there they seem committed so carry on
> at high speed to run the light, the high speed then adds to any potential collisions damage.

Ah...

Someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "routine" and its derivatives.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
 
[email protected] wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:

] ... ]

>> BTW, if I ever hear of a case of a motor vehicle being driven *on* and *along* a footway, in
>> preference to being on the adjacent or parallel carriageway, with all wheels on the footway, at
>> *normal travelling speed for the vehicle*, not merely crossing the footway or moving onto a
>> parking bay (ie, travelling along a footway in the same way that some cyclists do, rather than
>> merely having a tyre on the kerb at 1mph or something), and then hitting a pedestrian
>> legitimately using the footway, I shall start to take apologists for footway cycling a little
>> more seriously.

> I can help out there. Not 6 months ago I was sitting in a queue at traffic lights. A cyclist
> driving a car (well, he must have been by the logic standards I've seen here) mounts all 4 wheels
> onto the pavement, 'overtakes' a long line of cars and turns left going *around* the traffic
> lights while still on the pavement. As he was going at a fair lick on a usually congested road (ie
> he was going faster than normal vehicle speed) I reckon he passes all of your highly selective
> criteria.

Both you and Guy need to grow up.

You know full well what is meant - but you act daft and pretend you don't.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
 
"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Stevie D wrote:
> > ¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤ wrote:
> >
> >> That cyclists like to criticise everyone else and view themselves as the angels of the road,
> >> whereas the truth is often somewhat different.
> >
> > I don't know *any* cyclist who will claim that all cyclists are angels and all motorists are the
> > spawn of Stan. On the contrary, most cyclists will denounce idiots such as those who ride on
> > pavements, in much the same way that drivers will denounce Revvin Kevin and Dithering Doris.
>
>
> I would respectfully suggest that the following post in response to my recent Stealth Cyclist rant
> goes some considerbaly way to being just that:
>
> >>Oh, so at least 110W of lights up front and probably street lights too
> weren't enough? Any able bodied human would see cyclists in these conditions. My 'friendly'
> advice: What kind of lazy git pops out to the shops in a car anyway? What's your bike for? Posing?
> Hanging on the wall?<<
>
>
> pk

I don't have a bike, but I wouldn't drive to the shops at the bottom of my road anyway. If it's
feasible to walk then I will.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I don't have a bike, but I wouldn't drive to the shops at the bottom of my road anyway. If it's
> feasible to walk then I will.

Indeed.

For the vast majority of us, the majority of our journeys are on foot.

Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from person
to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
 
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:48:51 -0000, "MrBitsy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Try counting the number of cyclists you see pelting along a footpath some day. I think you'll be
>>> quite staggered by the answer.
>>
>> I have done. I see perhaps six a month
>
>Pray tell us what town you live. If I walk to work I will be passed by more than 6 cyclists withing
>5 minutes of leaving home.

I live in London.

>Six a month my ****!

Indeed!
 
In news:p[email protected],
Stevie D <[email protected]> expounded sagaciously:
> ¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤ wrote:
>
>> That cyclists like to criticise everyone else and view themselves as the angels of the road,
>> whereas the truth is often somewhat different.
>
> I don't know *any* cyclist who will claim that all cyclists are angels and all motorists are the
> spawn of Stan. On the contrary, most cyclists will denounce idiots such as those who ride on
> pavements, in much the same way that drivers will denounce Revvin Kevin and Dithering Doris.

What has Stan ever done to upset you?
--

Martin Bulmer

Pie Conservation Threat
 
PeterE wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am completely convinced that a bike at speed x is less dangerous to a ped than a car at speed x.
>>Not only is the bike smaller, making it less likely that they will end up trying to ocupy the same
>>space at the same time, but the car has over ten times the mass.
>
>
> Assuming, of course, that the likelihood of the pushbike and the car coming into conflict with
> pedestrians is identical. And do pushbikes have pedestrian-friendly crumple zones?

Cars don't have pedestrian friendly crumple zones; they have occupant friendly crumple zones. The
euro NCAP pedestrian tests showed most cars scored very badly for pedestrian safety.

> I would imagine a narrow tyre hitting a limb at 25 mph would do more damage than a broad bumper.

That's far too simplistic: the bumper is fairly securely attached to 1-2 tonnes of mass. The
front wheel of a bicycle is only securely attached to the rest of the bike and is also able to
deflect sideways.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from
>> person to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.
>
>
> And that personal limit is getting shorter all the time.

We have a bakers no more than 50 yards from the office. I started to walk over there, but an
occasional visitor to the office got in his car, muttering, 'I don't walk anywhere'. Not only did I
get there first, but his parking space had gone when he got back. Nearest parking space was more
than 50 yards away.

Oh, and he said he used to be a lorry driver.

--
MrBitsy
 
[email protected] wrote:

> PeterE wrote:

>> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I am completely convinced that a bike at speed x is less dangerous to a ped than a car at speed
>>> x. Not only is the bike smaller, making it less likely that they will end up trying to ocupy the
>>> same space at the same time, but the car has over ten times the mass.

>> Assuming, of course, that the likelihood of the pushbike and the car coming into conflict with
>> pedestrians is identical. And do pushbikes have pedestrian-friendly crumple zones?

> Cars don't have pedestrian friendly crumple zones; they have occupant friendly crumple zones. The
> euro NCAP pedestrian tests showed most cars scored very badly for pedestrian safety.

"Pedestrian-friendly" might be putting it a bit high, but European cars *have* had progressively
more stringent regulations applied to front end construction, such that a pedestrian struck will be
"directed" over the bonnet (instead of being flung away from the vehicle) with the bonnet and
scuttle being constructed so as to deform under stress (the scuttle is proving more of a problem, as
it is a structural component).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You know full well what is meant - but you act daft and pretend you don't.

Yes, what you meant was to come up with a definition of driving / riding on the pavement which
excludes most such infractions by motorists and includes most by cyclists. But yuo were sufficiently
obvious about it that you were immediately rumbled.

What happened to your unreserved condemnation of all offences by all road users? Or indeed just by
car drivers?

Both the PP and I have seen cars driving on the pavement in order to bypass traffic jams, just
as you have seen cyclists doing. Near me the council have actualy erected bollards to prevent
this behaviour, not that they work particularly well as there is still room for two wheels on
the pavement.

Clearly this is yet another behaviour which is not unique to your pet hate group. End of
story, really.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g84aa0.1k2yzf41um5inpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> > > Zero tolerance already exists for motorists.
> >
> > Yeah, bollocks it does. I drove over 50 miles yesterday in excess of 80mph. I overtake a police
> > car while doing 75mph,
>
> Is that 75mph (indicated) or 75 mph? If the former then you most probably overtook the police car
> at 68mph, which is why he didn't bat an eyelid, hsi speddometer is calibrated yours is set to over
> read by 10%.

Where were you when other examples of "plenty of tolerance" were mentioned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
Slightly OT: News Reader
Replies
32
Views
959
UK and Europe
Mark T
M
S
OT: news.individual.net
Replies
40
Views
846
UK and Europe
Nigel Cliffe
N
M
**** Cycle Lanes hit the News
Replies
5
Views
397
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
S
News Reader Recommendation
Replies
16
Views
572
UK and Europe
Paul Boyd
P
M
CTC email news letter
Replies
1
Views
381
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
Top Bottom Back