It's a classic

Richard said:

MartinM said:

I've just ridden through Forest Row, there is a new similarly wide
strip enclosed by a white line (with hashed lines on the driveways)
painted green if you please, no bike symbol, GOK what it is for,

It's a corralling line for the potholes. They're not allowed to
encroach on the main surface of the road, so they all line up on the
left of this line to gaze enviously at the quadruple sets of alloy rims
rushing past at great speed just beyond their reach, whilst feeding
hungrily on the occasional double sets of alloy rims pottering past in
their kill zone.

well I just asked a resident and got this reply;

The green strip in Forest Row is not a cycle lane but represents the
spiritual path that we take in this brief life on earth before we
return to
the spiritual realm. In Forest Row we pay our own taxes for the upkeep
of
this path as we feel it is important. At Midsummer and other key points
in
the passage of the seasons we gather to walk this path which leads us
not
to Hartfield as one might imagine but to enlightenment. FYI we do this
naked.

I hope this makes it all clear.

Yours in peace and love

M

If anyone knows Forest Row and the locals' penchant for spelling out
eco-warrior messages on the frosty Forest with their nekkid bodies they
will understand. Perhaps more worrying is that I have routed this
year's Audax ride along it, I sense bad karma if riders do not keep to
the 10cm strip.

In article <[email hidden]>,

MartinM () said:

well I just asked a resident and got this reply;

Scientologist or Dark Lord of the Sith?

Quoted message said:

The green strip in Forest Row is not a cycle lane but represents the
spiritual path that we take in this brief life on earth before we
return to
the spiritual realm. In Forest Row we pay our own taxes for the upkeep
of
this path as we feel it is important. At Midsummer and other key points
in
the passage of the seasons we gather to walk this path which leads us
not
to Hartfield as one might imagine but to enlightenment. FYI we do this
naked.

I hope this makes it all clear.

Yours in peace and love

M

If anyone knows Forest Row and the locals' penchant for spelling out
eco-warrior messages on the frosty Forest with their nekkid bodies they
will understand. Perhaps more worrying is that I have routed this
year's Audax ride along it, I sense bad karma if riders do not keep to
the 10cm strip.

Too true. And don't forget: stones have souls too!
</silly_hippy>

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post Office.

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MartinM () said:

well I just asked a resident and got this reply;

Scientologist or Dark Lord of the Sith?

neither; any fule kno that Scinos only frequent East Grinstead (along
with the Mormons, New Life Church, Barclays Bank) Dark Lords use the
Forest Way so never find the path the righteousness.

Nick Kew said:

John Hearns said:

Thick white lines like that will also be slick in the wet.
All the more reason to avoid it.

Nasty choice. Either ride further out than you might otherwise do
(potentially giving drivers a legitimate gripe) or risk the paint.

How can it be a legitimate gripe to complain about a legitimate
road-user using the road in a safe manner recommended by a
government-published book.

R.

MartinM said:

well I just asked a resident and got this reply;

The green strip in Forest Row is not a cycle lane but represents the
spiritual path that we take in this brief life on earth before we
return to
the spiritual realm. In Forest Row we pay our own taxes for the upkeep
of
this path as we feel it is important. At Midsummer and other key points
in
the passage of the seasons we gather to walk this path which leads us
not
to Hartfield as one might imagine but to enlightenment. FYI we do this
naked.

I hope this makes it all clear.

Yours in peace and love

M

You've been in that there Java & Jazz cafe again, innit.

Real enlightenment is found next door, in Future Cycles, obv.

Tim
--
Blue Witch laughed at me

Tim Hall said:

MartinM said:

well I just asked a resident and got this reply;

The green strip in Forest Row is not a cycle lane but represents the
spiritual path that we take in this brief life on earth before we
return to
the spiritual realm. In Forest Row we pay our own taxes for the upkeep
of
this path as we feel it is important. At Midsummer and other key points
in
the passage of the seasons we gather to walk this path which leads us
not
to Hartfield as one might imagine but to enlightenment. FYI we do this
naked.

I hope this makes it all clear.

Yours in peace and love

M

You've been in that there Java & Jazz cafe again, innit.

if I was in J and J this morning I would still be there now waiting
for pizza and /or magic mushroom milkshake (or the bill)

"Richard" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nick Kew said:

John Hearns said:

Thick white lines like that will also be slick in the wet.
All the more reason to avoid it.

Nasty choice. Either ride further out than you might otherwise do
(potentially giving drivers a legitimate gripe) or risk the paint.

How can it be a legitimate gripe to complain about a legitimate road-user
using the road in a safe manner recommended by a government-published
book.

R.

Unfortunately, it seems a member of HM Constabulary thinks it's wrong to
cycle in the primary position.

See

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, John B

(') said:

MartinM said:

Simon Bennett said:

wafflycat wrote:

>

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Going by the linked correspondence it seems the council do, in fact,
expect cyclists to use the lane (re-inforced by the broken line at
the start). Idiotic.

but later they say that the bike is there to denote that the bike is
painted to make riders aware that they can use the road; this is
novel. Paint out the bike would seem the safest thing

i agree completely.
But embarrassingly, I also understand the Council's position - they are
working within the regulations, but are creating confusion to those who
don't understand road signs. A painted cycle on the road does not
indicate a cycle lane if it is not enclosed by a while line. it is
purely a 'cycle route' (yes, I know all roads are cycle routes too).

The position of that particular cycle symbol is ambiguous, though. It
should either be removed entirely or repositioned so that it is clearly
to the right of the white line.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

wafflycat said:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

if he was obstructing a vehicle that wished to pass then he was indeed
violating the HC; although whether it was safe for PlodVan to pass
looks unlikely given the circumstances.

MartinM said:

wafflycat said:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

if he was obstructing a vehicle that wished to pass then he was indeed
violating the HC; although whether it was safe for PlodVan to pass
looks unlikely given the circumstances.

Rubbish. There is no requirement to immediately let other vehicles pass
you - but I think we have been over that ground as a group before. I
don't know how far the van was immediately behind the bike, also what
the traffic conditions were on the road involved, nor what the relative
speeds between bike and traffic, so I cannot comment sensibly on the
specific case.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

MartinM said:

wafflycat said:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

if he was obstructing a vehicle that wished to pass then he was indeed
violating the HC;

In which case every motorist in a queue is violating the HC, except for
the one at the back.

R.

wafflycat said:

Unfortunately, it seems a member of HM Constabulary thinks it's wrong to
cycle in the primary position.

See

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

Cheers, helen s

Reinforced by the police reply to a complaint about the above incident:

"Happy New Year, and hopefully one in which we can reduce the number of
cyclist casualties.

In relation to the occurrence below, it would be very difficult without
further details of the officer or vehicle number to trace the officer,
as there will be no record in our Force Control Room. As we identified
in our recent survey of that route, the carriageway is constantly
changing, and there are locations where a cyclist riding in a safe and
assertive manner will (quite rightly) prevent other vehicles from
passing them, but over the entire route that should not be the case.

It is unfortunate for all that there are quite varying opinions on what
is safe and appropriate riding, even from the experts. The marking of
cycle lanes on the carriageway does not always create a safer
environment for cyclists, but creates the perception in many drivers
minds (including some Police drivers), that that is where cyclists
should be. Cycling down the centre of a lane creates the potential risk
of vehicles overtaking on the cyclists nearside, and may not be
understood by other road users. It is interesting that the lady refers
to her riding style as meandering, which may have drawn initial police
attention to her.

best wishes,

Alan"

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

MartinM said:

wafflycat said:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

if he was obstructing a vehicle that wished to pass then he was indeed
violating the HC; although whether it was safe for PlodVan to pass
looks unlikely given the circumstances.

But travelling at a normal speed for the conditions is not obstructing
other traffic. Stopping a la critical mass in teh middle of the road
would be, or deliberately manouveuring to make it impossible to pass
would be. Just riding along in accordance with the law is never
obstruction. Delay does not equal prevention.

However, it may be considered that failure to reasonably move over is
driving without due consideration for other road users. Doesn't mean we
have to leap out of their way every time.

...d

David Martin wrote:

or deliberately manouveuring to make it impossible to pass

Quoted message said:

would be.

perhaps this is what plod thought he was doing, although they would not
have been able to safely pass unless they were able to leave the
recommended clearance. Sounds like there was traffic coming the other
way. Plod was wrong whatever.

in message <[email hidden]>,

MartinM (') said:

wafflycat said:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88077&whichpage=1

Quoted message said:

if he was obstructing a vehicle that wished to pass then he was indeed
violating the HC; although whether it was safe for PlodVan to pass
looks unlikely given the circumstances.

No, he was not. You are never 'obstructing the carriageway' if you are
proceeding in a lawful manner. Provided you are cycling on the right (or
rather left) side of the road and you are in motion, you /cannot/ be
guilty of obstruction, by definition. Remember, you have a /right/ to
use the road - and the motor vehicle does not.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

"John B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

The bicycle symbol is confusing and should be removed immediately. Of
course it's a route available to cyclists - it's a road from which we
are not explicitly excluded. We don't need a bicycle symbol to tell us
that.

I like the idea of roads for cyclists with motor car symbols painted on
them ;-)

John B

And buses........ :o)

In article <[email hidden]>, John B ([email hidden])

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

The bicycle symbol is confusing and should be removed immediately. Of
course it's a route available to cyclists - it's a road from which we
are not explicitly excluded. We don't need a bicycle symbol to tell us
that.

I like the idea of roads for cyclists with motor car symbols painted on
them ;-)

<URL:http://antivoitures.free.fr/pistes_bagnolables.jpg>

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

Simon Brooke said:

You are never 'obstructing the carriageway' if you are
proceeding in a lawful manner. Provided you are cycling on the right (or
rather left) side of the road and you are in motion, you /cannot/ be
guilty of obstruction, by definition.

ISTR that didn't deter Plod from arresting Peter Fox in precisely that
situation.

--
Dave...

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>, John B ([email hidden])

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

The bicycle symbol is confusing and should be removed immediately. Of
course it's a route available to cyclists - it's a road from which we
are not explicitly excluded. We don't need a bicycle symbol to tell us
that.

I like the idea of roads for cyclists with motor car symbols painted on
them ;-)

<URL:http://antivoitures.free.fr/pistes_bagnolables.jpg>

It's missing the 'motorists get out and push' signs..

...d

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Unfortunately, it seems a member of HM Constabulary thinks it's wrong to
cycle in the primary position.

I got that on Bethnal Green Road the other day as well, skating
through a road narrowing in the primary position when the police van
behind me wanted to overtake.

Wasn't actually stopped, just edged gently sideways about fifty metres
further down the road as the passenger in the van leant out and said
"try not to skate in the middle of the road". I was so surprised not
to be told "get on the pavement" (a very common reaction, even at 20
mph) that I didn't have time to explain rationally and instead just
grunted and nodded a bit until they drove on.

I thought about chasing them up the road, but I was practically home
by them anyway ;-)

-dan