(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Daniel Barlow]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> That depends on how long the obstruction subsists. The Highway Code
> does advise those in charge of large *or* slow vehicles to pull in
> where possible to let queues of faster traffic pass - and I'm sure
> that you'll agree that this is reasonable.

| Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are
| driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors
| frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let
| traffic pass.

I would draw your attention to the difference between "possible" and
"safe".


-dan

 

[JNugent]

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

>> That depends on how long the obstruction subsists. The Highway Code
>> does advise those in charge of large *or* slow vehicles to pull in
>> where possible to let queues of faster traffic pass - and I'm sure
>> that you'll agree that this is reasonable.

> | Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are
> | driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors
> | frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let
> | traffic pass.

> I would draw your attention to the difference between "possible" and
> "safe".

In practice, there need be no "difference". For a lorry or farm vehicle,
it'd probably mean a spot where there is a lay-by (because a lorry is
wide as well as long). For a bicycle though, any reasonable spot where
the road was a bit wider would do. Examples might be stretches where
there was a convenient strip marked off on the nearside of the
carriageway, with the main carriageway still being wide enough for the
overtaking vehicle.

Moving over would be the polite, non-confrontational, non-bloody-minded
thing to do, and I therefore expect that most cyclists already do it.

 

[Mark T]

judith writtificated

> Pedestrians in general seem to understand that their place is on the
> pavement.

And yet pedestrians are more likely to be killed or seriously injured, per
mile, than cyclists. So much for the pavement!

 

[Daniel Barlow]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> lorry is wide as well as long). For a bicycle though, any reasonable
> spot where the road was a bit wider would do. Examples might be
> stretches where there was a convenient strip marked off on the
> nearside of the carriageway, with the main carriageway still being
> wide enough for the overtaking vehicle.

I am assuming you meant to say "overtaking queue of vehicles" there.

Given that in the incident under discussion the road was effectively
narrowed by the bollards on the left and the traffic island on the
right, it's difficult to see that your post has anything to do with
the subject.

> Moving over would be the polite, non-confrontational,
> non-bloody-minded thing to do, and I therefore expect that most
> cyclists already do it.

As do I.


-dan

 

[Don Whybrow]

JNugent wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> judith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Should cyclists have to pass a test before being allowed on the roads
>>> (or ideally cycle paths)
>>>
>>> Answer : Yes
>>
>> Which test did you pass before beginning to cycle on roads or cycle
>> paths?
>>
>> I appreciate that some cyclists (perhaps even, in some areas, a heck of
>> a lot of cyclists) could do with learning how to cycle more safely.
>> However, very very few cyclists have ever or will ever, as a consequence
>> of their cycling technique, killed or seriously injured another road
>> user. Cycling recklessly is stupid. Driving recklessly is a specific
>> criminal offence.#
>
> So is cycling recklessly (even if the law uses the term "furiously").

I think the term "furiously" has been superseded.

In the 1988 RTA section 28 refers to reckless cycling, but this is
amended in the 1991 act to dangerous cycling, this states:

“28 Dangerous cycling

(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an
offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded
as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful cyclist, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding
in that way would be dangerous.

(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of
injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to
a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be
had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be
aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the
knowledge of the accused.”


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Sense is not cognition but sensation. (Douglas Robinson)

 

[Mark T]

Robert Campbell writtificated

> I know what it is, Mr Hansen. However, I don't know why you think it's
> apt comparing what is a minor inconvenience for some people who choose
> an alternative form of transport with a system that was used by a
> pariah regime to oppress the (majority) indigenous population. As both
> an occasional cyclist and a previous resident of said country, I can
> tell the difference. You might want to ask somebody to explain it to
> you. Slowly.

You've missed the slightly flippant tone when he used the word "bantustan".
Because he is unconnected with the "said country" he can be flippant about
it in a way that you, as a former resident of the country, can't.

It's a bit like the British, but not the Germans, being able to take the
**** out of Nazis. Ooooh, Godwin's law <subthread closed>.

 

[Don Whybrow]

judith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:09:35 +0100, Don Whybrow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:43:33 +0100, Don Whybrow
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> judith wrote:
>>>>> I had not realised that the choice of using a cycle lane or not could
>>>>> be "does it slow me down". I had thought it was "is it unsafe to do
>>>>> so".
>>>> In general, the answer to both is "yes".
>>>
>>> Sorry - I was going by the Highway code.
>> The applicable rule is 63, not 61.
>
>
> Sorry doesn't 61 apply?

No, this case is about the use, or not, of a cycle lane (63), not a
cycle route (61).

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
(Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list)

 

[JNugent]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> judith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should cyclists have to pass a test before being allowed on the roads
>>>> (or ideally cycle paths)
>>>>
>>>> Answer : Yes
>>>
>>> Which test did you pass before beginning to cycle on roads or cycle
>>> paths?
>>>
>>> I appreciate that some cyclists (perhaps even, in some areas, a heck of
>>> a lot of cyclists) could do with learning how to cycle more safely.
>>> However, very very few cyclists have ever or will ever, as a consequence
>>> of their cycling technique, killed or seriously injured another road
>>> user. Cycling recklessly is stupid. Driving recklessly is a specific
>>> criminal offence.#
>>
>> So is cycling recklessly (even if the law uses the term "furiously").
>
> I think the term "furiously" has been superseded.
>
> In the 1988 RTA section 28 refers to reckless cycling, but this is
> amended in the 1991 act to dangerous cycling, this states:
>
> “28 Dangerous cycling
>
> (1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an
> offence.
>
> (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded
> as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
>
> (a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
> competent and careful cyclist, and
>
> (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding
> in that way would be dangerous.
>
> (3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of
> injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
> determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to
> a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be
> had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be
> aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the
> knowledge of the accused.”

Cheers. That certainly seems to cover riding a bike on the footway past
front doors and/or garden gates.

 

[JNugent]

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

>> lorry is wide as well as long). For a bicycle though, any reasonable
>> spot where the road was a bit wider would do. Examples might be
>> stretches where there was a convenient strip marked off on the
>> nearside of the carriageway, with the main carriageway still being
>> wide enough for the overtaking vehicle.

> I am assuming you meant to say "overtaking queue of vehicles" there.

That depends on how many can get past at the time. "Queue" does not
necessarily imply a close-packed line. Drivers are not supposed to drive
too closely behind the vehicle they are following, so certain visions
conjured up the word "queue" are out of place in that scenario.

> Given that in the incident under discussion the road was effectively
> narrowed by the bollards on the left and the traffic island on the
> right, it's difficult to see that your post has anything to do with
> the subject.

I didn't claim that it was closely related to the incident referred to
by the OP. It was made in response to a (no doubt, thread-drifted) point
made later.

>> Moving over would be the polite, non-confrontational,
>> non-bloody-minded thing to do, and I therefore expect that most
>> cyclists already do it.

> As do I.

Good. I do the same when on foot or on a bike (though my bike hs now
bitten the dust and gone to the tip - and I'm looking out for a new one).

 

[Mark T]

judith writtificated

> I did not say it was "the law" that you have to be aware - I said that
> there is a requirement that you are aware.
>
> I did not say that there is a "legal requirement" that you are aware -
> I said that there is a requirement that you are aware.

There isn't a *requirement* to be aware of a car behind you any more than
there is a requirement that you wear "reflective materials" when you walk
to the shops after dark.

You're trying to turn this into a semantic argument and yet you're still
losing it.

When you started this thread you implied you were here to ask advice and
learn. You seem to be more interested in demonstrating that 'we're' wrong
than understanding 'our' viewpoints in order to increase your knowledge.

Please stop being so argumentative as it is making you look like a "<guess
what I wrote here>".

 

[Don Whybrow]

JNugent wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>
>> I think the term "furiously" has been superseded.
>>
>> In the 1988 RTA section 28 refers to reckless cycling, but this is
>> amended in the 1991 act to dangerous cycling, this states:
>>
>> “28 Dangerous cycling
>>
>> (1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an
>> offence.
>>
>> (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be
>> regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
>>
>> (a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
>> competent and careful cyclist, and
>>
>> (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding
>> in that way would be dangerous.
>>
>> (3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of
>> injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
>> determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious
>> to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall
>> be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to
>> be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the
>> knowledge of the accused.”
>
> Cheers. That certainly seems to cover riding a bike on the footway past
> front doors and/or garden gates.

My read on this, based on the first section, is that it only applies to
roads, not footways.

You may find that the relevant laws for footways are in HA 1835 sect 72
& R(S)A 1984, sect 129 as quotes in the HC rule 64. I do not know if
these are available on-line.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Question _your own_ authority.

 

[PK]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:41:14 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>You continue to miss the point -deliberately I presume - that the cyclist
>>was inappropriately positioned in the traffic lane. the lane widens to the
>>left and closes in on the right, he carried straight on, effectively
>>moving
>>across the traffic lane
>
> ... and into the primary riding position.


Ah, you agree he changed lane position - do you agree he should indicate his
intention to do that? I ALWAYS do.


> Meanwhile, we still have
> no explanation as to why the driver chose an obviously unsafe place
> to overtake,

Did he?

If the cyclist had not changed lane position at precily the point the road
narrowed there would have been no problem

..
>
> I do agree that the road engineers are somewhat to blame for
> creating a gratuitously confusing and risky bit of road layout.

Agreed


>
> In I suspect, in my cynical way, that the driver was trying to teach
> the uppity cyclist a lesson.

You are inferring something for which there is no evidence

>
> No, the only rule the cyclist broke here,

what does cyclecraft say about signaling when changing lane position (I
can't lay my hand on my copy at the moment!)

pk

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 19/06/2008 23:02, JNugent wrote:
> I think you probably already know that the Highway Code does in fact
> suggest that those in charge of large *or* slow vehicles should pull in
> and allow queues of potentially faster traffic to pass.
>
> The target vehicles may be large, or slow, or both, but they don't have
> to be large. Slow is perfectly sufficient on its own.

"Slow" being legally defined, IIRC, as 10mph or slower (I CBA to hunt
down the legislation now, it's after bedtime).

It seems very unlikely that the cyclist in this case was travelling
anything like that slowly, especially if he was overtaking another
cyclist. And how often, in town, do you find yourself cycling slower
than the average speed of the motor traffic?

> What's wrong with expecting those in charge of slow vehicles causing
> queues to exercise a little courtesy to other road-users?

I think that every time I get stuck behind a queue of motor vehicles
that I can't quite filter past in rush hour :-(

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[PK]

"blue" <blue@thiscantpossiblybealegitimatedomainname.icantuseco.icantuseuk>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Did he *assume* the cyclist was going to move further to the left?
> Why? If he was in the "middle" of the road, why should the motorist
> gamble on him moving to the left, when there were just as good odds he
> might move further to the right?
>
> At any point, did the cyclist make sudden darting movements? Or did
> he proceed in a straight line? The best I can judge from the photos
> is that he maintained his course throughout and all the more reason to
> demonstrate that the motorist was not driving with due care and
> attention.
>
> If he did do either of these, it seems to me it is the motorist who
> was driving without due care and attention, as ultimately, it is he
> who caused the accident.


i think you answer your own questions:

The cyclist continued in a stright line while the lane in which he was
cycling deviated left, in doing so he changed lane position

pk

 

[Mark T]

judith writtificated

>>To an experienced cyclist it is blindingly obvious that it would have
>>been dangerous to use the cycle lane, for the many reasons already
>>given. The main reason is that it requires the cyclist to pull back out
>>into the stream of traffic after the lane, bringing him needlessly into
>>conflict with other traffic.
>
> Yes sorry - I hadn't realised that looking over your shoulder, perhaps
> indicating your intention, and moderating your speed was too much to
> ask for.

When he said "dangerous" he meant carry a greater risk. He used the word
"dangerous" as a shorthand.

As the cycle lane appears to have a junction at the end of it we should
perhaps say that "looking over your shoulder whilst moving forwards on a
narrow lane with kerbs and bollards either side, close to pedestrians"
carries a greater risk. This is without mentioning the delay to the
cyclist. It's worth noting that this prolly would have been greater than
the delay experienced by the driver, had he not tried to drive over the
cyclist.

 

[PK]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> PK writtificated
>
>> would they
>> recommend that other cyclists follow same line as the cyclist in
>> question when going through that junction in future?
>
> The car at the top of the two stills appears to have its brake lights on.
> It is possible (probable?) that the chap who hit the cyclist wouldn't have
> lost time by staying behind the cyclist as he'd simply have been delayed
> by
> that car (or whatever it was that caused that car to slow). If this is
> the
> case then the cyclist chose the most sensible route, and what *should*
> have
> been the safest as it involved no delay to others, no loss of priority to
> themself and positioned themself in the most visible position.
>
> It is worth noting that the car had space to pass safely, but chose not to
> use it.



From what are you drawing your conclusions?

The drawing, which shows the car having deviated to the left, within the
dimension of the loading bay, the cyclist having moved well left into the
dimension of the loading bay.
or
The CCTV evidence which shows a very different picture: The car and cyclist
are both still outside the dimension of the loading bay, the car has
followed the centre road markings and moved left, the cyclist has not.

The cyclist involved has done himself no favors by producing a flawed
drawing as evidence. No doubt produced from memory before the CCTV evidence
was available


pk

 

[Clive George]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JNugent wrote:
>> David Hansen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:09:18 -0400 someone who may be NewRiderPS
>>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>> Should we forgive drivers who run into telephone poles, claiming the
>>>> pole should have been placed elsewhere?
>>>
>>> The road "safety" lobby does. They have even cut down "dangerous"
>>> trees which, it would appear from the actions of the road "safety"
>>> lobby, leapt into the path of a poor innocent motorist.
>>
>> Where does this "lobby" buy its chain-saws?
>
> I bought mine at B&Q, it is possible that they bought them there as well.
>
>> Does it wear proper protection when using them?
>
> I tend not to bother, other than goggles and gloves. I keep the chain
> tension right, oiled & sharp and let the saw do the cutting rather than
> forcing it along. So far I can still count to 20 using my fingers and
> toes.

Mmm, Edward Abbey

 

[PK]

"judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 Jun 2008 21:56:37 GMT, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>PK writtificated
>>
>>> would they
>>> recommend that other cyclists follow same line as the cyclist in
>>> question when going through that junction in future?
>>
>>The car at the top of the two stills appears to have its brake lights on.
>>It is possible (probable?) that the chap who hit the cyclist wouldn't have
>>lost time by staying behind the cyclist as he'd simply have been delayed
>>by
>>that car (or whatever it was that caused that car to slow). If this is
>>the
>>case then the cyclist chose the most sensible route, and what *should*
>>have
>>been the safest as it involved no delay to others, no loss of priority to
>>themself and positioned themself in the most visible position.
>>
>>It is worth noting that the car had space to pass safely, but chose not to
>>use it.
>
>
> It is worth noting that there was a cycle lane - the cyclist chose not
> to use it.


He made the correct choice: the design of the cycle lane is (fatally)
flawed.

pk

 

[Mark T]

PK writtificated

>> It is worth noting that the car had space to pass safely, but chose
>> not to use it.
>
> From what are you drawing your conclusions?
>
> The drawing, which shows the car having deviated to the left, within
> the dimension of the loading bay, the cyclist having moved well left
> into the dimension of the loading bay.
> or
> The CCTV evidence which shows a very different picture: The car and
> cyclist are both still outside the dimension of the loading bay, the
> car has followed the centre road markings and moved left, the cyclist
> has not.

The CCTV evidence. There is plenty of space to the car's right. It is
possible that the cyclist was going too fast, and the car incapable of
accelerating fast enough, for a safe overtake. Then I'd have expected the
rational thing to do is to slow down a tad, rather than drive into someone.

 

[[email protected]]

On 19 Jun 2008 23:13:50 GMT, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

>judith writtificated
>
>> I did not say it was "the law" that you have to be aware - I said that
>> there is a requirement that you are aware.
>>
>> I did not say that there is a "legal requirement" that you are aware -
>> I said that there is a requirement that you are aware.
>
>There isn't a *requirement* to be aware of a car behind you any more than
>there is a requirement that you wear "reflective materials" when you walk
>to the shops after dark.
>
>You're trying to turn this into a semantic argument and yet you're still
>losing it.
>
>When you started this thread you implied you were here to ask advice and
>learn. You seem to be more interested in demonstrating that 'we're' wrong
>than understanding 'our' viewpoints in order to increase your knowledge.
>
>Please stop being so argumentative as it is making you look like a "<guess
>what I wrote here>".

"Judith" is a well known Usenet troll named Anthony Bournes who claims
to be so disabled he cannot even walk yet alone cycle. He even used to
have a motobility car because he has a "bad back" and of course he
gets full benefits too so he is well practised at telling porkies.
pete