(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Daniel Barlow]

judith <[email protected]> writes:

> However, your link doesn't say that the original poster won the bet
> of £50 by winding up the well known nutters in the cycling community
> by keeping a thread going until there were four hundred posts in it.

There's a word for that. It's "troll". In fact, if you got money
for it we could even say "professional troll".

Postscript for the hard of thinking: no, this is not something to be
proud of.

> A colleague

YM "lulzbuddy" HTH

> I can't remember which group I put you in but I'll try and get you a
> copy of the research paper when it's published if you want one.

Dignifying whatever bollocks you later come up with the title
"research paper" is an affront to actual researchers everywhere who
understand concepts such as "research ethics"


-dan

 

[JNugent]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> 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 I think the term "furiously" has been superseded.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.

The footway is a part of the road. It is distinct from the carriageway
(which is why I try always to use the correct terms).

I'm not saying you've used phrase above, but there is no such thing as
the "pavement". The whole road (carriageway and footway or footways) is
"paved".

> 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.

OK, thanks.

 

[JNugent]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> 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).

No, there is no "legal definition" of terms used only in advice in the
HC. I think you are confusing yourself with the rules on double-white
lines. They aren't connected.

> 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?

Since there is no legal definition of "slow" for the purposes of that HC
rule, none of that is really relevant.

"Slow" for the purposes of that HC rule, can only mean "slow relative to
the normal speed of other road-users".

>> 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 :-(

A queue caused by traffic lights (or other forms of congestion-source)
is quite outside that rule.

 

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:30:39 +0100
Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 19/06/2008 20:13, Daniel Barlow wrote:
> > AIUI (this may have changed), motorcyclists need to take a CBT
> > before being allowed onto the road even as a learner.
>
> When I learnt (11 years ago), motorcyclists had to pass their
> Compulsory Basic Training before being allowed onto the
> road /alone/. Those doing their CBT (and taking the subsequent test)
> were able to ride on the road with an instructor (three trainees to
> an instructor). Indeed, much of the training and part of the test
> took place on the road.
>
> > Having said that,
> > everyone I know who's done it says you'd have to be pretty **** to
> > fail it.
>
> Very true, and yet I still see *a lot* of motorcyclists riding in
> ways that would cause them to fail their CBT (usually kids on
> scooters).
>
Unfortunately passing a test of competence to use a vehicle on the
road is no indication that future behaviour will be acceptable.

 

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:46:53 +0100
Don Whybrow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (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.”
>
>
ISTM that makes the use of many on-road cycle facilities illegal.

 

[burtthebike]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>
>> I think that every time I get stuck behind a queue of motor vehicles that
>> I can't quite filter past in rush hour :-(
>
> A queue caused by traffic lights (or other forms of congestion-source) is
> quite outside that rule.

Quite right, but why does one driver in a queue of dozens decide that they
have to pull in to within an inch of the kerb, when everyone else is two
yards out?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:18:06 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>> ... 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.

Nope. He was in the lane, he can move around the lane without
signalling if he feels that he can't spare the hand. The onus is
always on the overtaking vehicle to ensure that overtaking is safe.

>> 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

The *driver* would have had no problem, the cyclist would have run
out of carriageway, as far as I can see. But it's irrelevant - the
driver was overtaking, and doing so in a manner which brought him
into conflict with other traffic.

>> 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

See that word "suspect"?

>> 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!)

As far as I recall Cyclecraft's view on signalling is that it's less
important than retaining control of your machine.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Roger Merriman]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> David Hansen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tim Hall <[email protected]>:
> >>>>> (Are you suggesting that someone who has an "interest" in law and an
> >>>>> "interest" in cycling should be aware of the case of one individual? -
> >>>>> Daniel Caddon - never heard of him)
> >>>> Martin spelt it Cadden ("en" at the end). You've spelt it Caddon ("on"
> >>>> at the end).
> >>>> Martin's spelling is correct and will help your search.
> >>> To help those unwilling to use a search engine
> >>> <http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="Daniel+Cadden"&btnG=Search&
> >>> meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB> gave me 474 results just now.
> >>> I do indeed suggest that someone with an interest in the law, as it
> >>> relates to cycling, should be aware of this one individual case. I
> >>> would go further and suggest that someone not aware of this case is
> >>> not aware of the basics and they should study the subject more
> >>> before launching their opinions on others, as these opinions are
> >>> likely to be lacking in many of the basics.
> >>> If someone came to a newsgroup on English literature and asked,
> >>> "should someone with an interest in English literature know which
> >>> plays some individual called William Shakespeare wrote?", they would
> >>> be directed to do some basic research for themself.
> >> I'm sure that not even you would suggest that the case you cite is as
> >> important in the great scheme of things as is Willam Shakespeare's place
> >> in English Literature.
> >>
> >> Interesting case, though. I remember it being reported ay the time.
> >> "Obstruction of the highway" is always a subjective matter, and I dare
> >> say that many people convicted of it hotly dispute that the highway was
> >> even being obstructed.
>
> > indeed, buses quite often jam up some of the roads around here, if i'm
> > lucky i'm on the bike and can get past i can have ages with a nice clear
> > road, while they try to inch past each other.
>
> > pick your flavour now anoying as they might be, are they attaully an
> > obstruction?
>
> I think there has to be an element of the obstruction being caused
> deliberately in a circumstance where it would have been possible and
> reasonable not to cause it.
>
that would be very very small number of people, while some do
delibertely block roads there normally is a reason for that, normally
political.

> Running out of petrol, for instance, wouldn't count as deliberate.

indeed as would simply thoughless i guess?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:02:22 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>
> > "Francis Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Another option open to a cyclist in some situations is to pull in
> >> to the kerb, stop and allow car(s) to pass with minimal changing
> >> of course or speed (at least until past the cyclist).
>
> > At last somebody states their desires explicitly - "Stop and get
> > out of my way".
>
> 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.

'Long queues', I think. I'm not sure one taxi gets to qualify as a
long queue. Francis seems to think the rule should also apply to car
(singular).

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

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs wrote:
>judith wrote:
>
>> I admit I have changed my views as a result of some of these postings.
>
>It would be interesting to know what views you have changed.

She's now openly admitted to deliberate trolling, her initial view was
that it would be better to pretend not to be a troll.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 20 Jun 2008 06:37:15 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:02:22 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Clive George wrote:
> >
> > > "Francis Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Another option open to a cyclist in some situations is to pull in
> > >> to the kerb, stop and allow car(s) to pass with minimal changing
> > >> of course or speed (at least until past the cyclist).
> >
> > > At last somebody states their desires explicitly - "Stop and get
> > > out of my way".
> >
> > 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.
>
> 'Long queues', I think. I'm not sure one taxi gets to qualify as a
> long queue. Francis seems to think the rule should also apply to car
> (singular).

Actually, I'm wrong (and you're even wronger).

It does say long queues, but teh rule does not conditionally apply to
slow vehicles - if you read teh rule, a fast-moving vehicle should
also pull over if teher's a long queue. The only conditional is that
the long queue exists.

So, does one taxi constitute a long queue? Does one Francis, or one
Judith?

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

 

[Dead Paul]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:45:20 +0100, J. Chisholm wrote:

> judith wrote:
>> Someone called Ian Jackson has posted in uk.legal.moderated regarding a
>> Judicial Review against the IPCC - and he rightly does not want that
>> thread diverted on to other matters.
>>
>> In the post he provides a link to:
>>
>> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html
>> which he says is a case remarkably similar to mine.
>>
>> A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick and
>> chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which is
>> discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists *should*
>> use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of the cyclist
>> who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note position of
>> cyclist).
>>
>> I am sure that cyclists have good reasons for their stance - I for one
>> would be interested in their views on this matter.
>>
> As the actual cyclist involved, perhaps I should say a few short words:
>
> Was the cyclist in question breaking the Law or obeying the Highway Code?
> No he was NOT breaking the Law and he WAS following advice in the Highway
> Code.
>
> Was the Taxi obeying the Law or obeying the Highway Code. The Taxi WAS
> breaking the Law (see CPS guidance re careless driving), and no he WASN'T
> following the Highway Code (give a cyclist as much room as you would a
> car).
>
> Is the Design Flawed?
>
> Yes, but only if the Bollards are not operating, and motorists disobey the
> Law (exceed 20mph and dangerously overtake). When the bollards operate, a
> bypass is a requirement as there are occassions when there is a queue of
> authorised vehicles at the bollard, and occassions when a motor vehicles
> 'stalls' because it has no transponder. The Law DOES permit cyclist to use
> the bollard lane as they are specifically 'included' in the TRO for such
> lanes in Cambridge -hence they are 'Authorised Vehicles.
>
> The Problem here is that neither the CCTV staff nor the police had an
> adequate understanding of the Law.
>
> As Ian says my case is far from unique
>
> Jim Chisholm

Looks like the car driver thought he had more right to the road than you.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[wafflycat]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat writtificated
>
>> It's incorrect. If I'm in pedestrian mode and not following the
>> provisions of the HC, I can't be done for 'driving without due care'
>
> Heh, I have visions of Judith telling pedestrians that they're at risk of
> being prosecuted for not wearing hi-vis clothing

Especially when she tells said pedestrian that they'll be done for 'driving
without due care' as they aren't wearing hi-viz clothing. Wonders... is
there a woman called Judith wandering the highways of the UK always wearing
hi-viz, reflectives...

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> This country is not run on the basis of the decisions of unelected and
> self-defined "experts".

Which country would that be? Doesn't sound like the UK to me...

> Or at least, it's not supposed to be.

That's more like it.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Here, take these cheese-shaped stilts. You'll know when to use
them.

 

[Dead Paul]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:21:56 +0100, Ekul Namsob wrote:

> judith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:04:20 +0100,
>> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>>
>> >judith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:01:40 +0100, "M.I.5?"
>> >> <[email protected]_SPAM.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Looking at the CCTV still in that link, the cyclist is clearly in
>> >> >the middle of the lane in which the taxi is driving. The cyclist
>> >> >is, to my mind, obstructing the carriageway. If the cyclist wishes
>> >> >to uses the car lane (and if he is indeed entitled to do so) then he
>> >> >should have kept tp the left hand side of it (and of the approach).
>> >> >I suspect it is this that has influenced the decision that it is the
>> >> >cyclists's fault (and the response from the police reinforces this -
>> >> >it makes no mention *not* being in a cycle lane). Cyclists who
>> >> >deliberately drive in the middle of the road to obstruct other road
>> >> >users get exactly what they deserve.
>
>> >> Excellent - exactly my sentiments.
>> >
>> >Really? Do you honestly believe that cyclists who deliberately 'drive'
>> >(sic) in the middle of the road should be knocked off and injured?
>
>> Did he say that? Any chance of actually reading what he said and asking
>> the question again?
>
> OK, I may be guilty of inferring too much.


No you are not.

M.I5.3/4 wrote:
"Cyclists who deliberately drive in the middle of the
road to obstruct other road users get exactly what they deserve."

And Judy wrote: "Excellent, I agree". Or some exactly equivalent such
nonsense.

>
> Considering that the cyclist, whom you believe to have been obstructing
> other road users, was knocked off and injured, would you please explain to
> me what you consider to be 'exactly what [he] deserve[d]'?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke




--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Mike Scott]

judith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:49:17 +0100, "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>>> Following the logic, or lack of logic, of the police in this incident, I
>>>>>> would be entirely within my rights to physically attack drivers who
>>>>>> drive
>>>>>> and park in cycle lanes. Somehow, I think the police attitude would be
>>>>>> slightly different in that case.
>>> It was your comment "I would be entirely within my rights to
>>> physically attack drivers who drive and park in cycle lanes." which
>>> lead me to believe that you could be a nutter - there is no sign of
>>> reasoned argument in that statement whatsoever for me to respond to.
>> That wasn't his comment.
>>
>> I've left the quoted context in, so you can see what he did write - the
>> words you deliberately avoided mentioning significantly change the meaning
>> between what you claim he wrote and what he actually did write.
>>
>
> He said if he followed the logic he would be entitled to physically
> attack drivers.

Never heard of 'reductio ad absurdum'? - you take a postulate, follow
incontrovertible logic and end up with a clearly faulty conclusion,
thereby proving the original postulate was wrong.

>
> You and he can follow as much logic as you wish - if you came to the
> conclusion that you would be entirely within your rights to
> physically attack drivers who drive and park in cycle lanes - then I
> would add that you are a nutter as well.

No, he's using the logic to show the initial supposition was wrong.

 

[Dead Paul]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:30:17 +0000, !Speedy Gonzales! wrote:

> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Excellent - exactly my sentiments.
>
> Judith, forgive me as I have not read every post as this has become a
> lengthy thread, but, in your opinion, was the taxi driver correct to drive
> so close to a cyclist so as to cause the cyclist injury? I understand we
> like to copy the Americans these days and appoint a share of the blame to
> both parties involved depending how much their actions contributed to a
> certain incident. However, it would appear that from reading more than one
> account of the incident, the cyclist maintained a steady course, the
> vehicle closed from behind, proceeded to overtake then had to come back in
> as an island/bollard would impede them from passing. Everything had went
> well up until this point except now, due to the laws of science, the two
> vehicles couldn't occupy the same space at the same time so there was what
> we are now discussing, an incident.
> For the life of me, I can't see how the taxi driver got away with this.

He got away with it because there were obviously some like minded orang
utangs down the local nick who thought exactly as the taxi driver did.


--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:09:46 +0100, judith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>> No. Pedestrians don't. Car drivers don't. I don't think motorbike
>> riders need to. Since other major classes of road users that cause
>> both greater and lesser risk to road users in general don't need to
>> take a test, it would be unreasonable to mandate that cyclists
>> should.
>
> Is that a trick answer to a question that wasn't asked?
>
> Drivers and drivers of motor vehicles do have to take and pass a test
> before being allowed on to the roads even as a learner.
>
> The only exceptions to that would be people who got their provisionals
> before the "theory test" was introduced and who have been learning
> ever since but never passed a test.

There are probably still a fair few people on the roads who learned to drive
during National Service who were subsequently granted a licence without ever
having taken a test.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The best way to confuse a Daily Mail reader is to tell it that
paedophiles form the staple diet of asylum seekers.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:Kr-dnSKZttGcJcfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet,
Clive George <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> If there's genuinely no overtaking opportunities for a long time, and
> I'm going a lot slower than the safe speed for cars on the road, I
> have and will let cars past - but this is an incredibly rare
> occurrence, since there are pretty much always suitable overtaking
> opportunities. The slower I'm going, the more likely there are to be
> such opportunities.

It happens to me almost every time I use the shortest cycling route to work.
There is a section of B road which is lumpy, twisty and with poor sight
lines, which is usually very busy with motor vehicles heading in the
opposite direction. Many of them stuck behind a JCB which seems always to
be heading into Waltham Abbey as I'm heading out... There is usually at
least one LGV in the queue which forms behind me (there is a firm of septic
tank emptiers along that stretch); frequently they are full-on Dutch
44-tonners whom I suspect of suffering from indiscriminate use of ****-Nav.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.715676,0.012531&spn=0.002336,0.006781&t=h&z=18
is where I stop almost daily on the way out

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.708939,0.00574&spn=0.002337,0.006781&t=h&z=18
on the way home.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
uck Wa

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> The really bizarre thing here is that the taxi could have avoided
> the collision trivially easily by braking, but the Powers That Be
> have apparently decided that this was not an option, leaving him
> with only two choices: to hit the cyclist or to hit the bollards;
> the fact that hitting the cyclist was seen as the more acceptable of
> the two is also "interesting".

"If it comes to a choice between hitting a wall or hitting spectators, i'll
take the spectators every time. People are /squashy/" - Paul Hawkins

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The entire population of Uxbridge has no idea that it doesn't
actually exist.