(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Nick]

Dead Paul wrote:
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.
>

Orang-outangs is that a secret society, maybe an offshoot from the Masons.


I'm not sure if common policemen and taxi drivers are important enough
to join the Masons proper. So I wondered if they had a similar but lest
prestigious club. I think I read about a Buffalo secret society once.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Colin Reed wrote:
>
>Your snipping of the explanation as to why using the cycle lane is an
>additional risk leads me to believe this is for one of two reasons. Either
>(a) it was a compelling argument that you had no answer for, and so felt it
>best ignored, or (b) you actually didn't understand it and continued to show
>that you have no comprehension of what constitutes a "risk".

You missed (c) she's a troll who is prolonging the thread for the sake of
it regardless of logic.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Judith

This thread has rambled on, and you don't seem to understand, still, why
cyclists don't always use cycle lanes, so here's a real example of why not.

If you saw me, as a cyclist, ride up onto the pavement, cycle along in
front of a bus shelter, past some red traffic lights, then back down
onto the road, what would you think? Most people would just think it's
another bloody cyclist riding on the pavement and jumping traffic
lights. Yet less than half a mile from where I live there's a cycle
lane that does exactly what I described for no apparent reason. Would
you still say that a cyclist should use that "facility"? If so, what is
the difference between that and any other form of riding on the
pavement, and who does it protect? The white lines don't magically make
it safe.

Just to avoid any doubt, like most cyclists on this group I do not
condone cycling on the pavement. I would not use the cycle lane I
described above.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[wafflycat]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
> tell us:
>> Wonders... is there a woman called Judith wandering the highways of
>> the UK always wearing hi-viz, reflectives...
>
> With a carrier bag full of old newspapers and a can of industrial-strength
> cider, constantly muttering at people who aren't there?
>

The cutbacks on care in the community have had a dreadful effect ;-)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:04:09 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>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.

My old driving instructor was one such, but he is now deceased. He
was given an MBE for services to road safety. Would not stop me
from panic had sainted Pater decided to get back behind the wheel in
his declining years, though, despite the fact that he could have
done so quite legally.

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

 

[PoB]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| 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.

My dad, for one.

He went in as a Medical Officer, and was flung a set of car keys when he
reported to his base (in Wool, Dorset). When he said he didn't know how to
drive, the Seargeant said "Yes you do sir, all officers can drive"

When he was younger he was a good driver, but now, as his 70s give way to
his 80s, and he gets bigger and bigger cars, I'm getting more than a tad
worried.

pOB

 

[burtthebike]

"Ian Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hws*[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 19 Jun 2008 11:23:19 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
>>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>
>>> I see from <http://www.camcycle.org.uk> that Cambridge is to get
>>> millions of pounds of our money as a 'Cycling Demonstration Town'. I
>>> hope that not one penny of that money is to be spent by the cretins,
>>> a word I use deliberately, who designed that cycle lane.
>>
>>Flattery will get you nowhere on this thread.
>
> Please be more careful with your quoting. That paragraph using the
> word `cretins' was written by David Hansen. When you trim quoted
> material, you should remove the attributions which are no longer
> relevant. Nothing written by me remained in your message so you
> should have removed the attribution line with my name in it too.
>
> (Not that I disagree with the point David is making.)


Oops, apologies for sloppy trimming Ian.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Clive George wrote:
> "Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> 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

I thought he was against them.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
judith <[email protected]> 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.

Despite pleas to the contrary, the moderators of uk.legal.moderated
are apparently happy for that group to contain extensive discussion of
the proper behaviour of cyclists on the road, etc.

I think the level of understanding of cycling on that group is rather
low. It would be nice if some knowledgeable readers of uk.rec.cycling
were to pay a visit to uk.legal.moderated and increase the amount of
useful information in the discourse there.

Note that u.l.m's moderators do not permit crossposting (in what seems
like an overzealous interpretation of the charter to me), and do not
tolerate abuse and insults. Also please note that although
discussions of the morality of TV licensing and the value for money or
otherwise provided by the BBC, and the best use of cycle lanes, are
apparently fine, the moderators do not allow discussion of the group's
moderation policy.

So please remain civil, and confine your contributions to responses
which are directly relevant to the message you're replying to.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

 

[Clive George]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
> I thought he was against them.

Depends how they're being used...

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 20/06/2008 17:50, Ian Jackson said,

> Note that u.l.m's moderators do not permit crossposting (in what seems
> like an overzealous interpretation of the charter to me), and do not
> tolerate abuse and insults. Also please note that although
> discussions of the morality of TV licensing and the value for money or
> otherwise provided by the BBC, and the best use of cycle lanes, are
> apparently fine, the moderators do not allow discussion of the group's
> moderation policy.

You're not doing a great job of selling that group If the blinkered
attitude of many of the uk.legal crowd is anything to go by, I wonder if
anyone will bother?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 20/06/2008 09:17, JNugent wrote:
> The general rule in the HC is that one should keep left. In the absence
> of further and better particulars, it seems to me that the driver you
> are singling out would be the one who is complying most closely with the
> rules of the road.
>
> I assume this is something about wishing to have an unobstructed path to
> overtake on the left. You're supposed to overtake on the right.

Not when passing a queue of right-turning traffic, which is where I most
often have problems.

--
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

 

[JNugent]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> On 20/06/2008 09:17, JNugent wrote:

>> The general rule in the HC is that one should keep left. In the
>> absence of further and better particulars, it seems to me that the
>> driver you are singling out would be the one who is complying most
>> closely with the rules of the road.

>> I assume this is something about wishing to have an unobstructed path
>> to overtake on the left. You're supposed to overtake on the right.

> Not when passing a queue of right-turning traffic, which is where I most
> often have problems.

Perhaps that's what the bloke who is keeping left is also trying to do?

 

[Ekul Namsob]

judith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:04:19 +0100,
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> >judith <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> >It is not a requirement. It is a recommendation.
>
> Let's try again - "requirement" does not mean "legal requirement".

Look up the meaning of the word 'requirement' and do please stop harping
on about other people's knowledge of the English language.

Then, try reading the rest of my post.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Dead Paul <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:21:56 +0100, Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > judith <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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.

Punch's lack of response to my post makes it clear enough to me that I'm
not guilty of inferring too much but I thought I'd give her a chance.
Clearly, she belongs under a bridge.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 20/06/2008 19:26, JNugent wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>> On 20/06/2008 09:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> I assume this is something about wishing to have an unobstructed path
>>> to overtake on the left. You're supposed to overtake on the right.
>
>> Not when passing a queue of right-turning traffic, which is where I most
>> often have problems.
>
> Perhaps that's what the bloke who is keeping left is also trying to do?

The big difference being, the bloke (in the car) who is keeping left
doesn't have a f**king hope of getting past. All he achieves is to
obstruct other traffic (i.e. bikes) that /would/ otherwise be able to
get past.

--
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

 

[Terry Duckmanton]

judith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:10:31 +0100, Paul Luton
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>> On 18 Jun 2008 20:43:56 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, judith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why would the cyclist not be using the cycle lane?
>>>> Because it's safer not to.
>>>>
>>>> Because it's quicker not to.
>>>>
>>>>> Why would the cyclist be in the middle of the lane used by the car?
>>>> Because the official guidance on riding a bike on the roads says that
>>>> is the first choice location to be in, and only to ride elsewhere in
>>>> particular circumstances.
>>>
>>> The HC says that the first choice is a cycle lane - unless there is
>>> good reason not to be.
>>>
>>>
>> This section of the highway code was hotly disputed by CTC and seems
>> merely to reflect the prejudices of the then Transport Minister.
>
> So because it was hotly disputed by cyclists - it is inherently wrong?
>
So far this thread appears to have concentrated mainly on the way that
the law is applied to cyclists who ignore cycling facilities which are
provided for them.

At no point (at least in the posts which I have read thus far) has
anyone attempted to explain why the facilities are there in the first place.

It seems to me that the general pool of 'knowledge' relating to the need
for cycling facilities such as this one is obtained from anecdotal
evidence collected from people who are not regular cyclists themselves,
but (possibly) would like to be. I imagine that there is a large heap of
questionnaires sitting on a desk somewhere in which the respondents have
been asked "What could we do to make you start cycling?". These then are
the basic data from which cycle lanes and bike routes are planned.

Is this a good foundation for a usable infrastructure? Imagine what
would happen if road planning were based entirely on questionnaires
received from people who were thinking of applying for a provisional
driving licence.

Terry

 

[®i©ardo]

Clive George wrote:
> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.
>
> The accident referred to in that article is a clear example of why
> drivers *should* look where they're going and not run cyclists over.
> It's also a clear example of why police *should* have more training in
> order to better understand the problems, rather than assuming a cyclist
> should be in the cycle lane.
>
> As the council admitted, people don't necessarily want to use that cycle
> lane. I probably wouldn't because it would place me in conflict with
> other road users a couple of yards later, and I'm sure you agree that
> introducing unnecessary conflict is a bad thing.
>
> Cycle lanes and other such facilities are frequently less safe and
> slower than using the road. This should be sufficient to persuade you
> why it is important to not assume that they should be used.
>
> clive

But doesn't "speed kill"? Just slow down and think!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Roger Merriman]

Terry Duckmanton <[email protected]> wrote:

> judith wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:10:31 +0100, Paul Luton
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> judith wrote:
> >>> On 18 Jun 2008 20:43:56 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, judith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why would the cyclist not be using the cycle lane?
> >>>> Because it's safer not to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it's quicker not to.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why would the cyclist be in the middle of the lane used by the car?
> >>>> Because the official guidance on riding a bike on the roads says that
> >>>> is the first choice location to be in, and only to ride elsewhere in
> >>>> particular circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> The HC says that the first choice is a cycle lane - unless there is
> >>> good reason not to be.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This section of the highway code was hotly disputed by CTC and seems
> >> merely to reflect the prejudices of the then Transport Minister.
> >
> > So because it was hotly disputed by cyclists - it is inherently wrong?
> >
> So far this thread appears to have concentrated mainly on the way that
> the law is applied to cyclists who ignore cycling facilities which are
> provided for them.
>
> At no point (at least in the posts which I have read thus far) has
> anyone attempted to explain why the facilities are there in the first place.
>
> It seems to me that the general pool of 'knowledge' relating to the need
> for cycling facilities such as this one is obtained from anecdotal
> evidence collected from people who are not regular cyclists themselves,
> but (possibly) would like to be. I imagine that there is a large heap of
> questionnaires sitting on a desk somewhere in which the respondents have
> been asked "What could we do to make you start cycling?". These then are
> the basic data from which cycle lanes and bike routes are planned.
>
> Is this a good foundation for a usable infrastructure? Imagine what
> would happen if road planning were based entirely on questionnaires
> received from people who were thinking of applying for a provisional
> driving licence.
>
> Terry

that is rather the nub of it yes, this said for people getting used to
traffic etc i can see why they like them or at least feel safer in them.
and some do have cut though to save you cycling though one way systems
etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Mike Scott]

®i©ardo wrote:
....
>
> But doesn't "speed kill"? Just slow down and think!
>
No, it doesn't.