(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Mark T]

PK writtificated

> the rational thing for the cyclic to have done would be to keep
> consistent position IN THE LANE ie move to the left as the road
> widened to the left and narrowed to the right, instead the cyclist
> moved across the lane as the car followed the road markings.
>
> Both were at fault

Is it irrational to move from the secondary to the primary position when
approaching a pinch point? <-- Rhetorical question

The cyclist /could/ be partly at fault if he swerved into the path of the
car, but until we see the video it's all speculation.

 

[®i©ardo]

judith wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:26:55 +0100, Mark McNeill
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Response to judith
>>> (Many of the cyclists who I see (as a cyclist and a motorist) should
>>> not be allowed anywhere near other traffic. There is very much an
>>> attitude of "I am a cyclist - I can do what I like" - ignore read
>>> lights - why not? Cross a pedestrian crossing when there is a
>>> pedestrian on it - why not? Pavements? - they're for cyclists to
>>> reduce their journey time)
>>
>> I thought the cloven hoof would pop out sooner or later. Those nasty
>> wicked cyclists are such a contrast to all the sweet law-abiding
>> motorists, aren't they! :-D
>
> Touched a nerve did it?
> Serious question : do you think that the laws regarding traffic
> lights, riding on footpaths, pedestrian crossings are applicable to
> cyclists?
>
> (I ask because many cyclists believe they don't)
>
>
>
....or even cycling in the dark without lights?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[PK]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> PK writtificated
>
>> the rational thing for the cyclic to have done would be to keep
>> consistent position IN THE LANE ie move to the left as the road
>> widened to the left and narrowed to the right, instead the cyclist
>> moved across the lane as the car followed the road markings.
>>
>> Both were at fault
>
> Is it irrational to move from the secondary to the primary position when
> approaching a pinch point? <-- Rhetorical question
>
> The cyclist /could/ be partly at fault if he swerved into the path of the
> car, but until we see the video it's all speculation.


Read what cyclecraft says about moving from the secondary (outside the
moving traffic lane) to primary position (within the moving traffic lane)
and compare to the CCTV stills and the cyclists comments. Remember: Primary
and secondary position are NOT to do with road position but with position
relative to the moving traffic lane.

pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:01:20 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>Read what cyclecraft says about moving from the secondary (outside the
>moving traffic lane) to primary position (within the moving traffic lane)

Secondary position is still within the moving traffic lane.

But hey, obviously the poor sod should have tugged his forelock,
thanked the motorist for deigning to knock him off and offered to
pay for any damage to the paintwork on the car.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 20/06/2008 21:23, ®i©ardo said,

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

It's usually the stopping that kills.

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

 

[Nick]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:01:20 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Read what cyclecraft says about moving from the secondary (outside the
>> moving traffic lane) to primary position (within the moving traffic lane)
>
> Secondary position is still within the moving traffic lane.
>
> But hey, obviously the poor sod should have tugged his forelock,
> thanked the motorist for deigning to knock him off and offered to
> pay for any damage to the paintwork on the car.
>

I know it is astonishing isn't it. It appears that although the cyclist
didn't change direction suddenly, or swerve into the car's path he is at
fault for not getting out of the way quickly enough at a point which was
clearly unsuitable for overtaking. The idea that his line should match
the line of the opposite side of the road rather than his own side is
preposterous. Apparently he didn't signal, even if I did believe it
sensible to ride one handed most of the time I still don't know the
signal for straight on.

Personally I have no confidence in the police or legal system with
regard to cycling/traffic. I can't believe that anyone still has any
confidence in the IPCC.

Even if the cyclist was being inconsiderate, which I do not accept, if
we take the far more common example of a car hitting another car that
had stopped inconsiderately I'm sure that the police/law would find the
moving car culpable with out hesitation.

Personally I think cyclist was stupid, not for the way he rode but for
expecting the police to help him.

 

[Andy Morris]

Francis Burton wrote:
>
possibly minutes.

Didums
>
--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[PK]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:01:20 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Read what cyclecraft says about moving from the secondary (outside the
>>moving traffic lane) to primary position (within the moving traffic lane)
>
> Secondary position is still within the moving traffic lane.


cyclecraft p 59:

"Secondary position, which is about 1 m to the left of the moving traffic
lane if the road is wide, but not closer than 0.5m to the edge of any road."

Figure 4.3 shows the positions very clearly.


Cyclecraft p 61: on moving from secondary to primary position

"It is of course, necessary to make the change from secondary to primary
position with care...... start to prepare the move as soon as you see any
hazard or suspect that conditions might make a change difficult. Check
behind for a suitable gap in traffic, signal right briefly if anyone is
close and then change position. So long as your secondary position was
correct the relatively small movement to the right that is necessary should
not be difficult"

The cyclist in question moved from the left edge of the moving traffic lane
to the (approx) middle of the moving traffic lane (by not following the
trend in the road but carrying straight on) whereas the car stayed in the
same position in the moving traffic lane. check the CCTV.

The driver was at fault for not observing and acting appropriately. the
cyclist was at fault for improper positioning and (apparently) failure to
signal change of position


I think it a real pity that the diagram in the CCC article so clearly
disagrees with the CCTV images and serves to confuse not clarify what
actually happened (as shown in the cctv)

pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:36:16 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>"Secondary position, which is about 1 m to the left of the moving traffic
>lane if the road is wide, but not closer than 0.5m to the edge of any road."

Which, in most of London, translates to the left-hand wheeltrack of
the cagers.

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

 

[Francis Burton]

Andy Morris wrote:
>
> Francis Burton wrote:
> >
> possibly minutes.
>
> Didums

That seems to typify the attitude of many (but not all!) cyclists
posting in this thread. I think it's unhelpful because it does
nothing to foster understanding and cooperation between car
drivers and cyclists which is surely necessary if we're to make
the roads a safer place for all and reduce the number of accidents
such as the one being discussed. Or do you think all motorists are
irredeemably ignorant?

Francis

 

[Francis Burton]

®i©ardo wrote:
> > Touched a nerve did it?
> > Serious question : do you think that the laws regarding traffic
> > lights, riding on footpaths, pedestrian crossings are applicable to
> > cyclists?
> >
> > (I ask because many cyclists believe they don't)
> >
> >
> >
> ...or even cycling in the dark without lights?

I thought that was no longer illegal??

Francis

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 21/06/2008 16:05, Francis Burton said,

> That seems to typify the attitude of many (but not all!) cyclists
> posting in this thread.

Playing devil's advocate here, it could also be said that the attitude
of many (but not all!) motorists on this thread is that they don't see
why they should be delayed for even a few seconds until it's safe to
overtake a cyclist.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 21/06/2008 16:07, Francis Burton said,

>> ...or even cycling in the dark without lights?
>
> I thought that was no longer illegal??

You thought wrong

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

 

[JNugent]

Paul Boyd wrote:

> Francis Burton said,

>> That seems to typify the attitude of many (but not all!) cyclists
>> posting in this thread.

> Playing devil's advocate here, it could also be said that the attitude
> of many (but not all!) motorists on this thread is that they don't see
> why they should be delayed for even a few seconds until it's safe to
> overtake a cyclist.

I haven't made any comment on the incident in Cambridge and I'm not
going to now, but when you say "safe to overtake a cyclist", I take it
that you recognise that in each situation, there are at least two
possible views of how safe it is to overtake, that they may differ and
that there is no automatic reason why the view of one person should
prevail over that of an other (particularly in view of the fact that
there just about no means of communication between them)?

 

[John Kane]

On Jun 19, 6:07 pm, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Luton 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?
>
> > It certainly does not reflect a consensus of informed opinion which is
> > as close to "wrong" as you get in these matters.
>
> Are non-cyclists (and those whose job it is to consider the interests of
> other sorts of road-user) not capable of being informed on this matter?-

Of course they are.

Unfortunately the general impression I and most other serious
cyclists have is that they seldom are properly informed.

If they know anything about cycling it often comes from impressions
formed when they were about eight years old or else comes from
projecting their (uniformed) fears into ideas of what is
good,safe,etc.

Given someone who is fairly neutral about cycling I am sure that they
could inform themselves quite well about the issues.



John Kane Kingston ON Canada

 

[Andy Morris]

JNugent wrote:
ng in where it is safe to do so.
>
> How long is a long queue?

Longer than a short queue?

One car is just a car

Two cars is a couple of cars

Three cars is maybe a short queue

Fours not much longer than three, so its still pretty short

Five is definitely a queue, so 6.

Must be 7 or 8 at least until its a long queue

50? that's a really long queue.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[Francis Burton]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 21/06/2008 16:05, Francis Burton said,
> > That seems to typify the attitude of many (but not all!) cyclists
> > posting in this thread.
>
> Playing devil's advocate here, it could also be said that the attitude
> of many (but not all!) motorists on this thread is that they don't see
> why they should be delayed for even a few seconds until it's safe to
> overtake a cyclist.

I think that's a fair comment.

A few seconds' delay is entirely acceptable in the interests of road
safety, as is a delay of a few minutes. The question is whether it is
reasonable for road users of any persuasion to forgo legal priority
in the interests of courtesy and facilitating traffic flow, while
keeping everyone safe. This applies just as much to how car drivers
behave towards each other as it does to car drivers and cyclists.

Francis

 

[Francis Burton]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> On 21/06/2008 16:07, Francis Burton said,
> >> ...or even cycling in the dark without lights?
> >
> > I thought that was no longer illegal??
>
> You thought wrong

Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks.

Francis

 

[®i©ardo]

burtthebike wrote:
>
> "Mike Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 18 Jun 2008 20:41:42 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Or just maybe you're talking complete sprockets.
>>
>> Actually it turns out I'm 100% correct... *in Scotland* (which fits
>> with the
>> book I remember reading it in):
>>
>> http://stibasa.blogspot.com/2008/05/aid-to-pedestrianism.html
>>
>> "From Cycle (CTC's magazine - Apr/May 2008)
>>
>> You may be interested in a Scottish Legal decision in the 1930s, which
>> was
>> reported (at my request) in the Scots Law Times Law Reports, in which
>> the Court
>> of Session held that a bicycle was not a vehicle, but that a pedal
>> cycle was
>> only an aid to pedestrianism, when it came to consider whether a
>> bicycle could
>> use a pedestrian right of way..."
>>
>> AFAIK that decision has never been overturned.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Last time I checked Cambridge wasn't in Scotland. I can only assume
> that your time at Cambridge wasn't spent studying geography.

No, but there's an awful lot of Scots in Cambridge!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[®i©ardo]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:37:48 +0100, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:30:59 +0100, "Clive George"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:07:33 +0100, "Clive George"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "judith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not think it was unsafe to use that cycle lane - therefore the
>>>>>>>> cyclist should have used it - as per the HC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unsafe about it - no-one has produced
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> evidence to the contrary - can you?
>>>>>>> Yes - see below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Others have said that you have to merge back with the main stream of
>>>>>>>> traffic. So what? - is it too difficult to look over your shoulder
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> the end of the cycle lane marking, signal and rejoin the main
>>>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>>>> making sure it is safe to do so.
>>>>>>> Yes. It is less safe than being in a situation when you don't have to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know about junctions and conflict points? They're where the
>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>> of crashes happen. It's pretty much always safer to avoid these.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cycling along in the main flow of traffic is the safest place to be -
>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> most visible to the other road users, and you're behaving in an easily
>>>>>>> predictable manner, rather than having to swerve for things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An experienced cyclist will pretty much _never_ ride in such a
>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> a car can pass without changing course, even if only slightly. This is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> advice provided by the experts on the subject (Cyclecraft again, and I
>>>>>>> believe even the HC tells you this).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also less convenient for the cyclist to perform the action you
>>>>>>> describe.
>>>>>>> It also gains nothing for any cars behind given the area it is in.
>>>>>>> It also makes it less safe for any pedestrians present, since the
>>>>>>> cyclist's
>>>>>>> attention has to be diverted elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a situation where many lose and nobody gains - why do you think
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a good situation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunately it appears that the PTB agree with the cyclists on this
>>>>>>> thread,
>>>>>>> and have removed the bypass lane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one has answered the question - was the cyclist aware of the car
>>>>>>>> behind him? Any ideas?
>>>>>>> I've given you my answer to that question - why have you ignored it?
>>>>>> I haven't you must have missed the response
>>>>> Indeed I had. So why are you still asking the question?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the majority of answers given there is clearly a particular
>>>>>>>> unhealthy mindset with some cyclists in their attitude to other
>>>>>>>> vehicles on the roads.
>>>>>>> It appears that pretty much every poster on this thread, experienced
>>>>>>> cyclists all, knows more about the subject than you do. This isn't
>>>>>>> surprising - we're experienced cyclists, and that experience has
>>>>>>> taught
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clive
>>>>>> "It appears that pretty much every poster on this thread, experienced
>>>>>> cyclists all, knows more about the subject than you do."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you forgot to add "from the cyclists point of view"
>>>>> No I didn't. I don't think it's unreasonable for road safety to be
>>>>> independent of a "point of view". The arguments against your assertions
>>>>> haven't been from a cyclist's point of view, they've been objective.
>>>>> Granted, they're made by people who have learned about the subject while
>>>>> being a cyclist, but that's only to be expected in an amateur forum such
>>>>> as
>>>>> this - and even in professional arenas for this subject, you'll find
>>>>> that
>>>>> the people who know most are those who have a practical background in
>>>>> what
>>>>> they're discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one has answered yet my question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should cyclists have to take a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any views?
>>>>> 10/10 for trolling. It's irrelevant to your original post and the point
>>>>> at
>>>>> hand. I've no real interest in that tedious discussion - but I'll note
>>>>> that
>>>>> car drivers don't have to take a test before being allowed on the roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> clive
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry this is not a troll.
>>>>
>>>> Simple question:
>>>>
>>>> Should cyclists have to take a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>> why not?
>
> Because the costs (economic and social) would outweigh any benefits.
>
>
In what way?

--
Moving things in still pictures!