(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Francis Burton]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> The main reason for wearing lights in the city is the legal
> requirement. The second reason is the increased likelihood of being
> given way to when you have priority, which tends to speed your journey.

Why do you think it's a legal requirement? What was the rationale
for it?

Francis

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:17:46 +0100,
Francis Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>> The main reason for wearing lights in the city is the legal
>> requirement. The second reason is the increased likelihood of being
>> given way to when you have priority, which tends to speed your journey.
>
> Why do you think it's a legal requirement? What was the rationale
> for it?
>
WWII. Prior to that drivers were expected to light up the road ahead of
them. With the blackout cyclists were told to use (rear?) lights for
their own safety because drivers were severely restricted in their
ability to light up the road.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:10:36 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>I know I would not have followed the line followed by the cyclist in
>question - I would have been further right away from the cars in the loading
>bay, and would have either indicated right to take the lane or followed the
>trend of the road left. And I suspect you would have done the same.

Quite possibly.

>Had I
>done that I would not have been in a position where the speed imperative
>could cause the collision.

Quite possibly not. And as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.

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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:45:21 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The main reason for wearing lights in the city is the legal
>>requirement. The second reason is the increased likelihood of being
>>given way to when you have priority, which tends to speed your journey.
>
> By *far* and away the most important reason for wearing lights in an
> urban environment is to make it more likely you will be *seen*.

I've never had any difficulty being seen at night on urban roads.
That's because I ride where the drivers are looking. But without
lights I am likely to be taken as something that doesn't have to be
given way to.

It is harder to be seen in rain at night - but lights don't help all
that much because one of the problems is reflections.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:52:44 +0100 someone who may be Alex Heney
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>By *far* and away the most important reason for wearing lights in an
>urban environment is to make it more likely you will be *seen*.

Trying to ensure that others are warned of the approach of a cyclist
and their vehicle is certainly an argument for making the vehicle
having a working light at the front a legal requirement.

That does not hold for the rear light, the legal requirement for
which is entirely to lessen the responsibility of other road users
to look where they are going.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Andy Morris]

Ben C wrote:
>
> According to a recent BBC news story (prompted by all this Bristol
> becoming a "cycling city" nonsense) the average person in Britain rides
> 39 miles a year and drives about 6000.
>

That might be true, but I would imagine there are very few people who
ride 39 miles a year and drive about 6000.



--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[Adam Lea]

"®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
>

The monetary costs in setting up such a system, the logistical costs, the
discouraging effect on cycling in general which would increase traffic
congestion and decrease safety for the remaining cyclists, amongst other
negative side effects. All this, for a negligable increase in road safety,
and virtually no or maybe negative impact on general quality of life.

 

[Adam Lea]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> 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?
>
> He only means he isn't inclined to pay up or to be examined.

Ah Usenet, the place where ******** is stated as if it were fact.

 

[PK]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Ah Usenet, the place where ******** is stated as if it were fact.
>


157 line of garbage before a sarky one line response: PLEASE learn to snip!

 

[Mike Scott]

Alex Heney wrote:
....
> By *far* and away the most important reason for wearing lights in an
> urban environment is to make it more likely you will be *seen*.
>
> Which is exactly the same reason for requiring cars to have their
> lights on in that environment.

Someone should mention that to drivers round here. The number driving
around dusk, or in dull weather, sans lights makes me shudder.

 

[Dave Larrington]

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

> I was under the impression that drivers in France (and in some other
> European countries) *already* had to carry a warning triangle - and
> had been under such a duty for decades. I have kept a triangle in the
> boot of every car I have owned for nearly three decades, just so that I
> can't forget to take it on the ferry. I've never used it, and the
> cardboard packaging is looking a bit sorry for itself, but it's there.

I'm the current custodian of the warning triangle my parents purchased on
moving to Germany in 1968; the carrying of said triangle was obligatory in
Germany at the time.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Krankieburgh): Would the Prime Minister
care to comment on a report in today's Guardian that he: "arrived
late for a meeting with Jacques Chirac, smelling of alcohol, and
with body language suggesting a total disregard for the rights
of ethnic minorities, lone parents and laboratory animals"?

 

[®i©ardo]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:10:36 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> I know I would not have followed the line followed by the cyclist in
>> question - I would have been further right away from the cars in the loading
>> bay, and would have either indicated right to take the lane or followed the
>> trend of the road left. And I suspect you would have done the same.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
>> Had I
>> done that I would not have been in a position where the speed imperative
>> could cause the collision.
>
> Quite possibly not. And as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
> could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
> less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.
>
> Guy

So was the cyclist completely free of all blame in this matter?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[®i©ardo]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "®i©ardo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>>
>
> The monetary costs in setting up such a system, the logistical costs, the
> discouraging effect on cycling in general which would increase traffic
> congestion and decrease safety for the remaining cyclists, amongst other
> negative side effects. All this, for a negligable increase in road safety,
> and virtually no or maybe negative impact on general quality of life.
>
>
SO you're also against a driving test for users of motor vehicles then?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[®i©ardo]

Mike Scott wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
> ...
>> By *far* and away the most important reason for wearing lights in an
>> urban environment is to make it more likely you will be *seen*.
>>
>> Which is exactly the same reason for requiring cars to have their
>> lights on in that environment.
>
> Someone should mention that to drivers round here. The number driving
> around dusk, or in dull weather, sans lights makes me shudder.
>
>
Perhaps they're "going green" and saving the electricity!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:35:59 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
>> could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
>> less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.

>So was the cyclist completely free of all blame in this matter?

It doesn't matter much. The driver brought all the danger to the
situation, and the driver's aggression and misjudgment was the
primary cause of the entire incident. It's not really necessary to
look any further than that.

If you want to go assigning the off few percentage points of blame
to others involved, I'd be looking first at the person who designed
that particular bit of road layout, but in the end the difference
between 100% blame on the motorist and 95% blame on the motorist
with a few percent here and there, is a difference which makes no
difference.

What the driver should have done is to defer overtaking until it was
safe. Having failed to do so, he should have aborted the manoeuvre
when it became apparent that he had misjudged it. Having decided
not to do so, he should have opted for damaging his (insured)
vehicle, not running into someone who was not protected by a safety
cage. Not one of the choices the driver made seems to me to have
been correct. And bear in mind that this is apparently someone
licensed to drive for hire; my experience of licensed taxis in
London is generally very positive, I find them in the main both
courteous and considerate (but YTMV).

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

 

[wafflycat]

"Mike Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex Heney wrote:
> ...
>> By *far* and away the most important reason for wearing lights in an
>> urban environment is to make it more likely you will be *seen*.
>>
>> Which is exactly the same reason for requiring cars to have their
>> lights on in that environment.
>
> Someone should mention that to drivers round here. The number driving
> around dusk, or in dull weather, sans lights makes me shudder.
>
Pah! As any fule noe that it's only cyclists the do such things! ;-)

 

[PK]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:35:59 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
>>> could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
>>> less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.
>
>>So was the cyclist completely free of all blame in this matter?
>
> It doesn't matter much. The driver brought all the danger to the
> situation,

Did he?

Draw your self a scale plan of the moving traffic lane and plot the lines
taken by cyclist and taxi.

Are you really confident in your assertion, that "the driver brought all the
danger", or did the cyclist put himself in danger or did the poorly designed
junction have a part to play?
I'd set the balance more evenly between the three elements.


pk

 

[®i©ardo]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:35:59 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
>>> could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
>>> less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.
>
>> So was the cyclist completely free of all blame in this matter?
>
> It doesn't matter much.

Thank you for that succinct summary. Superb comment.

The driver brought all the danger to the
> situation, and the driver's aggression and misjudgment was the
> primary cause of the entire incident. It's not really necessary to
> look any further than that.
>
> If you want to go assigning the off few percentage points of blame
> to others involved, I'd be looking first at the person who designed
> that particular bit of road layout, but in the end the difference
> between 100% blame on the motorist and 95% blame on the motorist
> with a few percent here and there, is a difference which makes no
> difference.
>
> What the driver should have done is to defer overtaking until it was
> safe. Having failed to do so, he should have aborted the manoeuvre
> when it became apparent that he had misjudged it. Having decided
> not to do so, he should have opted for damaging his (insured)
> vehicle, not running into someone who was not protected by a safety
> cage. Not one of the choices the driver made seems to me to have
> been correct. And bear in mind that this is apparently someone
> licensed to drive for hire; my experience of licensed taxis in
> London is generally very positive, I find them in the main both
> courteous and considerate (but YTMV).
>
> Guy


--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:59:53 +0100, "PK" <[email protected]> said
in <[email protected]>:

>> It doesn't matter much. The driver brought all the danger to the
>> situation,

>Did he?

Yes. Check out the injury statistics for cyclists and pedestrians
with and without cars involved. Cars are seriously dangerous, and
should be driven with much more care than they often are.

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

 

[Nick]

PK wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:35:59 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said
>> in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> as I said before, the fact that the cyclist
>>>> could have mitigated the idiocy of the driver does not make it any
>>>> less the driver's idiocy which is to blame.
>>
>>> So was the cyclist completely free of all blame in this matter?
>>
>> It doesn't matter much. The driver brought all the danger to the
>> situation,
>
> Did he?
>
> Draw your self a scale plan of the moving traffic lane and plot the
> lines taken by cyclist and taxi.
>
> Are you really confident in your assertion, that "the driver brought all
> the danger", or did the cyclist put himself in danger or did the poorly
> designed junction have a part to play?
> I'd set the balance more evenly between the three elements.
>
>

The road was straight he rode in a straight line. The car drove into him
from behind. Simple.

No doubt in your victim blaming world if he had braked suddenly and the
car had gone into the back of him that would be his fault too. One rule
for cars another for cyclists.

It is easy to see why so many cyclists have contempt for law when we see
arguments like this.