(Non-) Use of cycling facilities

[Mark]

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


>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"

Would signalling right not give out misleading information? The
driver would probably assume that the cyclist is turning right and try
to squeeze up the inside.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Mark]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:34:28 +0100, Andy Morris
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

I suspect they are just arithmetic mean figures. Median/mode figures
would be more useful IMHO.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[PK]

"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> The road was straight he rode in a straight line. The car drove into him
> from behind. Simple.

Not correct on either point:

1. The road was not srtaight.: The available road widened at the end of the
loading bay and narrowed in by white hatching from the right shortly after
the end of the loading bay
2. Car and cycle came together side to side the car did not hit the cycle
from behind Quote: "the mirror caught my handlebar"

The moving traffic lane (to which primary and secondary position relate,
moved to the left - the cyclist as you say went straight on

Have a look at Figure 4.3 on page 59 of cyclecraft, the narrowing of the
road by central reservation and the moving to the left of the moving traffic
lane (on a straight road!) are very similar to the pattern under discussion.

>
> No doubt in your victim blaming world

not victim blamaing, just attempting to learn from the mistakes of others.
would you advise future cyclists to follow the same line in future at that
junction?

> if he had braked suddenly and the car had gone into the back of him that
> would be his fault too.

To suddenly brake would have been stupid but any collision in those
circumstances would have, by the usual definition, been the taxis' fault.

In the accident the occurred, from the taxis frame of reference, the taxi
kept the same position in the moving traffic lane as the lane moved to the
left, and was hit from the side by another vehicle which failed to follow
the change in direction of the moving lane(s). Draw your self a diagram of
the moving traffic lane and plot the positions


It' pretty easy to read what happened here: after the event the cyclist drew
the picture shown at the top of the CCC piece from memory/his perception and
has the scenario firmly fixed in his head.
Unfortuantely the CCTC stills do not support his recollection: Specifically,
the drawing incorrectly shows him having moved left, maitining positioning
wrt the moving traffic lane, the CCTV show him actually having gone straight
on and moving away from secondary position toward the mideel of the moving
traffic lane.
Moreover the drawing show the taxi much further over to the left and heading
for the kerb and virtually closing the cyclist space to zero, the CCTV
picture directly shows that not to be the case.

> One rule for cars another for cyclists.


No, the same rules for all.

There was fault on both sides

No get out of jail card just because he is a cyclist.

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

Conversely, it is easy to see why many drivers have contempt for cyclists
when cyclist errors are ignored or excused.

pk

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?

uk.legal.moderated does solve many (but not all) of uk.legal's problems.

--
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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:07:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>my experience of licensed taxis in
>London is generally very positive, I find them in the main both
>courteous and considerate (but YTMV).

I have found taxi drivers and bus drivers to be amoung the most and
least courteous drivers on the road when I have been taking groups of
young children for their cycle training lessons. Paradoxically, I
have found "boy racers" to be the most courteous.

Undoubtedly the least courteous was the driver of this vehicle:
http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/PA171052

The driver overtook our group of two adults and 12 eight year old
children on a hump back bridge with a blind summit, cut up in front of
me trapping me by the bridge railings, got out of his car and
assaulted me.

9 months later and the police have taken no action against the driver,
citing that there is no CCTV evidence. Each month I get a letter from
a community support officer saying the case is still ongoing. The
duty inspector at Limehouse police station refuses to speak with me
about the matter, and his seargeant refuses to record my complaint
saying that I cannot complain that they are not investigating the
matter when the investigation is still ongoing.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <yww*[email protected]>,
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

It looks like the moderators of uk.legal.moderated are indeed very
happy to have the conversation in their group.

I have not got the energy to fight this particular battle on USENET as
well as everywhere else. I want to save my energy for litigation
etc., obviously.

So would knowledgeable people from this newsgroup get stuck in, please!

The thread is titled:
Serious help needed for judicial review against IPCC

--
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

 

[®i©ardo]

Nick wrote:
> 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.


Thank you for being so frank about this : "It is easy to see why so many
cyclists have contempt for law..."
--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 23 Jun 2008 20:02:19 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> said in
<7Vf*[email protected]>:

>I have not got the energy to fight this particular battle on USENET as
>well as everywhere else. I want to save my energy for litigation
>etc., obviously.

Tried the CDF, by the way?

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

 

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:02:58 -0500, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2008-06-21, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> To me at least it seems not unreasonable that the assessment of
>>>> someone who has experience of both types of vehicle is more likely to
>>>> be correct than that of someone who hasn't.
>>>
>>> I think that's a non-sequitur
>>
>> How so?
>>
>>> but even if it were persuasive (it
>>> isn't), it would fail because (of course) almost everyone has
>>> experience of riding a bicycle
>>
>> You didn't actually read what I wrote: I was careful to specify
>> experience of riding a bicycle _in traffic_. Experience gained riding
>> on pavements at the age of 9 or on off-road tracks is not relevant.
>
>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.
>

Which is rather meaningless, since the "average person" doesn't exist.

A significant majority of people drive. Those who do drive average
about 10000 miles per year driving.

Only a minority of people cycle *at all*. But the average among those
who do will be a *lot* more than 39 miles per year.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Can you repeat the part after "Listen very carefully"?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[Martin]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:07:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> my experience of licensed taxis in
>> London is generally very positive, I find them in the main both
>> courteous and considerate (but YTMV).
>
> I have found taxi drivers and bus drivers to be amoung the most and
> least courteous drivers on the road when I have been taking groups of
> young children for their cycle training lessons. Paradoxically, I
> have found "boy racers" to be the most courteous.

I find about half the bus drivers are courteous and leave plenty of room
etc., and the rest seem to think that only they should be allowed on the
road, and try to scare cyclists off.

OTOH HGV drivers seem to be the best drivers on the roads.

 

[Martin]

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.

Around here you get some driving around at noon on a very sunny day,
with their lights on full beam.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:56:28 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:07:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> my experience of licensed taxis in
>>> London is generally very positive, I find them in the main both
>>> courteous and considerate (but YTMV).
>>
>> I have found taxi drivers and bus drivers to be amoung the most and
>> least courteous drivers on the road when I have been taking groups of
>> young children for their cycle training lessons. Paradoxically, I
>> have found "boy racers" to be the most courteous.
>
>I find about half the bus drivers are courteous and leave plenty of room
>etc., and the rest seem to think that only they should be allowed on the
>road, and try to scare cyclists off.
>
>OTOH HGV drivers seem to be the best drivers on the roads.

I don't take young children on many roads where they are likely to
encounter HGV drivers, except for fairly short distances. In the few
places we do encounter HGVs I tend to agree with you.

 

[®i©ardo]

Martin wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Around here you get some driving around at noon on a very sunny day,
> with their lights on full beam.
>

Volvo man - always appreciates a quick flash!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Cynic]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:26:53 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

>Around here you get some driving around at noon on a very sunny day,
>with their lights on full beam.

Probably in cars where the lights are always on when the engine is
running. I believe some Peugeot cars are designed that way.

IIUC, leaving the headlight on in daytime significantly reduces the
risk to motocyclists.

--
Cynic

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2008 20:02:19 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
><[email protected]> said in
><7Vf*[email protected]>:
>>I have not got the energy to fight this particular battle on USENET as
>>well as everywhere else. I want to save my energy for litigation
>>etc., obviously.
>
>Tried the CDF, by the way?

Yes. As I said in my original posting, and also in a later message in
u.l.m when asked that same question, and as I've said here earlier:

I have tried to get help from various campaigning bodies. The CTC and
CDF aren't interested. They are pursuing their IMO misguided and
useless strategy of looking for seriously injury crashes being treated
as `careless' or `inconsiderate' driving and hoping to press for those
to be upgraded. Liberty `aren't taking on this kind of work at the
moment'. The Cambridge Cycling Campaign don't have the necessary
resources.

And before that:

* I asked the CDF and the CTC to help. Mostly they ignored me. Once
I sent a two-line mail saying `help! send me laywers!' and they did
try but the first bunch they recommended couldn't help with a
complaint against the police because they were on retainer for the
Police Federation. The second bunch recommended a third bunch who
were snowed under but gave me a few helpful words of advice, and
then the deadline by which I had to reply to the IPCC's latest
uselessness passed

--
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

 

[Roger Merriman]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That makes it an offence, of course.

true but possibly even then not attually likely to get done for it
unless they behave badly more likely to be asked to move on etc.
>
> >> Running out of petrol, for instance, wouldn't count as deliberate.
>
> > indeed as would simply thoughless i guess?
>
> I would think so. There are many other reasons why a vehicle may become
> immobile without (a lot of) warning. In the days when I could only
> afford bangers, I experienced quite a few of them.

heh i had a mini that did that a lot with me. most of my other cars may
not have that reliable but would allways get one home, ie things would
go wrong but the car would still run.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 24 Jun 2008 14:46:46 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<[email protected]> said in
<AUA*[email protected]>:

>Yes. As I said in my original posting,

Which probably got a TLR. You could try being a little more
moderate in your language, that might win you some support in the
right quarters.

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:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>
>> The road was straight he rode in a straight line. The car drove into
>> him from behind. Simple.
>
> Not correct on either point:
>
> 1. The road was not srtaight.:

Look at the photo it is straight.

> The available road widened at the end of
> the loading bay and narrowed in by white hatching from the right shortly
> after the end of the loading bay

So what. The cyclist should stop an pull in at 90 degrees to follow your
theory of maintaining position on the available road. Do you have a
ref in the highway code that backs up this theory?

A parked car also narrows the available road I often don't pull back in
for 10s of meters does that mean it is OK for a car to side swipe me?

> 2. Car and cycle came together side to side the car did not hit the
> cycle from behind Quote: "the mirror caught my handlebar"
>

The car came at him from behind. The point being the car would have been
expected to see him where as he would not be expected to see the car.
Hence in any normal world the burden of responsibility is upon the car
to avoid a collision.

> The moving traffic lane (to which primary and secondary position relate,
> moved to the left - the cyclist as you say went straight on
>
> Have a look at Figure 4.3 on page 59 of cyclecraft, the narrowing of the
> road by central reservation and the moving to the left of the moving
> traffic lane (on a straight road!) are very similar to the pattern under
> discussion.
>

Why mention cyclecraft, I don't have it. But if you place some value on
John Franklin's opinions, he states the car was at fault.

>>
>> No doubt in your victim blaming world
>
> not victim blamaing, just attempting to learn from the mistakes of
> others. would you advise future cyclists to follow the same line in
> future at that junction?
>

Yes absolutely. It was a totally reasonable line. Particularly as he was
overtaking another cyclist.

>> if he had braked suddenly and the car had gone into the back of him
>> that would be his fault too.
>
> To suddenly brake would have been stupid but any collision in those
> circumstances would have, by the usual definition, been the taxis' fault.
>

Yes and by any reasonable definition overtaking at a pinch point should
make it the taxi's fault.

> In the accident the occurred, from the taxis frame of reference, the
> taxi kept the same position in the moving traffic lane as the lane moved
> to the left, and was hit from the side by another vehicle which failed
> to follow the change in direction of the moving lane(s). Draw your self
> a diagram of the moving traffic lane and plot the positions
>

Hearing arguments like this convinces me more and more that we need laws
that make it clearer that motorists have a responsibility to avoid
collisions with cyclists. It appears the current law is too complicated
for some people to understand.

>
> It' pretty easy to read what happened here: after the event the cyclist
> drew the picture shown at the top of the CCC piece from memory/his
> perception and has the scenario firmly fixed in his head.
> Unfortuantely the CCTC stills do not support his recollection:
> Specifically, the drawing incorrectly shows him having moved left,
> maitining positioning wrt the moving traffic lane, the CCTV show him
> actually having gone straight on and moving away from secondary position
> toward the mideel of the moving traffic lane.
> Moreover the drawing show the taxi much further over to the left and
> heading for the kerb and virtually closing the cyclist space to zero,
> the CCTV picture directly shows that not to be the case.
>

Its not a perfectly accurate scale drawing. The cyclist never said he
moved left?

>> One rule for cars another for cyclists.
>
>
> No, the same rules for all.
>
> There was fault on both sides
>

Yes fault in the same way as the fault of a girl who goes out at night
and gets raped.

> No get out of jail card just because he is a cyclist.
>
>>
>> It is easy to see why so many cyclists have contempt for law when we
>> see arguments like this.
>
> Conversely, it is easy to see why many drivers have contempt for
> cyclists when cyclist errors are ignored or excused.
>

Cyclist have contempt for the law because it does not protect them from
cars endangering their lives. Drivers have contempt for cyclists because
they slow them down occasionally. Very symmetrical.

For what it is worth I believe that drivers show more respect to
cyclists in central London where the cyclist are more likely to break
the law. I actually think cyclist breaking the law makes the roads safer
for me as a cyclist. I believe that cyclists who believe it is their
responsibility to get out of the way of a car coming up behind them make
the roads more dangerous for me.

 

[PK]

"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> Look at the photo it is straight.
>
>> The available road widened at the end of the loading bay and narrowed in
>> by white hatching from the right shortly after the end of the loading bay
>
> So what. The cyclist should stop an pull in at 90 degrees to follow your
> theory of maintaining position on the available road. Do you have a ref in
> the highway code that backs up this theory?

I have figure 4.3 in cycle craft and the associated text, which make clear
that "the Moving Traffic Lane.." (and therefore Primary and secondary
position) ".. meanders to pass the traffic island and parked vehicles..."

A situation that closely resembels the one under discussion. Have you got
your copy of cycleraft handy?

> Its not a perfectly accurate scale drawing. The cyclist never said he
> moved left?
>


1. it is not a scale drawing - it says so on the drawing

2. the positions of car and bike shown in the drawing are clearly different
from the positions as shown on the cctv. By showing himself within the
dimension of the loading bay, having passed the end, the cyclist is clearly
claiming that he had moved left - the cctv shows he had not

I see from your post that you do not have cyclecraft - I suggest you get
one, it is very sound guidance.

pk

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>Which probably got a TLR. You could try being a little more
>moderate in your language, that might win you some support in the
>right quarters.

What's a TLR ?

--
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