I
D
David Hansen
Guest
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:42:09 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>Were you obstructing her? HC says something about keeping to the left......
Your arguments along these lines were not convincing the last time.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>Were you obstructing her? HC says something about keeping to the left......
Your arguments along these lines were not convincing the last time.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
D
David Hansen
Guest
On 23 Sep 2005 02:51:24 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>As in left of the centre line?
Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
what vehicle one is operating.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>As in left of the centre line?
Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
what vehicle one is operating.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
P
p.k.
Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2005 02:51:24 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> As in left of the centre line?
>
> Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
> vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
> where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
> nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> what vehicle one is operating.
I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
says somehting different.
pk
> On 23 Sep 2005 02:51:24 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> As in left of the centre line?
>
> Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
> vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
> where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
> nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> what vehicle one is operating.
I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
says somehting different.
pk
J
JohnB
Guest
Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:35:31 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
> >IMO 12 is far too many for safety.
>
> I don't think that safety is an issue for a long snake, 12 + 2/3 being
> the maximum.
As I've said, I do consider that too long.
Drivers are just too impatient and cannot be relied upon not to try and overtake.
As an instructor I will not take that risk.
> The bigger the group the more visable they are.
I doubt there is very much, if any, difference between a driver being
able to see a group of 4 (brightly attired) riders compared to a group
of 12.
Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the longer the line
the safer they are?
> There
> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.
Oh don't I know it :-(
John B
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:35:31 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >We never have more than five childen on the road in one group.
> >IMO 12 is far too many for safety.
>
> I don't think that safety is an issue for a long snake, 12 + 2/3 being
> the maximum.
As I've said, I do consider that too long.
Drivers are just too impatient and cannot be relied upon not to try and overtake.
As an instructor I will not take that risk.
> The bigger the group the more visable they are.
I doubt there is very much, if any, difference between a driver being
able to see a group of 4 (brightly attired) riders compared to a group
of 12.
Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the longer the line
the safer they are?
> There
> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.
Oh don't I know it :-(
John B
D
davek
Guest
Mike Hibbert wrote:
> But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
> the road, thus making it safer all round.
Whether you signal or not, she will cross the road without looking
anyway. Such is my experience.
d.
> But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
> the road, thus making it safer all round.
Whether you signal or not, she will cross the road without looking
anyway. Such is my experience.
d.
D
davek
Guest
Adrian Boliston wrote:
> I used to indicate left till a van
> coming the other way tried to turn into the side road the same time as me
> and I was about 1" from being wiped out by the van, so I now avoid giving
> *any remote hint* that I'm about to turn left as I nay not be so lucky next
> time!
I have a similar junction on my commute and by a strange coincidence my
experience mirrors yours almost exactly.
What are the chances of that?!
OK, so two anecdotes doesn't add up to a statistic, but I have used
this junction several hundred times, and I presume the same goes for
Adrian and his junction, so it begins to look like reasonable evidence
to support the theory that signalling left is a good way to get
yourself killed.
If strict adherence to the law gets you killed (ie because some van
driver doesn't share your responsible attitude) then I am happy to
break the law in those circumstances.
d.
> I used to indicate left till a van
> coming the other way tried to turn into the side road the same time as me
> and I was about 1" from being wiped out by the van, so I now avoid giving
> *any remote hint* that I'm about to turn left as I nay not be so lucky next
> time!
I have a similar junction on my commute and by a strange coincidence my
experience mirrors yours almost exactly.
What are the chances of that?!
OK, so two anecdotes doesn't add up to a statistic, but I have used
this junction several hundred times, and I presume the same goes for
Adrian and his junction, so it begins to look like reasonable evidence
to support the theory that signalling left is a good way to get
yourself killed.
If strict adherence to the law gets you killed (ie because some van
driver doesn't share your responsible attitude) then I am happy to
break the law in those circumstances.
d.
R
Richard
Guest
davek wrote:
> Adrian Boliston wrote:
>
>>I used to indicate left till a van
>>coming the other way tried to turn into the side road the same time as me
>>and I was about 1" from being wiped out by the van, so I now avoid giving
>>*any remote hint* that I'm about to turn left as I nay not be so lucky next
>>time!
>
>
> I have a similar junction on my commute and by a strange coincidence my
> experience mirrors yours almost exactly.
>
> What are the chances of that?!
>
> OK, so two anecdotes doesn't add up to a statistic,
Make that three. Part of my commute is turning sharp left into a road
coming in at an acute angle. Oncoming traffic can turn broad right
into the same road with very little loss of speed; I posit that this
(them taking the junction at speed) makes the whole situation worse.
Yet another aggravating factor is that there is often (legally) parked
cars along the left hand side of the side road, so as well as turning
left I'm moving out to pass them.
R.
> Adrian Boliston wrote:
>
>>I used to indicate left till a van
>>coming the other way tried to turn into the side road the same time as me
>>and I was about 1" from being wiped out by the van, so I now avoid giving
>>*any remote hint* that I'm about to turn left as I nay not be so lucky next
>>time!
>
>
> I have a similar junction on my commute and by a strange coincidence my
> experience mirrors yours almost exactly.
>
> What are the chances of that?!
>
> OK, so two anecdotes doesn't add up to a statistic,
Make that three. Part of my commute is turning sharp left into a road
coming in at an acute angle. Oncoming traffic can turn broad right
into the same road with very little loss of speed; I posit that this
(them taking the junction at speed) makes the whole situation worse.
Yet another aggravating factor is that there is often (legally) parked
cars along the left hand side of the side road, so as well as turning
left I'm moving out to pass them.
R.
M
Mark Tranchant
Guest
ian henden wrote:
> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I got shouted at yesterday by a young woman in a Ka who was shocked to
>>find me riding in the middle of my lane whilst trying to overtake me as we
>>were both negotiating a left-hand junction in a 30mph zone with more
>>junctions ahead.
>>
>>I didn't describe that particularly well, but rest assured, it was not a
>>safe place to overtake hence my lane positioning.
> Were you obstructing her? HC says something about keeping to the left......
See http://qurl.net/kS
We were travelling ENE on Norsey Road, turning left into Mercer Road,
thence right (at a T-junction, despite the map) into Meade Road.
She thought I was obstructing her, obviously. My view was that it was
not a safe and reasonable place for her to overtake, so I adopted the
primary position to prevent her doing so. To ride on the left and allow
her to squeeze through would have been much more dangerous.
1) To pass me on the turn would have been foolish, as it is a blind
corner and I needed the road space to make the turn at the speed I was
going. I occupied the primary position ahead of the turn so as not to
surprise anyone by moving out in the corner.
2) There is a junction on the right (Smythe Road) at the point she
overtook. If someone came out of there turning left (towards us) and
didn't think to look left, Ms Ka would undoubtably have chosen to
collide with me rather than the other car.
3) In order to overtake me in time to pull in before the blind Meade
Road T-junction, she would have had to (and did...) exceed the speed
limit significantly. Remember, this is a 30mph zone and I'm going above
20mph. Hardly an obstruction...
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I got shouted at yesterday by a young woman in a Ka who was shocked to
>>find me riding in the middle of my lane whilst trying to overtake me as we
>>were both negotiating a left-hand junction in a 30mph zone with more
>>junctions ahead.
>>
>>I didn't describe that particularly well, but rest assured, it was not a
>>safe place to overtake hence my lane positioning.
> Were you obstructing her? HC says something about keeping to the left......
See http://qurl.net/kS
We were travelling ENE on Norsey Road, turning left into Mercer Road,
thence right (at a T-junction, despite the map) into Meade Road.
She thought I was obstructing her, obviously. My view was that it was
not a safe and reasonable place for her to overtake, so I adopted the
primary position to prevent her doing so. To ride on the left and allow
her to squeeze through would have been much more dangerous.
1) To pass me on the turn would have been foolish, as it is a blind
corner and I needed the road space to make the turn at the speed I was
going. I occupied the primary position ahead of the turn so as not to
surprise anyone by moving out in the corner.
2) There is a junction on the right (Smythe Road) at the point she
overtook. If someone came out of there turning left (towards us) and
didn't think to look left, Ms Ka would undoubtably have chosen to
collide with me rather than the other car.
3) In order to overtake me in time to pull in before the blind Meade
Road T-junction, she would have had to (and did...) exceed the speed
limit significantly. Remember, this is a 30mph zone and I'm going above
20mph. Hardly an obstruction...
--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
D
Dave Larrington
Guest
Also sprach Richard
<[email protected]>:
[Left-turning BLEAN]
I've had it twice at the same junction, light-controlled. Vehicles coming
the other way have assumed that:
o a bicycle is a two-dimensional vehicle (which, with me aboard it, it
emphatically is not), and
o the two-dimensional bicycle will at all times remain within 1 (one) inch
of the nearside kerb
The result has been:
o a loud bang, and
o harsh words, and
o in one case, a borken rear wheel
The downside of disc brakes is that the wheel will still go round when it is
quite badly borked, thereby meaning that you don't notice it for three days.
Bah!
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Every establishment needs an opposition.
<[email protected]>:
[Left-turning BLEAN]
I've had it twice at the same junction, light-controlled. Vehicles coming
the other way have assumed that:
o a bicycle is a two-dimensional vehicle (which, with me aboard it, it
emphatically is not), and
o the two-dimensional bicycle will at all times remain within 1 (one) inch
of the nearside kerb
The result has been:
o a loud bang, and
o harsh words, and
o in one case, a borken rear wheel
The downside of disc brakes is that the wheel will still go round when it is
quite badly borked, thereby meaning that you don't notice it for three days.
Bah!
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Every establishment needs an opposition.
W
wafflycat
Guest
"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
> says somehting different.
>
> pk
With a nice picture of a car and a motorcycle
Cheers, helen s
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
> says somehting different.
>
> pk
With a nice picture of a car and a motorcycle
Cheers, helen s
D
David Hansen
Guest
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:37:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
>says somehting different.
I am perfectly aware of that and it does not say anything different
to what I said.
Perhaps, instead of making sweeping statements, you could take the
trouble to indicate precisely where what I say is different to what
it says in the Highway Code.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
>says somehting different.
I am perfectly aware of that and it does not say anything different
to what I said.
Perhaps, instead of making sweeping statements, you could take the
trouble to indicate precisely where what I say is different to what
it says in the Highway Code.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
P
p.k.
Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:37:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> I think you will find that HC 136
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm says somehting different.
>
> I am perfectly aware of that and it does not say anything different
> to what I said.
>
> Perhaps, instead of making sweeping statements, you could take the
> trouble to indicate precisely where what I say is different to what
> it says in the Highway Code.
Easily done:
David Hansen wrote:
>
>. It has
> nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> what vehicle one is operating.
HC 136: Once moving you should
a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
vehicles or pedestrians in the road
b.. keep well to the left on right-hand bends. This will improve your view
of the road and help avoid the risk of colliding with traffic approaching
from the opposite direction
pk
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:37:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> I think you will find that HC 136
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm says somehting different.
>
> I am perfectly aware of that and it does not say anything different
> to what I said.
>
> Perhaps, instead of making sweeping statements, you could take the
> trouble to indicate precisely where what I say is different to what
> it says in the Highway Code.
Easily done:
David Hansen wrote:
>
>. It has
> nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> what vehicle one is operating.
HC 136: Once moving you should
a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
vehicles or pedestrians in the road
b.. keep well to the left on right-hand bends. This will improve your view
of the road and help avoid the risk of colliding with traffic approaching
from the opposite direction
pk
M
p.k. wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> > On 23 Sep 2005 02:51:24 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >> As in left of the centre line?
> >
> > Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
> > vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
> > where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
> > nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> > what vehicle one is operating.
>
> I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
> says somehting different.
different from what?. HC136 says "keep to the left" (plus some
exceptions that do not apply in this case. It does not say of what you
should keep to the left. Later it says "keep well to the left on
right-hand bends" which implies that there is no need to do so as a
general rule. It also talks about giving cycles and motorcycles plenty
of room which seems likely to be hard in a side by side left turn
manouvre
best wishes
james
> David Hansen wrote:
> > On 23 Sep 2005 02:51:24 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >> As in left of the centre line?
> >
> > Correct. The Highway Code reflects that it is custom to operate
> > vehicles on the left hand side of the road but, other than in places
> > where this is specifically indicated, this is just custom. It has
> > nothing to say about where within a lane one should be, no matter
> > what vehicle one is operating.
>
> I think you will find that HC 136 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.htm
> says somehting different.
different from what?. HC136 says "keep to the left" (plus some
exceptions that do not apply in this case. It does not say of what you
should keep to the left. Later it says "keep well to the left on
right-hand bends" which implies that there is no need to do so as a
general rule. It also talks about giving cycles and motorcycles plenty
of room which seems likely to be hard in a side by side left turn
manouvre
best wishes
james
P
Peter Clinch
Guest
p.k. wrote:
> HC 136: Once moving you should
> a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
> The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
> vehicles or pedestrians in the road
I think this means on the left hand side of the road, not the left hand
side of the left hand side of the road. If that were not the case then
there would be no point in saying...
> b.. keep well to the left on right-hand bends.
since if it meant as far left as possible at all times that would
already have been covered. David said "within a lane", not on the whole
of the road.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> HC 136: Once moving you should
> a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
> The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
> vehicles or pedestrians in the road
I think this means on the left hand side of the road, not the left hand
side of the left hand side of the road. If that were not the case then
there would be no point in saying...
> b.. keep well to the left on right-hand bends.
since if it meant as far left as possible at all times that would
already have been covered. David said "within a lane", not on the whole
of the road.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
M
Mike Hibbert
Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>in message <[email protected]>, Mike
>>>Hibbert ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Woodall wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip: reasons why you might not signal left before turning]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do take your point(s), but it is the law and you seem to want to
>>>>pick and choose which bits apply to cycists.
>>>
>>>
>>>Errrmmm... /what/, exactly, are you saying 'is the law', and precisely
>>>what piece of legislation /requires/ any road user to make any signal?
>>>
>>>The Highway Code says:
>>>
>
> [quote of s85 from <URL:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm>]
>
>>>Note the use of 'should' and 'if necessary' and the significant
>>>absence of the word 'MUST'; note also 'make sure your signals will not
>>>confuse others'. Part of the argument against signalling left when
>>>cycling is that it tends to lead motorists to believe it is safe to
>>>overtake during the manoeuvre, and I think it's reasonable to describe
>>>that as 'confusion'. But I admit I am not a member of the Institute of
>>>Advanced Motorists, and am thus less well informed on this subject
>>>than you. So please, do enlighten me: which part of cyclists
>>>signalling a left turn 'is the law'?
>>>
>>>Disclaimer: I normally signal left turns when in light traffic,
>>>sometimes in heavier traffic.
>>>
>>
>>I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being
>>pulled for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
>>Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker to
>>type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85" -
>>my bad!
>
>
> But it isn't even advice given by the highway code, section 85. The
> highway code says exactly, and only, what I quoted: 'should', not
> 'must', and 'not when it will confuse others'. So it looks to me as if
> you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
> fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.
>
Whatever. Do you have to get so personal about it? Just because I
expressed myself slightly incorrectly (which is a use of English issue
rather than anything to do with driving or cycling) it doesn't mean I
have to be re-tested.
Honestly, I work with pedantic twats like you, but at least I get paid
there, I can't be bothered to continue arguing with you.
> in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>in message <[email protected]>, Mike
>>>Hibbert ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim Woodall wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip: reasons why you might not signal left before turning]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I do take your point(s), but it is the law and you seem to want to
>>>>pick and choose which bits apply to cycists.
>>>
>>>
>>>Errrmmm... /what/, exactly, are you saying 'is the law', and precisely
>>>what piece of legislation /requires/ any road user to make any signal?
>>>
>>>The Highway Code says:
>>>
>
> [quote of s85 from <URL:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/07.htm>]
>
>>>Note the use of 'should' and 'if necessary' and the significant
>>>absence of the word 'MUST'; note also 'make sure your signals will not
>>>confuse others'. Part of the argument against signalling left when
>>>cycling is that it tends to lead motorists to believe it is safe to
>>>overtake during the manoeuvre, and I think it's reasonable to describe
>>>that as 'confusion'. But I admit I am not a member of the Institute of
>>>Advanced Motorists, and am thus less well informed on this subject
>>>than you. So please, do enlighten me: which part of cyclists
>>>signalling a left turn 'is the law'?
>>>
>>>Disclaimer: I normally signal left turns when in light traffic,
>>>sometimes in heavier traffic.
>>>
>>
>>I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being
>>pulled for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
>>Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker to
>>type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85" -
>>my bad!
>
>
> But it isn't even advice given by the highway code, section 85. The
> highway code says exactly, and only, what I quoted: 'should', not
> 'must', and 'not when it will confuse others'. So it looks to me as if
> you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
> fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.
>
Whatever. Do you have to get so personal about it? Just because I
expressed myself slightly incorrectly (which is a use of English issue
rather than anything to do with driving or cycling) it doesn't mean I
have to be re-tested.
Honestly, I work with pedantic twats like you, but at least I get paid
there, I can't be bothered to continue arguing with you.
M
Mike Hibbert
Guest
Chris Gerhard wrote:
> Mike Hibbert wrote:
>
>> I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being
>> pulled for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
>> Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker
>> to type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85"
>> - my bad!
>
>
> One odd thing are the rules for cyclists. Rule 57 does not mention
> signalling when turning left, but rule 59 does when turning right.
>
> Road junctions
>
> 57: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for
> vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not
> ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
>
> 58: Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room
> to manoeuvre at corners. They may have to move over to the right before
> turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the
> rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted
> to ride in the space between them and the kerb.
>
> 59: On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure
> it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until
> there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic before completing the turn.
> It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to
> dismount and push your cycle across the road.
Well, thats actually quite interesting, and I'm gonna stand corrected on
this!
Nice one Chris, thanks for the clarification!
> Mike Hibbert wrote:
>
>> I'd love to have that arguement with a traffic copper after being
>> pulled for not indicating, but seeing I do so, it's not gonna happen.
>> Maybe the use of the word "law" was ill-advised, it was just quicker
>> to type than "advice given out to you by the highway code, section 85"
>> - my bad!
>
>
> One odd thing are the rules for cyclists. Rule 57 does not mention
> signalling when turning left, but rule 59 does when turning right.
>
> Road junctions
>
> 57: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for
> vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not
> ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
>
> 58: Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room
> to manoeuvre at corners. They may have to move over to the right before
> turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the
> rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted
> to ride in the space between them and the kerb.
>
> 59: On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure
> it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until
> there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic before completing the turn.
> It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to
> dismount and push your cycle across the road.
Well, thats actually quite interesting, and I'm gonna stand corrected on
this!
Nice one Chris, thanks for the clarification!
M
Mike Hibbert
Guest
davek wrote:
> Mike Hibbert wrote:
>
>>But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
>>the road, thus making it safer all round.
>
>
> Whether you signal or not, she will cross the road without looking
> anyway. Such is my experience.
>
> d.
>
In fact, this actually almost happened to me on the way home tonight,
luckily, I guess she hadn't seen me and missed her!
> Mike Hibbert wrote:
>
>>But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
>>the road, thus making it safer all round.
>
>
> Whether you signal or not, she will cross the road without looking
> anyway. Such is my experience.
>
> d.
>
In fact, this actually almost happened to me on the way home tonight,
luckily, I guess she hadn't seen me and missed her!
B
Bertie Wiggins
Guest
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:15:36 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>I doubt there is very much, if any, difference between a driver being
>able to see a group of 4 (brightly attired) riders compared to a group
>of 12.
Probably true, the difference would be marginal.
>Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the longer the line
>the safer they are?
That's not what I said. I said that a longer snake is more visible
(OK I said 'visable').
>> There
>> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.
>
>Oh don't I know it :-(
The first group I worked with was four children, the second six, the
third seven, fourth eight, fifth - currently - nine + one adult, sixth
- currently - ten + one adult.
However, the first four courses lasted four weeks to Level 2. The
current courses last ten weeks to Level 3. They feel much more
relaxed.
>I doubt there is very much, if any, difference between a driver being
>able to see a group of 4 (brightly attired) riders compared to a group
>of 12.
Probably true, the difference would be marginal.
>Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the longer the line
>the safer they are?
That's not what I said. I said that a longer snake is more visible
(OK I said 'visable').
>> There
>> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.
>
>Oh don't I know it :-(
The first group I worked with was four children, the second six, the
third seven, fourth eight, fifth - currently - nine + one adult, sixth
- currently - ten + one adult.
However, the first four courses lasted four weeks to Level 2. The
current courses last ten weeks to Level 3. They feel much more
relaxed.
B
Bertie Wiggins
Guest
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:49:57 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>not in this case, the snake was being used to train re road positioning
I train road positioning as a drill on a quiet residential cul-du-sac.
The children start their on road journey at a sufficiently large gap,
well out into the road so they can see and be seen clearly. They
cycle down the road, a car door's width from any vehicle, and they end
the drill at the side of the road, looking behind first and signalling
if necessary. They are given feedback by the other instructor and
then they then walk the bike back on the pavement and repeat the drill
as required. Three or four rides is usually sufficient.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>not in this case, the snake was being used to train re road positioning
I train road positioning as a drill on a quiet residential cul-du-sac.
The children start their on road journey at a sufficiently large gap,
well out into the road so they can see and be seen clearly. They
cycle down the road, a car door's width from any vehicle, and they end
the drill at the side of the road, looking behind first and signalling
if necessary. They are given feedback by the other instructor and
then they then walk the bike back on the pavement and repeat the drill
as required. Three or four rides is usually sufficient.
Similar threads
