Re: cyclist nearly kills himself



In article <[email protected]>, Art says...

>
> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> violating the Highway Code?
>

Clue: THIS IS A UNITED KINGDOM NEWSGROUP. The clue is in the name.


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
 
In article <[email protected]>, The
Luggage says...

> I can see the headline in the Daily Wail:
>
> "Conor speaks up for cyclist shock!"
>

LOL.

--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
 
On 19/12/2006 05:09, Art said,

> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
> means.


You're right. The number of car and bus drivers who plough straight
through red lights is incredible. Odd that it's only when cyclists do
it that it makes the national press.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
TripleS wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position?


I think it means 'in the middle of the lane, going the same speed as the
traffic'.

Not *necessarily* at the speed the traffic would be going if the cyclist
wasn't there...
 
Paul Rudin wrote:
> Art <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Art wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Art wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
> >>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
> >>> >
> >>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
> >>> >before they can leave their house.
> >>>
> >>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
> >>
> >>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm

> >
> > When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> > violating the Highway Code?

>
> Nobody can be arrested or fined or imprisoned simply for violating the
> highway code. It's rules don't have the force of law. Some of it's
> rules make reference to laws... but that's another matter. From the
> HC:
>
>
> "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
> not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted The Highway Code may
> be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
> establish liability."


That quote is not quite in context, you need to include the preceding
paragraph.

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be
fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such
rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In
addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation
which creates the offence."

The "other rules" from your quotation are those rules in the highway
code that don't use either "MUST" or "MUST NOT", and it is those that
are not going to automatically lead to prosecution, in the other cases
they are legal requirements.
 
"Stephen" <[email protected]> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote:
>> Art <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Art wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Art wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>> >>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>> >>> >before they can leave their house.
>> >>>
>> >>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>> >>
>> >>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm
>> >
>> > When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> > violating the Highway Code?

>>
>> Nobody can be arrested or fined or imprisoned simply for violating the
>> highway code. It's rules don't have the force of law. Some of it's
>> rules make reference to laws... but that's another matter. From the
>> HC:
>>
>>
>> "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
>> not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted The Highway Code may
>> be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
>> establish liability."

>
> That quote is not quite in context, you need to include the preceding
> paragraph.
>
> "Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
> disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be
> fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
> driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such
> rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In
> addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation
> which creates the offence."
>
> The "other rules" from your quotation are those rules in the highway
> code that don't use either "MUST" or "MUST NOT", and it is those that
> are not going to automatically lead to prosecution, in the other cases
> they are legal requirements.
>


I know all of that, I wasn't attempting to mislead and was quite
careful in what I said.

I'll repeat "Some of it's rules make reference to laws... but that's
another matter".

The important point is that nothing in the HC imposes a legal
requirement on anyone. Where the words "MUST" and "MUST NOT" are used
the rule is telling you that there is a law - independent of the HC -
that tells you to do more or less what the rule says. However the HC
rules can be a bit misleading, and are nearly always
incomplete. They're (mostly) a reasonable rule of thumb guide, but if
you really want to know what the legal requirement is then read the
law.
 
Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, TripleS says...
>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is meant by Primary position? Does it
>> mean cycling down the middle of a lane in order prevent (or at least
>> discourage) a driver from overtaking you?

>
> Pretty much. It's supposed to be slightly to the right as I recall on a
> motorbike.
>


Thanks for that.

I've noticed motorcyclists often position themselves just to the left of
the centre-line as standard procedure on single carriageway roads, even
when it appears to offer no advantage to them. This can be a nuisance
if you're looking to overtake them* and it can give the impression that
they're trying to be obstructive, though they may not be.

* Yes OK, I do appreciate that normally it's the bikers who are doing
the overtaking!

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:09:42 +0000, Paul Rudin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Art <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Art wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Art wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>> >
>>>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
>>>> >before they can leave their house.
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>>>
>>>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm

>>
>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> violating the Highway Code?

>
>Nobody can be arrested or fined or imprisoned simply for violating the
>highway code. It's rules don't have the force of law. Some of it's
>rules make reference to laws... but that's another matter. From the
>HC:
>
>
> "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
> not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted The Highway Code may
> be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
> establish liability."


Let me rephrase that, then. When was the last time a pedestrian was
arrested/fined/prosecuted for violating any of the Traffic Acts?
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:03:35 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:12:45 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>> >
>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Fact of life is they don't so you drive accordingly.

>>
>> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
>> means.
>>

>What would you know? You're a septic tank and you lot don't even walk
>from one side of a carpark to the other, let alone do anything as
>energetic as cycling.


And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end in
the cab of a lorry!
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:59:52 +0000, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 19/12/2006 05:09, Art said,
>
>> Most of them don't even seem to know what a traffic light at red
>> means.

>
>You're right. The number of car and bus drivers who plough straight
>through red lights is incredible. Odd that it's only when cyclists do
>it that it makes the national press.


That's probably because they don't just do it after amber. They do it
any time.
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:28:30 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Art wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Art wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a
>>>>> test before they can leave their house.
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>>>
>>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm

>>
>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> violating the Highway Code?

>
>Another example of a septic's inability to understand that things are
>different here compared to home.


Another example of a limey asshole evading the question.
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:04:46 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>
>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> violating the Highway Code?
>>

>When was the Highway Code the Road Traffic Act?


See other post, thicko.
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:05:16 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>
>>
>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>> violating the Highway Code?
>>

>Clue: THIS IS A UNITED KINGDOM NEWSGROUP. The clue is in the name.


Not a Ukrainian newsgroup?
 
"Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:28:30 -0000, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Art wrote:
>>> On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
>>>>>>> Highway Code as car drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a
>>>>>> test before they can leave their house.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm
>>>
>>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>>> violating the Highway Code?

>>
>>Another example of a septic's inability to understand that things are
>>different here compared to home.

>
> Another example of a limey asshole evading the question.


Wrong.
 
"Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:05:16 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>
>>>
>>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>>> violating the Highway Code?
>>>

>>Clue: THIS IS A UNITED KINGDOM NEWSGROUP. The clue is in the name.

>
> Not a Ukrainian newsgroup?


Which one of these people are you?

http://www.top10virals.com/viralvideos/dumb-as-a-rock.html
 
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:08:05 -0000, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Art" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:05:16 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
>>>> violating the Highway Code?
>>>>
>>>Clue: THIS IS A UNITED KINGDOM NEWSGROUP. The clue is in the name.

>>
>> Not a Ukrainian newsgroup?

>
>Which one of these people are you?
>
>http://www.top10virals.com/viralvideos/dumb-as-a-rock.html


Dunno. I never look at links.
 
Art said the following on 20/12/2006 07:09:

> That's probably because they don't just do it after amber. They do it
> any time.


You're still talking about car drivers, right?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
TripleS wrote:
> Further observation: A fair number of cycle lanes appear to be a
> complete waste of time and money, as they are often applied in such a
> piecemeal fashion. In many cases I can see little benefit from them -
> for anybody, apart from certain groups of road safety 'experts' -
> creating jobs for the boys, and being seen to be doing something, etc.



Part of the problem is the "target culture" & ring-fenced spending.

Councils are judged by number of cycle route miles and are have money that
can only be spent on cycling facilities - both of which tend toward
installing faculties for the sake of installing rather than with any real
thought as to function and purpose.

Lots of cycle lanes here in Merton are simply too narrow to be useful, but
cannot be wider because of limited road width. In would be safer not to have
the lane at all!

pk
 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:23:24 +0000, TripleS wrote:
> Further observation: A fair number of cycle lanes appear to be a
> complete waste of time and money, as they are often applied in such a
> piecemeal fashion. In many cases I can see little benefit from them -
> for anybody, apart from certain groups of road safety 'experts' -
> creating jobs for the boys, and being seen to be doing something, etc.


but but but ... they're propping up the UK paint industry :p

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: B416F0DE :: Jabber: [email protected]
"Don't be silly, Minnie. Who'd be walking round these cliffs with a gas oven?"
 
Art wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:04:46 -0000, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Art says...
> >
> >> When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> >> violating the Highway Code?
> >>

> >When was the Highway Code the Road Traffic Act?

>
> See other post, thicko.


D'oh! If you actually knew how to use the internet, you might have
noticed that Conor posted _before_ you posted your comments elsewhere
in the thread, thicko.

TL