Speeding cyclists

Graeme said:

I know I modify my behaviour, but that usually means covering the brakes (if they weren't
already), perhaps moving further out from the side of the road, checking if there is space for me
to swerve around them if they do step out, making sure there's nobody going to run in to the back
of me if I haul on the anchors etc.

Perhaps the behaviour modification that you're concerned about is the implication that you should
slow down to a virtual crawl in every such situations. I can't see anyone really agreeing to that,
regardless of their mode of transport or the laudability of the sentiment.

That would be the behaviour modification that the Bikezone writer is concerned about. I couldn't
say exactly what he means by that, but I would certainly modify my behaviour in the same way as
you would.

Another thing that struck me about the article was:

Quoted message said:

Much was made of the 'speed' of the cyclist, suggesting that the law feels what is an acceptable
speed for

a

Quoted message said:

cyclists is much less then that which is acceptable for a motor

vehicle,

I have never come across any mention of how fast the cyclist was travelling at the time. From what
I've read, I have a very clear picture in my mind of where I believe the incident happened. I know
that it happened near a traffic island. I can think of 3 sets of traffic islands on Bathwick Hill, I
don't know which set it was but I can take a guess.

The speed limit for motor vehicles is 30mph, but a cyclist could very easily have been doing 40mph
+. At the place I think it happened, if I was cycling down Bathwick Hill I would probably be doing
about 35mph and keeping a very sharp eye out for hazards.

OTOH I probably wouldn't be riding down Bathwick Hill. It's one of 3 roads running from Bath
university to the city centre. In 4 years at the university, I could probably count the number of
times I rode down Bathwick Hill on the fingers of one hand. I always preferred North Road.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:13:13 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂My record freewheeling naughtiness was 48mph in a 30 zone...sadly no )camera. And it isn't
:illegal, although I'm sure there's some 19th )century law aimed at horse riders which you can be
:charged under.
*******

Right: CHAAARRRGE !

LOL
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:14:27 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>
wrote:

🙂 )Just spotted this: ) )> He said: "It is a motoring offence" ) )Hehe - anyone see the flaw in
:his logic? )

No - cos I didn't see the logic in the first place ! 🙂
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:58:12 GMT, Trevor Barton <[email hidden]>
wrote:

SNIP

🙂Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is reinforcing any arguments anyone )might have for
:legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no reason, )technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike
:riding can't be subject to )the same set of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and
🙂drivers. There is already plenty of legislation - it would take only a )small change to require
:all new bikes to have a fitted, functional, )properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use it.
🙂 )-- )Trevor Barton

Where's me gun, I like troll-shooting. When you're off your drugs, perhaps you'll realise cars don't
have calibrated speedos.
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:10 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

most 2WD drive cars these days are supposed to be designed to scoop up peds and to have a minimum
of protrusions,

Err no. But /in a few years/ time, all /new/ cars wil be supposed to be designed to be ped-friendly.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗ Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

Dave Larrington said:

1. All my recumbents have a chainguard of the sort pictured here:
hpvelotechnik.comindex e.htmlOpen ↗, and

I tried to buy one at York last year but nobody seemed interested.

Darth Stuart will happily sell you one - I got one for my trike the other day. Alternatively,
composite ones are available from Geoff Bird: hpv-heaven.comhpv-heaven.comOpen ↗

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

pmailkeey said:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:58:12 GMT, Trevor Barton <[email hidden]> wrote:

SNIP

🙂Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is reinforcing any arguments anyone )might have for
:legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no reason, )technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike
:riding can't be subject to )the same set of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and
🙂drivers. There is already plenty of legislation - it would take only a )small change to require
:all new bikes to have a fitted, functional, )properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use
:it. ) )-- )Trevor Barton

Where's me gun, I like troll-shooting.

Your point being? Or are you just someone who is stupid enough to think that someone who expresses a
view not in line with your own is trolling? Yup.

Quoted message said:

When you're off your drugs, perhaps you'll realise cars don't have calibrated speedos.

Ah well, you might want to argue that next time you are pulled for speeding. Alternatively, you can
modify your lack of understanding of the word "calibrated" to one which does not equate it with the
word "accurate".

--
Trevor Barton

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Frobnitz
The figures showing injuries caused by cyclists are depressingly high

The figures Guy posted don't show who 'caused' the collision.

"davek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frobnitz said:

The figures showing injuries caused by cyclists are depressingly high

The figures Guy posted don't show who 'caused' the collision.

You are right, and I am presupposing culpability on the cyclist, which is bad, but I think that the
law is that on shared use paths pedestrians have right of way, cyclists must always be prepared to
get out of their way, and must at all times be prepared to stop - I think that legally, a cyclist
hitting a pedestrian on a shared use path is always deemed to be at fault, so who caused the
accident is an irrelevance. (HC 48 HA 72).

Eddie

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:39:00 -0000, "Frobnitz"
<eddie_d@@@blueyonder.ocbackwards.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

You are right, and I am presupposing culpability on the cyclist, which is bad, but I think that the
law is that on shared use paths pedestrians have right of way, cyclists must always be prepared to
get out of their way, and must at all times be prepared to stop - I think that legally, a cyclist
hitting a pedestrian on a shared use path is always deemed to be at fault, so who caused the
accident is an irrelevance. (HC 48 HA 72).

Not as far as I know - presumed fault is not used in the UK to my knowledge - and just look how
they bleated when it was suggested for cars! Although they only mentioned that cyclists would be
covered, for some reason there was never quite space to mention that it was pedestrians and
cyclists. Funny, that.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:17:31 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Of chainsaw guards:

Quoted message said:

Darth Stuart will happily sell you one - I got one for my trike the other day. Alternatively,
composite ones are available from Geoff Bird: hpv-heaven.comhpv-heaven.comOpen ↗

Ta.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:28:06 +0000, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

/in a few years/ time, all /new/ cars wil be supposed to be designed to be ped-friendly.

ITYM less ped hostile. There is nothing especially ped-friendly about a ton and a bit of metal
travelling at 15 m/s.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

anonymous coward said:

It's not a matter of skills and judgment. The other day, I followed a taxi through a crossing
(lights on green) at the speed limit that was 20mph. I was about 20 feet behind the taxi, and as
soon as it cleared the crossing lots of pedestrians started to cross the road from both sides. I
managed to steer a course between them but there wasn't much space. Had I been driving a car, I
would have hit at least two people - one on each side. Of course, had I been driving a car all
those people wouldn't have stepped out a few feet in front of me.

Hi AC

An extremely similar thing happend to me a few weeks ago.

Like you, I was cycling some ten or so yards behind a slowly moving car. The car, I and a gaggle of
pedestrians wishing to cross the road all saw each other and met each others eyes.

The car passed the ped crossing zone; before I arrived at the same place the peds, having aready
seen me, walked out into the road. In truth, AC, there wasn't really too much danger as I was a
reasonably sure of their intentions.

Still, the whole thing, from my own point of view, was a tad annoying.

James

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:15:41 +0000, Vincent Wilcox <[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂Gonzalez wrote: )> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:25:58 +0000, Vincent Wilcox <[email hidden]> wrote: )> )> )>
:I have been prosecuted twice (and found innocent twice) of being drunk )> in charge of a bicycle.
🙂> )> There was much hilarity in court during the first case where the )> police officer described
:driving at speeds of up to 25mph through the )> back streets of Greenwich to catch me. The
:magistrate (a fantastic )> old buffer with a spotted bow tie) asked the prosecutor if she )>
:expected him to believe that Mr *Gonzalez* could cycle like the )> *Yellow Jersey* in the Tour de
:France and still be drunk. )> )> The prosecutor replied that "Some people cycle better when they've
:had )> a few drinks." )> )> The magistrate turned to me and said, "What do you have to say to )>
:that, Mr *Gonzalez*" )> )> I replied that the prosector has seen to many Carling Black Label )>
:adverts and believed that beer refreshed the cyclists other beers )> couldn't reach. )> )> The
:magistrate puffed himself up and said, "NO! No! no! Mr )> *Gonzalez*. That is quite wrong! It
:wasn't Carling Black Label. It )> was Heineken. ) )Stunner. Ive oft wondered whether I would TT
:faster if I )mounted a can of guiness on the end of the aero bars. )

I liked the line that the prosecutor said you can cycle better when drunk. I rest your case !

--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:52:46 +0000, Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂pmailkeey <[email hidden]> wrote: )> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:58:12 GMT, Trevor
:Barton <[email hidden]> )> wrote: )> )> SNIP )> )>🙂Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is
:reinforcing any arguments anyone )>🙂might have for legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no
:reason, )>🙂technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike riding can't be subject to )>🙂the same set
:of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and )>🙂drivers. There is already plenty of
:legislation - it would take only a )>🙂small change to require all new bikes to have a fitted,
:functional, )>🙂properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use it. )>🙂 )>🙂-- )>🙂Trevor
:Barton )> )> Where's me gun, I like troll-shooting. ) )Your point being? Or are you just someone
:who is stupid enough to )think that someone who expresses a view not in line with your own is
🙂trolling? Yup. ) )> When you're off your drugs, perhaps you'll realise cars don't have )>
:calibrated speedos. ) )Ah well, you might want to argue that next time you are pulled for
🙂speeding. Alternatively, you can modify your lack of understanding )of the word "calibrated" to
:one which does not equate it with the )word "accurate". ) )-- )Trevor Barton

--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:52:46 +0000, Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂pmailkeey <[email hidden]> wrote: )> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:58:12 GMT, Trevor
:Barton <[email hidden]> )> wrote: )> )> SNIP )> )>🙂Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is
:reinforcing any arguments anyone )>🙂might have for legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no
:reason, )>🙂technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike riding can't be subject to )>🙂the same set
:of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and )>🙂drivers. There is already plenty of
:legislation - it would take only a )>🙂small change to require all new bikes to have a fitted,
:functional, )>🙂properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use it. )>🙂 )>🙂-- )>🙂Trevor
:Barton )> )> Where's me gun, I like troll-shooting. ) )Your point being? Or are you just someone
:who is stupid enough to )think that someone who expresses a view not in line with your own is
🙂trolling? Yup. ) )> When you're off your drugs, perhaps you'll realise cars don't have )>
:calibrated speedos. ) )Ah well, you might want to argue that next time you are pulled for
🙂speeding. Alternatively, you can modify your lack of understanding )of the word "calibrated" to
:one which does not equate it with the )word "accurate".

The two are not linked, why should you assume they are ?

If the sppedo in your car is calibrated, what speed is the car doing when the speedo
registers 60 MPH ?

[Hint: look on you calibration certificate - produced within the last year.]
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:28:06 +0000, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:10 -0000, "Danny Colyer" )<[email hidden]> wrote (more
:or less): ) )>most 2WD drive cars )>these days are supposed to be designed to scoop up peds and to
:have a )>minimum of protrusions, ) )Err no. But /in a few years/ time, all /new/ cars wil be
:supposed to )be designed to be ped-friendly.

20MPH speed limiters ? 😉
--
Comm again, Mike.

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:09:26 +0000, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:24:12 +0000, anonymous coward )<[email hidden]> wrote: )
🙂>It's not a matter of skills and judgment. The other day, I followed a taxi )>through a crossing
🙁lights on green) at the speed limit that was 20mph. I )>was about 20 feet behind the taxi, and as
:soon as it cleared the crossing )>lots of pedestrians started to cross the road from both sides. I
:managed )>to steer a course between them but there wasn't much space. Had I been )>driving a car, I
:would have hit at least two people - one on each side. Of )>course, had I been driving a car all
:those people wouldn't have stepped )>out a few feet in front of me. ) )Hi AC ) )An extremely
:similar thing happend to me a few weeks ago. ) )Like you, I was cycling some ten or so yards behind
:a slowly moving )car. The car, I and a gaggle of pedestrians wishing to cross the road )all saw
:each other and met each others eyes. ) )The car passed the ped crossing zone; before I arrived at
:the same )place the peds, having aready seen me, walked out into the road. In )truth, AC, there
:wasn't really too much danger as I was a reasonably )sure of their intentions. ) )Still, the whole
:thing, from my own point of view, was a tad annoying. ) )James

Lobby your Council for grade separated crossings.
--
Comm again, Mike.

pmailkeey said:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:52:46 +0000, Trevor Barton <[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂pmailkeey <[email hidden]> wrote: )> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:58:12 GMT, Trevor
:Barton <[email hidden]> )> wrote: )> )> SNIP )> )>🙂Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is
:reinforcing any arguments anyone )>🙂might have for legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no
:reason, )>🙂technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike riding can't be subject to )>🙂the same
:set of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and )>🙂drivers. There is already plenty of
:legislation - it would take only a )>🙂small change to require all new bikes to have a fitted,
:functional, )>🙂properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use it. )>🙂 )>🙂-- )>🙂Trevor
:Barton )> )> Where's me gun, I like troll-shooting. ) )Your point being? Or are you just someone
:who is stupid enough to )think that someone who expresses a view not in line with your own is
🙂trolling? Yup. ) )> When you're off your drugs, perhaps you'll realise cars don't have )>
:calibrated speedos. ) )Ah well, you might want to argue that next time you are pulled for
🙂speeding. Alternatively, you can modify your lack of understanding )of the word "calibrated" to
:one which does not equate it with the )word "accurate".

The two are not linked, why should you assume they are ?

If the sppedo in your car is calibrated, what speed is the car doing when the speedo registers
60 MPH ?

Almost certainly not 60mph, although it's probably pretty close with a modern electronic speedo. I
have otherwise no idea, except that it displays 60mph. I don't know the calibration limits for my
speedo, but I know that there are limits that do apply. It is therefore 60mph +/- those limits +/-
any other errors that are there for many other reasons.

Quoted message said:

[Hint: look on you calibration certificate - produced within the last year.]

Why do you persist in your misunderstanding of the word calibrated? What has a calibration
certificate, or the last year, to do with calibration? Anything that is calibrated in the way you
insist on using the word has a degree of uncertainty associated with the calibration. That
uncertainty affects the accuracy to which a measurement can be made. The calibration for a speedo is
something pretty wide, in that a reading of 60mph can result from a real speed in some large range
like 55mph to 65mph, but it is nevertheless calibrated. It's just not all that accurate.

I can define a calibration standard for something that says it must read a true value +/- 80% and I
can decide that it only needs the calibration checked every 100 years. That's a perfectly valid
calibration standard for something that's not very accurate.

I also don't have to individually calibrate each item of those things that I produce. If I can
produce them with a sufficient tolerance, I can determine that they will all meet my calibration
standard. This means that potentially I can measure and characterise a few items from my production,
and decide from those measurements that all my items will meet my calibration standards. They're
still calibrated.

[Hint: Calibration certificates are to do with traceability and "the last year" is to do with
standards and is related to how quickly the calibration of an item can become uncertain. Neither of
them have *anything* to do with the meaning of the word "calibration".]

--
Trevor Barton

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:02:39 GMT, [email hidden]
(pmailkeey) wrote:

[SNIP]

Quoted message said:

Lobby your Council for grade separated crossings.

Hi Mike

What is a grade separated crossing?

James