Was this all my fault?

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, nightjar
<nightjar@?.uk.com.invalid> writes
>You have more confidence in the ability of the Police to make that
>decision than a junior member (i..e. the one who usually ends up on
>call as duty solictor at night) of a legal firm whom I know.
How funny, my own solicitor has the top dog on duty call, and has got me
out of police custody in minutes.
--
Clive

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Conor
<[email protected]> writes
> i.e approaching from 6 o'clock, indicate as you pass the 9 o'clock
>position before exiting at 12 o'clock.
>
>> Enquiring minds need to know.
>>
>THey should already know if they passed their driving test.
I was told that, leaning to drive a bus in 1970, it was called pinch
off, and it stopped traffic trying to undercut you. If they did it was
tough as you'd already staked out your position and intent.
--
Clive

 

[Ian Edwards]

Clive wrote:
>
> Although you most probably don't agree, paintabouts or raised surface
> mini-roundabouts have no regulation that you go around them as you must
> a roundabout. That's why the surface is as it is and isn't
> insurmountable. Note I didn't say the rules are different from ordinary
> roundabouts.

Depends whether you're driving a long vehicle or not . . .

Rule 164

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/17.htm#162

--
Ian Edwards

"Measure what is important, don't make important what you can measure."
Robert McNamara

 

[sean]

Chris Slade wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:40:34 GMT, [email protected] (Steven)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How do *you* indicate that you are going straight ahead as you are
> >>approaching a roundabout or crossroads?
> > All pointing to the fact that most cyclists are a menace on public
> > roads these days .
>
> Non sequitur of the week?
> --
> Chris

By the way....

The hedge needs pruning but I can't find the tool to do it with......
Sean.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Clive
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>,
> Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>>> What worries me is that as more and more of these paintabouts are
>>> introduced, there will be more and more people using them for the
>>> first time, and at some stage someone's bad driving will cause a
>>> fatality.
>>
>>I'm very surprised that it's the first time anybody can have come
>>across one - they've been in use for *years* - I recall them when I was
>>learning to drive in the late 80s.
> I've been driving anything you mention apart from tracks. I still
> hold that pedestrians should be on pavements, cyclists should be on
> cycle tracks and only those that have passed a test on a m/bike or a
> car be
> allowed onto a road.

Well, the law says exactly the opposite. Pedestrians, equestrianists and
cyclists have an irrevocable right to use the public road; drivers of
motorised vehicles have no such right, but may be allowed on - if they
behave themselves - by license. If they don't behave themselves, the
license gets taken away.

That's the law.

They're our roads, not yours, so behave yourself.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

 

[John Wright]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:03:10 +0100, Clive <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Steven
><[email protected]> writes
>>I've certainly seen people take wildly incorrect paths over lumpabouts,
>>but not at 30 mph.
>Although you most probably don't agree, paintabouts or raised surface
>mini-roundabouts have no regulation that you go around them as you must
>a roundabout. That's why the surface is as it is and isn't
>insurmountable. Note I didn't say the rules are different from ordinary
>roundabouts.

Doesn't stop some LAs - you can enter chevronned boxes with hashed
lines bordering them but some LAs paint them in paint so thick that
its distinctly uncomfortable to enter them as the Highway Code says
you can.
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

[Dave {Reply Address in.sig}]

In message <[email protected]>, Clive wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Steven
> <[email protected]> writes
>>I've certainly seen people take wildly incorrect paths over lumpabouts,
>>but not at 30 mph.
> Although you most probably don't agree, paintabouts or raised surface
> mini-roundabouts have no regulation that you go around them as you must
> a roundabout. That's why the surface is as it is and isn't
> insurmountable. Note I didn't say the rules are different from ordinary
> roundabouts.
>
You are wrong (unless you're driving a large vehicle). From the Highway
Code:

164: Mini-roundabouts Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts.
All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles
which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space
to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Beware of vehicles making U-turns.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1), 16(1)

That said, most people around here just pick the most convenient route
through the junction in the absence of other traffic.
--
Dave
mail da [email protected] (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...

 

[Chris Slade]

Clive wrote:

> I've been driving anything you mention apart from tracks. I still hold
> that pedestrians should be on pavements, cyclists should be on cycle
> tracks and only those that have passed a test on a m/bike or a car be
> allowed onto a road.

What happens when pedestrians want to cross the road? Will they be allowed
on them then?

What happens when there are no cycle tracks?

What about cyclists (such as myself) who have passed a test in a car - as
well as a cycling proficiency test? Will we be permitted to use your roads?

> Until then loud mouthed cyclists are going to
> protest ( in their ignorance) that the queen's highway is for them,

It is. The ignorance is yours. Cyclists, amongst others, use the road by
right. Motor vehicle operators are there on license. Unfortunately too many
of them are unworthy of the aforementioned license. I'm sure you will agree
with that.

> though how they say they've paid for it is not sure,

Council tax, income tax, VAT etc. Need I go on?

> like why would
> cyclist's want a three lane highway from the motorised only M4 into
> central London?

Have any cyclists *ever* asked for that? If so can you provide a link or
message ID?

--
Chris

 

[Adrian]

Chris Slade ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

>> though how they say they've paid for it is not sure,

> Council tax, income tax, VAT etc. Need I go on?

Without wanting to comment on the rights and wrongs of the argument - I
think you'll find that motor vehicle use subsidises your council tax,
income tax, vat fairly substantially.

Oh, and I've reset the follow-up that you broke.

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Chris Slade <[email protected]>
writes
>Have any cyclists *ever* asked for that? If so can you provide a link
>or message ID?
Are you really so dumb as to wonder why a three lane clearway runs from
the M4 to central London? Oh, I forgot, it's all thoughts bikes.
--
Clive

 

[Tony W]

"Clive" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I've been driving anything you mention apart from tracks. I still hold
> that pedestrians should be on pavements, cyclists should be on cycle
> tracks

Since cycling on cycle tracks can be shown to be more dangerous than cycling
on the road I presume you accept the additional casualties -- particularly
to young and inexperienced riders -- as worthwhile and an inevitable
consequence of mass mobility.

> and only those that have passed a test on a m/bike or a car be
> allowed onto a road.

I think you will find that the vast majority of adult cyclists will have
passed some form of driving test. Exactly what benefit this has from the
point of view of being a responsible cyclist is unclear. OK -- it does
provide a formal test of the Highway Code but since many road users
(transport mode not specified) seem to forget this the moment they pass
their test that seems little benefit.

Since it could be contended that cyclists make better motorists -- because
they are more aware of the danger they cause to vulnerable road users and
are more likely to be aware of the presence of such road users -- perhaps it
would be more appropriate to insist on a period of cycling as part of driver
education (with exceptions for those unable through disability). That way
all drivers would have a better understanding of roadcraft.

> Until then loud mouthed cyclists are going to
> protest ( in their ignorance) that the queen's highway is for them,

Ignoring the rudeness. It is for all road users regardless of type of
vehicile -- with the appropriate licence etc.

> though how they say they've paid for it is not sure,

Tax, dear boy, tax.

> like why would
> cyclist's want a three lane highway from the motorised only M4 into
> central London?

Because people want to get from a whole bunch of places blighted by the M4
into central London. Some of them want to do this on a bike. There is a
perfectly suitable road there to cycle on -- why not use it?

T

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony W
<[email protected]> writes
>Because people want to get from a whole bunch of places blighted by the
>M4 into central London. Some of them want to do this on a bike. There
>is a perfectly suitable road there to cycle on -- why not use it?
So you think that a three lane clearway is intended for cyclists? What
a load of rubbish. Further my experience with cyclists in London is
that they are the least law abiding of any group on the roads, and
considering their lane discipline and other attitudes like riding on
pavements and ignoring red lights, means they would be safer on a
dedicated cycle track and if as you claim these are more dangerous then
look to the riders themselves, that should answer a few questions.
--
Clive

 

[David Martin]

Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony W
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Because people want to get from a whole bunch of places blighted by the
> >M4 into central London. Some of them want to do this on a bike. There
> >is a perfectly suitable road there to cycle on -- why not use it?
> So you think that a three lane clearway is intended for cyclists? What
> a load of rubbish. Further my experience with cyclists in London is
> that they are the least law abiding of any group on the roads, and
> considering their lane discipline and other attitudes like riding on
> pavements and ignoring red lights, means they would be safer on a
> dedicated cycle track and if as you claim these are more dangerous then
> look to the riders themselves, that should answer a few questions.

I don't know where Clive is living, or quite what the colour is in his
world, but we could start with the following:

Proportion who break the speed limit:
Proportion who park illegally:
Number of casualties caused (total or per trip):
Amount of health harming pollution produced:
Amount of health harming polution retained in body:

On all of these we see that cyclists are a minor issue compared to the
motorists..

...d

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, David
Martin <[email protected]> writes
>I don't know where Clive is living, or quite what the colour is in his
>world, but we could start with the following:
>
>Proportion who break the speed limit:
>Proportion who park illegally:
>Number of casualties caused (total or per trip):
>Amount of health harming pollution produced:
>Amount of health harming polution retained in body:
>
>On all of these we see that cyclists are a minor issue compared to the
>motorists..
I live in the Lake District, but I do occasionally go to London and it's
cyclist's never fail to amaze me with the risks they take, both with
their own lives and others.
--
Clive

 

[Tony W]

"Clive" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony W
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Because people want to get from a whole bunch of places blighted by the
> >M4 into central London. Some of them want to do this on a bike. There
> >is a perfectly suitable road there to cycle on -- why not use it?

> So you think that a three lane clearway is intended for cyclists?

Personally I would not use the A4 into London from the end of the M4. There
are better, quiteter and more direct routes that are much more pleasent.

The road is normally a 3 lane parking lot with insufficient space to cycle
at any ensible speed, packed with frustrated motorists wasting an hour or
two of their lives. Cycling along that route is slowed because of the
traffic -- and other routes are often faster.

However, it remains legal to cycle the route and some choose to do so.

> What
> a load of rubbish.

No

> Further my experience with cyclists in London is
> that they are the least law abiding of any group on the roads, and
> considering their lane discipline and other attitudes like riding on
> pavements and ignoring red lights, means they would be safer on a
> dedicated cycle track and if as you claim these are more dangerous then
> look to the riders themselves, that should answer a few questions.

You are clearly talking from a position of bias and ignorance. Please do
some reading and learn some facts.

T

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Clive
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Tony W
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Because people want to get from a whole bunch of places blighted by the
>>M4 into central London. Some of them want to do this on a bike. There
>>is a perfectly suitable road there to cycle on -- why not use it?
> So you think that a three lane clearway is intended for cyclists?

That's the law, yes.

Don't like it? Don't use 'em, then.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

 

[Tony Raven]

Clive wrote:
>
> I live in the Lake District, but I do occasionally go to London and it's
> cyclist's never fail to amaze me with the risks they take, both with
> their own lives and others.

London has a cut and thrust about both driving and cycling that would be
surprising to someone used to the rural traffic of the Lake District but
is quite normal for the regulars. If you went to New York you would be
even more amazed.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[PC Paul]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Clive wrote:
>>
>> I live in the Lake District, but I do occasionally go to London and
>> it's cyclist's never fail to amaze me with the risks they take, both
>> with their own lives and others.
>
> London has a cut and thrust about both driving and cycling that would
> be surprising to someone used to the rural traffic of the Lake
> District but is quite normal for the regulars. If you went to New
> York you would be even more amazed.

Try Delhi...

 

[David Martin]

Clive wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, David
> Martin <[email protected]> writes
> >I don't know where Clive is living, or quite what the colour is in his
> >world, but we could start with the following:
> >
> >Proportion who break the speed limit:
> >Proportion who park illegally:
> >Number of casualties caused (total or per trip):
> >Amount of health harming pollution produced:
> >Amount of health harming polution retained in body:
> >
> >On all of these we see that cyclists are a minor issue compared to the
> >motorists..
> I live in the Lake District, but I do occasionally go to London and it's
> cyclist's never fail to amaze me with the risks they take, both with
> their own lives and others.

On casual perception that may be the case. In fact, the drivers and
cyclists in London operate by an additional set of rules that apply
there and only there. Having grown up in London, learnt to cycle in
Kingston (in the old temporary [1] one way system, not the new namby
pamby one ;-) these rules come as standard. This is vehicular cycling
at it's most blatent (for want of a better term). Road position and
speed, clear signalling of intent and a willingness to make creative
use of space are all in there.

I was at college in London. The college had sites in many places,
notably the Kings Road and High Street Ken/Notting Hill as well as
Aldwych. Average speed between the sites would be a (legal) 20mph.
Constant sprint/brake/sprint, total spatial awareness and a cracking
good day (New Malden to Aldwych (13 miles) in 35 mins arriving at 9am
was one of the faster runs).

What used to scare me in London was not the traffic but doing a route
so often that I would slip into 'autopilot' mode rather than actively
participating in the traffic. I was desensitised to what was going on
around me. I don't cycle in quite the same way here in Dundee as the
drivers are not used to such behaviour, the local rules are different.

In summary, the risk is no higher if you follow the rules. The rules
are , however, different to the dreamy roads of the lakes.

...d

[1] put in in the 60's, finally replaced in the late 80's and
completely rerouted

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
>
> What used to scare me in London was not the traffic but doing a route
> so often that I would slip into 'autopilot' mode rather than actively
> participating in the traffic. I was desensitised to what was going on
> around me. I don't cycle in quite the same way here in Dundee as the
> drivers are not used to such behaviour, the local rules are different.
>

One of the scariest times to cycle in London IMO is on the weekends when
all the out of towners drive in and do not know the rules of the game


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon