Was this all my fault?

[Ian]

"The Random Dispenser Of Pedantries" wrote in message > Ian
>> "Adrian" wrote in message
>>> Steven gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>> they were saying :
>>>
>>>> This idiot just couldn't be bothered and, by the sound of it, nearly
>>>> caused an accident.
>>>
>>> Sounds to me more like it was a *pair* of impatient idiots ignoring
>>> the HC that nearly caused the accident.
>>
>> If the OP is anything like most cyclists then he is so used to
>> ignoring red traffic lights that he thinks the rules about giving way
>> on roundabouts don't apply too.
>>
>> Ian
>
> That's rich, coming from someone who habitually drives past primary
> schools
> at sixty miles per hour while "high on a cocktail of drink and drugs", in
> an
> unlicenced and uninsured vehicle with bald tyres and dodgy brakes.
>

I don't remember ever seeing anyone drive past a primary school at 60 mph.
However, every day I see cyclists riding through red traffic lights, along
pavements and without lights at night on vehicles which are unlicensed,
probably uninsured with bald tyres and dodgy brakes. Whether they are on
drugs I wouldn't know.

Ian

 

[wafflycat]

"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I don't remember ever seeing anyone drive past a primary school at 60 mph.

You lead a sheltered existance then.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Adrian]

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

>> That's rich, coming from someone who habitually drives past primary
>> schools at sixty miles per hour

> I don't remember ever seeing anyone drive past a primary school at 60
> mph.

Sorry - am I missing something here? Why is it illegal to drive past
primary schools at 60mph?

My nearest primary school is bordered by an NSL lane. It would be perfectly
legal to drive past the primary school at 60mph.

 

[dkahn400]

Ian wrote:

> However, every day I see cyclists riding through red traffic
> lights, along pavements and without lights at night on vehicles
> which are unlicensed, probably uninsured with bald tyres and dodgy
> brakes. Whether they are on drugs I wouldn't know.

I'll admit to bald tyres, though I prefer the term "slick". Referring
to a bicycle as an unlicensed vehicle is technically accurate but not
terribly useful as bicycle licences don't actually exist in this
country. As far as drugs go, just caffeine and ibuprofen usually. Not
gillcup to the rest, your honour.

Of course I have never seen a motorist drive on the pavement or go
through a red light. Well, not since this morning that is. Nor have I
seen one driving at night without lights. Not since last night at any
rate.

--
Dave...

 

[Adrian]

dkahn400 ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Of course I have never seen a motorist drive on the pavement or go
> through a red light. Well, not since this morning that is.

Red lights increasingly carry cameras to take a photo of the registration
plate - so any drivers going through them will soon receive a little letter
bollocking them - and quite right to.

Unless, of course, they're utter scofflaws using false plates or driving an
unregistered car. Unfortunately, road policing in this country seems to
condone this behaviour currently. Hiho. Ours not to wonder why.

But WHY do uk.rec.cycling have this thing about people driving on the
pavement?

I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
never ever seen it. Not once.

 

[Roos Eisma]

Adrian <[email protected]> writes:

>I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
>never ever seen it. Not once.

Have you ever seen a car parked (partially) on the pavement...?

Roos

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach Adrian <[email protected]>:

> But WHY do uk.rec.cycling have this thing about people driving on the
> pavement?
>
> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
> never ever seen it. Not once.

Go and stand on the north side of Billet Road at the junction with the
Crooked Billet roundabout here:

url:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=537430&y=191000&z=1&sv=537250,19
0750&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

between about 17:00 and 19:00 any weekday. You /will/ see someone either
take to the pavement to get to the slip road onto the westbound A406, or
take a short-cut through Kwik-Fit's forecourt, over the pavement which
divides same from a side road, onto said side road and thence onto the A406.
Otherwise they might have to wait for the traffic lights to run through
another cycle, and THAT woud never do...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat
Him.

 

[wafflycat]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
> never ever seen it. Not once.

Ever seen anyone parked on the pavement? Did the car levitate there?
Seriously - it does happen - I've seen it several times - car driven on
pavement instead of waiting in traffic queue. Local Norfoolk rag had article
about part of Norwich where residents were tireed of number of motorists
driving on pavement outside their homes. There's no excuse for driving or
cycling on pavement. Pavements are for pedestrians.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Colin Blackburn]

Adrian wrote:

> But WHY do uk.rec.cycling have this thing about people driving on the
> pavement?

Because it happens?

> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
> never ever seen it. Not once.

Opposite the entrance to Newcastle-upon-Tyne Station. Van drives onto
pavement to make some sort of delivery. When the the driver departs he
drives along the pavement between the shop fronts and the barriers
before rejoining the roadway.

Outside the Bow School, Durham. Mother drives onto pavement/grass verge
to collect her little dears---there's no parking space left on the
yellow zigzags. After children are on board she drives along the
pavement and verge until she can rejoin the roadway several
illegally-parked car lengths later.

The numerous times cars partially mount the pavement for several yards
to avoid waiting for the lights to change in order to take a slip road
at the lights outside Durham University now almost go unremarked.

Colin

 

[Adrian]

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

>>I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
>>never ever seen it. Not once.

> Have you ever seen a car parked (partially) on the pavement...?

Yes.

However, "driving" implies travelling at normal speed, not manouvring a
couple of car lengths at a couple of mph.

Complaining about vehicles parking partially on the pavement is a
completely different issue. It's often perfectly preferable to the
alternative - unless, of course, an obstruction is being committed.

 

[Adrian]

wafflycat (waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously.
>> I've never ever seen it. Not once.

> Ever seen anyone parked on the pavement? Did the car levitate there?

See my reply to Roos.

> Seriously - it does happen - I've seen it several times - car driven
> on pavement instead of waiting in traffic queue. Local Norfoolk rag
> had article about part of Norwich where residents were tireed of
> number of motorists driving on pavement outside their homes.

<boggle>
I can honestly say that I have never seen that, and I would be markedly
unamused if I did. That's just... <boggle>

> There's no excuse for driving or cycling on pavement. Pavements are for
> pedestrians.

Agreed.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roos Eisma wrote:
> Adrian <[email protected]> writes:

>>I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
>>never ever seen it. Not once.

> Have you ever seen a car parked (partially) on the pavement...?

And where there's a pavement between a drive and a road, how do the cars
get into the drive?

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/

 

[Adrian]

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

> Outside the Bow School, Durham. Mother drives onto pavement/grass verge
> to collect her little dears---there's no parking space left on the
> yellow zigzags. After children are on board she drives along the
> pavement and verge until she can rejoin the roadway several
> illegally-parked car lengths later.

*NOTHING* surprises me outside schools. And then they complain that "it's
not safe for the ickle darlings to walk" - it bloody would be if it wasn't
for their abysmal driving...

 

[Peter Clinch]

Adrian wrote:

> However, "driving" implies travelling at normal speed, not manouvring a
> couple of car lengths at a couple of mph.

"Driving" implies, well, driving. Which is having a car/van/etc. move
under its own power. There's no magic cutoff speed at which driving
ceases to be driving.

> Complaining about vehicles parking partially on the pavement is a
> completely different issue.

Not if it involves other parties.

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/

 

[David Martin]

Adrian wrote:
> Roos Eisma ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
> >>I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
> >>never ever seen it. Not once.
>
> > Have you ever seen a car parked (partially) on the pavement...?
>
> Yes.
>
> However, "driving" implies travelling at normal speed, not manouvring a
> couple of car lengths at a couple of mph.
>

So in the same way, slowing to a stop and treating a red light as a
stop sign is not 'riding a bike' because the rider is not just
hammering through at a normal pace..

Glad we cleared that one up.

Would you like me to see how many cars I spot jumping the red light
outside my house and from that calculate the proprotional equivalent to
the number of cyclists (given that any cyclist can jump a red light but
only the first car in a queue can).

...d

 

[The Luggage]

Richard wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
> > The OP seems to have been cycling straight on. There is no way of indicating
> > that in a car or on a bicycle.
>
> I was once cycling straight ahead when a twunt decided to draw alongside
> me and then swing left into the side road that diverged. After a coming
> together, fortunately at low speed, he started berating me for, in his
> words, "you should've signalled you weren't going to turn left."

To which the standard response is, "I did, by keeping my hands on the
handlebars."

The Luggage

 

[Colin Blackburn]

Adrian wrote:
> Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>
>>Outside the Bow School, Durham. Mother drives onto pavement/grass verge
>>to collect her little dears---there's no parking space left on the
>>yellow zigzags. After children are on board she drives along the
>>pavement and verge until she can rejoin the roadway several
>>illegally-parked car lengths later.
>
>
> *NOTHING* surprises me outside schools. And then they complain that "it's
> not safe for the ickle darlings to walk" - it bloody would be if it wasn't
> for their abysmal driving...

Yet it surprises you that drivers drive on the pavement? Another
example. Church Street, Durham. This is an old road with old buildings.
There is a natural pinch point. At that point the council have erected a
bollard on the pavement edge. The bollard is there because drivers used
to mount the pavement to proceed. Recently some vehicle demolished the
bollard. In the short time the bollard wasn't there my line manager was
hit by the wing mirror of a vehicle which mounted the pavement to get
past oncoming traffic. They have now reinstated the bollard because if
it isn't there drivers mount the pavement rather than wait a few seconds.

Colin

 

[Steven]

On 17 Aug 2005 14:28:17 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've never seen anybody driving on the pavement. Ever. Seriously. I've
>never ever seen it. Not once.

I see it about once a year (excluding people getting into their drives).

I was once standing on the kerb talking to someone when I heard a car beeping.
Turned out that the driver couldn't move forward because of a vehicle
temporarily blocking the road from the other side (can't remember the details).

Naturallly I ignored it, but several pedestrians told me to move with comments
such as: "Can't you see the driver wants to get past".

Similarly, crossing the a Thames bridge, heavy with both vehiclular and
pedestrain traffic I heard a bell behind me.

Cyclist on the pavement wanted to get past. I told him to use the road which
brought an exasperated reaction from several pedestrians who pressed back to
allow the cyclist to continue his illegal journey.

 

[The Luggage]

Colin McAdams wrote:
[snip]
> What I think alarmed me was simply that the lorry was where it was. In the
> same way that if an oncoming vehicle suddenly crossed a central white line
> for no reason, you would be a bit alarmed even if there was no actual danger
> of collision.
>
....
> I do think that the standard of driving exhibited by the lorry driver was
> lamentable (and not because he surprised me, but because he was behaving in
> a manner contrary to that which other road users would expect).

Unfortunately, the majority of drivers expect to be able to drive
straight over a painted-on roundabout, even if it is illegal - the spot
and arrows count as traffic signs, so the driver can be done for
ignoring the signs as well as generally **** driving.

> Since the opinions in this group were so varied, I checked with the local
> police, and although he would not comment on this specific incident, the
> officer said that if he had seen an incident where a vehicle had ignored the
> road markings and driven over that roundabout in the manner described he
> would have charged the driver with careless driving.

The Luggage

 

[nightjar]

"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:02:50 +0100, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my
> surname
> here>.uk.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Unless there is a double white line down one side, chevrons only indicate
>>a
>>part of the road that a vehicle should not enter unless the driver can see
>>that it is clear to do so.
>
> Is this correct?

Yes. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is the
relevant piece of legislation. The Highway Code, paragraph 109, adds the
suggestion that it should also be necessary to enter an area bordered by
broken white lines, but that is not part of the regulations.

....
>> While there is a requirement
>>to pass the white circle to the left, it is permissible to drive over it
>>where the size of vehicle and / or road layout makes that impractical.
>
> And there is no way a food van can't negotiate a mini roundabout of the
> type
> described.

I know of several where it would be impractical to have to pass to the left
of the circle in my LWB Master. Most are, as this appears to be, where the
circle has been offset to fit into an existing junction.

>>IMO, you appear to have misjudged the situation and failed to give way to
>>a
>>vehicle approaching from the right.
>
> The vehicle did not (according to the report) have to slow down or alter
> course,
> so in what way did the OP fail to give way?

The fact that the van had right of way but got close enough to seriously
worry the OP suggests that he should have given way, irrespective of whether
the van actually had to take avoiding action.

Colin Bignell