Was this all my fault?

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
<waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>"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.

I've seen it once, when some moron decided to use the pavement as a slip
road.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Richard]

The Luggage wrote:
> 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."

I fear I expressed my sentiments in a more forceful manner.

R.

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:01:42 +0100, "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert my surname
here>.uk.com> wrote:

>> 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.

The problem here appears to be not that the van twunt didn't pass entirely to
the left, but that he simply ignored all the road markings and drove straight
over the central marking.

OP has stated that he saw large vehicles negotiating the roundabout in a much
more satisfactory manner and that he's been told by police that if they saw a
vehicle behaving in the way described they would prosecute.

>> 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.

No, he had no right of way. You cannot have right of way to be on a section of
road that you are not supposed to be driving on. Next.

 

[dkahn400]

Peter Clinch wrote:

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

Driving across the pavement in that case is allowed as long as there is
a drop kerb.

--
Dave...

 

[JimP]

David Martin wrote:
>(given that any cyclist can jump a red light but
> only the first car in a queue can).

Not true in this neck of the woods. I would be prepared to bet that at
this time of day I could take my phone out and film at least one car
overtaking a car in front which has stopped at my nearest set of
traffic lights, in order to catch up with the remaining queue of cars
which have already passed the red light. This would only take a few
minutes wait, and would probably come with the added bonus of watching
said lawbreaking car drive on the right past a keep left sign on a
traffic island just before the lights. The car which did stop would
probably stop on average twenty yards or so past the sign indicating
where to stop for this traffic light, and there would be a good chance
of more than one car following the first motorist through the red light
having pulled out from behind the first person to stop at the red.

Just for variety, today someone pulled out of a building opposite the
queue and drove on the wrong side of the road to beyond the traffic
light on red. They then pulled onto the pavement (at an angle so that
the oncoming double decker could swerve to avoid them) and put their
hazard lights on. Not being able to see the traffic lights, they then
waited until the car behind took off with enough wheel spin to let them
know the lights had changed, but didn't pull out until the
wheelspinning car was just past them and they had a chance to try and
have an accident with the next car. They both braked hard, and I had to
take avoiding action as I had just taken off myself (after the lights
actually turned green) on my fixed gear.

Any takers for a web site with a few examples of this sort of
behaviour? A sweepstake on how many times a law gets broken on one
cycle of the traffic lights?

JimP

 

[SimonJ]

Crosspost unsnipped

> Crosspost snipped.
>
> On 16 Aug 2005 11:38:34 GMT,
> Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Conor ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> > were saying :
> >
> >>> Should one, when deciding on whether to enter a roundabout with no
> >>> raised bump, now assume that drivers may actually drive across it at
> >>> full speed and on an unexpected path because there's nothing to force
> >>> them to actually treat it as a roundabout?
> >
> > Personally, I'd be more surprised at people using a "paint-about" as a
> > "traditional" roundabout.
> >
> > Besides, whatever the rights and wrongs, he did have priority over you.
> > Simple prudence would have dictated a pause until you could be certain
of
> > his intentions.
>
> It's not obvious from the OP but you MUST give way to traffic already on
> the roundabout. If the OP had already entered the roundabout before the
> lorry got there then the lorry should have yielded.
>
> (The reverse often applies, lorries start entering roundabouts and then
> people from the entrance to their right join the roundabout and force
> the lorry to stop half on and half off the roundabout)
>
> Tim.
>
>
> --
> God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
> and there was light.
>
> http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[[email protected]]

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 .

 

[Tony Raven]

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.
>

The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.

--
Tony

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

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:33:26 +0100, [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 .

Explaining how to do it in a car/van/lorry/bus would be acceptable.

Ah, I've got it.

You find the control called the "indicator stalk" and very carefully leave it
entirely alone.

 

[Chris Slade]

[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

 

[Chris Slade]

Tony Raven 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.
>>
>
> The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
> palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
> recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
> it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
> used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>
I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
then, and I took the test in 1977.
--
Chris

 

[Tony Raven]

Chris Slade wrote:
> Tony Raven 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.
>>>
>>
>>The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
>>palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
>>recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
>>it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
>>used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>>
>
> I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
> proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
> then, and I took the test in 1977.

Yep, was in the 1968 version of the Highway Code IIRC. Don't know if it
survived in the 1978 reissue but its not there now.

--
Tony

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

 

[Steven]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:44:42 +0100, Chris Slade <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven 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.
>>>
>>
>> The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
>> palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
>> recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
>> it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
>> used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>>
>I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
>proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
>then, and I took the test in 1977.

I must confess I'd forgotten all about it until Tony mentioned it, and even then
it took me a while to remember it.

Surely though, this signal is for use in informing a *policeman directing
traffic* of your intentions, not other road users? One of a series of special
signals for that purpose.

Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

 

[nightjar]

"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
....
> The problem here appears to be not that the van twunt didn't pass entirely
> to
> the left, but that he simply ignored all the road markings and drove
> straight
> over the central marking.

Which, given the right combination of circumstances, is perfectly correct
behaviour at a mini roundabout. If there were room for all vehicles to
negotiate the junction without crossing the central marking, there would be
a conventional roundabout instead.

> OP has stated that he saw large vehicles negotiating the roundabout in a
> much
> more satisfactory manner

That is a subjective judgement by the OP.

> and that he's been told by police that if they saw a
> vehicle behaving in the way described they would prosecute.

It is a long time since the Police decided who would be prosecuted.
Prosecutions are brought by the Crown Proescution Service, on the basis of
information provide by the Police. There is a large gap between what the
Police will report for prosecution and what is actually likely to end up in
Court.

....
> No, he had no right of way. You cannot have right of way to be on a
> section of
> road that you are not supposed to be driving on.

At a mini roundabout, the rule is that you must give way to a vehicle
*approaching* from the right. There is no modification to that rule that
says, but you don't have to give way if the vehicle is not going to follow
the usual route when it actually arrives at the roundabout, nor even that
you don't have to give way if the vehicle is going to do something illegal
when it gets there.

Colin Bignell

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Chris Slade wrote:
> Tony Raven 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.
>>>
>>
>>The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
>>palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
>>recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
>>it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
>>used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
>>
>
> I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
> proficiency course.

We had to use it when the course was a test, and cyclists would use it
in real life at traffic lights. For some time is has been relegated to
'arm signals to persons controlling traffic' in the highway Code.

 

[dkahn400]

Steven wrote:

> I must confess I'd forgotten all about it until Tony mentioned it,
> and even then it took me a while to remember it.
>
> Surely though, this signal is for use in informing a *policeman
> directing traffic* of your intentions, not other road users? One
> of a series of special signals for that purpose.
>
> Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

No, your memory is correct. The palm forward straight-on signal was to
inform a policeman on point duty of your intention to go straight on. I
don't remember its ever being listed as a signal to other vehicle
operators.

--
Dave...

 

[JohnB]

Tony Raven 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.
> >
>
> The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
> palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
> recognise what it means these days....

An effective method of indicating intention of route at a roundabout is
correct lane choice and good road positioning.
I was teaching the the 'Theory of Road Cycling' (as per John Franklin)
yesterday to a couple of teenagers and their mum.
It gradually dawned on Mum that there were good reasons for many of the
manoevres a cyclist may make concerning their road positioning, which
many motorists may not realise the importance of.
She sensibly suggested that all motorists should undertake a cycle
training course as part of their own training.

John B

 

[JohnB]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Chris Slade wrote:
> > Tony Raven 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The hand signal for going straight on is the hand held vertical with the
> >>palm forward. Of course its unlikely that most people would know or
> >>recognise what it means these days and they would probably misinterpret
> >>it as an instruction to stop. At one time though it was quite commonly
> >>used to signal an intention to go straight ahead.
> >>
> >
> > I remember seeing that in the highway code when I took my national cycling
> > proficiency course. I don't think I've ever seen it used in anger since
> > then, and I took the test in 1977.
>
> Yep, was in the 1968 version of the Highway Code IIRC. Don't know if it
> survived in the 1978 reissue but its not there now.

It is certainly in the present edition as an arm signal to persons
controlling traffic, meaning "I want to go straight on".

Also at;
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs03.htm

Given the knowledge of the HC by most road users I'm not surprised that
many may not understand it.

John B

 

[Tony Raven]

JohnB wrote:
>
> It is certainly in the present edition as an arm signal to persons
> controlling traffic, meaning "I want to go straight on".
>
> Also at;
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs03.htm
>

I remember those signs: I want to go straight on; I am slapping my
passenger in the face; I want to turn right ;-)

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

JohnB wrote:
>
> It gradually dawned on Mum that there were good reasons for many of the
> manoevres a cyclist may make concerning their road positioning, which
> many motorists may not realise the importance of.

I find positioning myself as I would in a car gives me the control I
need and is unambiguous to motorists as I am behaving as they expect
another car to (except for speed).

> She sensibly suggested that all motorists should undertake a cycle
> training course as part of their own training.
>

The behaviour of London cabbies following months doing the knowledge on
a motorscooter give lie to that suggestion.


--
Tony

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