On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:08:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

It pains me, as a notorious woolly liberal, to have to agree
wholeheartedly. Riding in the smoke the other day along one of those
hellish contraflow cycle lanes bounded by high kerbs (so overtaking
was almost impossible) a long line of cyclists finally managed to pass
an 8mph old codger on a gas-pipe Raleigh, only to have him wobble
straight past, across a red light and into the next section ahead of
the line. I really did come very close to kicking the old fart off
his bike. And I really am the most gentle of souls, I can only
remember ever hitting one person in my life, and that in self-defence
after I was amushed by a group of yobs.

Also annoying are the ones ones who stop at the light, but not behind
you or alongside you. Instead they overtake you, then stop in front of
you somewhere in the middle of the junction. Then at the next light,
after you've already been track-standing for 20 seconds, they do it
again.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:52:23 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Did that yesterday in London to get to the ASL. When I got there the
car at the front sounded its horn and then pulled away through a red
light. Sometimes getting in front of the cyclist is just too important
for some drivers.

Ah, the golden rule again.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:04:41 +0100, "Paul Weaver"
wrote in message
:

I'm getting a feeling of deja-vu

Can I help it if cager trolls are sufficiently uninventive as to
require the same reply each time? ;-)

Ah, so you are going to break your word and drive incorrectly (i.e.
illegally) based on the behaviour of a small group of cyclists who,
incidentally, are every bit as unpopular with us cyclists as they are
with cagers.

I wouldn't classify them as a small group, especially in London.

The main problem as far as I can see it is that London is mistaken for
the general situation by most journos. Where I am, the majority of
cyclists ride completely legally. Those who do not are mainly teenage
boys, a groups not noted for their compliance with regulations in any
area - and I'd rather they were on bikes than in cars.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

In message , Ian F.
writes

ASL?

Advanced stop line.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.shtml#154

Maybe it's time to reacquaint yourself with the rules of the road you
seem to assume belongs to you?


I do drive my vehicle correctly. And I'm not tense, or stressed, or prone to
flagellatory flights of fancy. I just hate cyclists and the way they
(present company excepted) reckon they own the road - riding on the
pavement, jumping red lights, yelling abuse at elderly people and so on.

From the Westminster Cycling Campaign homepage
http://www.westminstercyclists.fsnet.co.uk/

"Although many pedestrians are afraid of unauthorised cyclists on the
footway and quite rightly resent their presence there, collisions are
thankfully ra the most common experience is that someone was "nearly
knocked down" by a cyclist. To put the problem in perspective, one
pedestrian was reported injured by a cyclist on the footway in
Westminster over the five years 1994-8. This figure compares with 246
pedestrians who were reported injured by motor vehicles on the footway
in Westminster over the same period."

Seems that the poor pedestrians and elderly, etc, really have more to
worry about than cyclists.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:14:42 +0100, congokid
wrote:

"Although many pedestrians are afraid of unauthorised cyclists on the
footway and quite rightly resent their presence there, collisions are
thankfully ra the most common experience is that someone was "nearly
knocked down" by a cyclist. To put the problem in perspective, one
pedestrian was reported injured by a cyclist on the footway in
Westminster over the five years 1994-8. This figure compares with 246
pedestrians who were reported injured by motor vehicles on the footway
in Westminster over the same period."

I think "reported" is the key word here. People generally won't
bother reporting accidents involving a cyclist and pedestrian as the
chance of any action being taken is minimal. Such an incident is,
IMO, more likely to end in a "frank discussion" and both parties
leaving the scene without exchanging details.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Neil Williams wrote:

I think "reported" is the key word here. People generally won't
bother reporting accidents involving a cyclist and pedestrian as the
chance of any action being taken is minimal. Such an incident is,
IMO, more likely to end in a "frank discussion" and both parties
leaving the scene without exchanging details.


I think you can say the same thing about "incidents" involving most
vehicles. They only tend to get reported if someone is injured or the
damage is significant.

Tony

In message , Neil Williams
writes
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:14:42 +0100, congokid
wrote:

"Although many pedestrians are afraid of unauthorised cyclists on the
footway and quite rightly resent their presence there, collisions are
thankfully ra the most common experience is that someone was "nearly
knocked down" by a cyclist. To put the problem in perspective, one
pedestrian was reported injured by a cyclist on the footway in
Westminster over the five years 1994-8. This figure compares with 246
pedestrians who were reported injured by motor vehicles on the footway
in Westminster over the same period."

I think "reported" is the key word here. People generally won't
bother reporting accidents involving a cyclist and pedestrian as the
chance of any action being taken is minimal. Such an incident is,
IMO, more likely to end in a "frank discussion" and both parties
leaving the scene without exchanging details.

True. Though at least they're fit enough to leave the scene without
having to go straight to hospital.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:55:16 +0100, "Stimpy"
wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

What this is really about is that the costs of breaking the law aren't
internalised; the drivers' illegal actions cost time, money and
lives, but the costs are borne by other road users, the state, and
cyclists and pedestrians. If the costs could be transferred to the
delivery companies, then it would be in their economic interests to
have good drivers. This is well nigh impossible to do perfectly, but
covering the country in smart CCTV with automatic fines for any
traffic offence would be a start.

...and who pays for the 'smart CCTV' system? Answer; road users, the state,
and cyclists and pedestrians.


Most other industries pay for their own safety and monitoring systems
so let's assume motoring to be no different and the costs are raised
from the users; with fines from offenders being one mechanism.

There then becomes an economic and business case to run a safe
operation. If costs of the infrastructure are also raised via usage
charges, there may be the added benefit that it becomes financially
sensible to use other transport modes.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:25:28 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

A while ago, a regular on urc was injured when a POB rode off a pavement
into him without looking. I have had to slam the brakes on on occasion
to avoid POB's doing the same thing.

I had to do this last Tuesday. A cycling postman in the centre of
Christchurch rode off the pavement right into my path.

And to think, Royal Mail insists they're safe if they wear helmets.
--

Cheers,

Al

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:08:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

I really did come very close to kicking the old fart off
his bike.

Mild punishment.

No cutting? No shooting? No burning?
--

Cheers,

Al