wrote in message
oups.com...

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
It was obviously going to happen. All the mob who suddenly leapt onto
pedal bikes after the 7th July, are now being a menace to themselves and
anyone else who gets near them. I regularly see them going through red
lights, treating the pavement and roadway and equally appropriate places
to hurtle along...etc.

The sad thing is that they're probably thousands of times more likely to
get maimed riding a cycle than using the tube or bus.

Surely it's time for cycles to be registered and insured ? I'm not
suggesting mandatory training. To be honest I think they all know the
correct way to drive, but they just don't care. Put a traceable
registration number on the back and it'll give them an incentive not to
ride like lunatics.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

And how about some cycle paths to encourage cyclists off the roads (on
car and bike) and onto bikes.

Now that I would definitely support. For slow vehicles like bikes, the road,
with cars doing 30, 40, 50, 60 mph is not the best place. Sadly, give the
way that pedestrians have no "lane discipline" and no idea what's behind
them, the pavement is an even worse place.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:52 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

I'd rather that offences committed on a bicycle (exceeding speed limit,
riding while over the alcohol limit, riding through red lights or occupied
zebra crossings, overtaking on the left a vehicle that's indicating left)
were treated as motoring offences and generated points on your driving
licence if you hold one - or a summary fine if you don't.

I don't believe points are appropriate, unless a cycling licence is
introduced. Otherwise, those who do have a car are punished more
harshly than those who do not.

I would be supportive of a suitably large fine.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that the drink-drive limit does
not apply to bicycles per-se, and as such that you'd be convicted of
something different if caught cycling dangerously due to having
consumed too much alcohol. This probably isn't a bad thing, as you're
a whole lot less likely to kill someone cycling badly at 10mph than
you are driving a car at 30. (This is not a justification for drunken
cycling, merely a comparison of the two rather different modes of
transport involved).

I disagree. If you're on the road between one kerb and the other,
drink-drive laws should apply: you don't have to hit someone to cause an
accident. IF you cause another vehicle to go out of countrol (possible
causing much more damage than you yourself could cause) because he was
trying to avoid hitting you, you should bear 100% of the blame. My inabilty
to stop does not prevent it being your fault that the accident happened. NB:
I don't mean "you" personally ;-)

And I'd like to
see cyclists required to carry third-party insurance to cover damage to
cars
when they try to overtake and scratch your car or when they cause other
drivers to swerve to avoid an accident, hitting something else in the
process.

Many of them do, in the form of their household insurance, believe it
or not.

Really? So if a cyclist causes damage to a car as it's overtaking in a gap
that's too narrow or if he runs into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing or
hits a car by failing to stop at a give way / stop / red light, the injured
party can claim on the cyclist's house contents insurance? I never knew
that.

If car drivers "swerve to avoid an accident, hitting something else in
the process", they haven't avoided an accident, incidentally, they may
well have *caused* one. While I won't defend poor cycling or driving,
if you drive assuming that others *will* do something stupid or
dangerous, you're unlikely to hit them or anything else. I have lost
count of the number of times I have avoided accidents, both in my car
and on a bike, by having suspected someone was about to do something
stupid/illegal/dangerous and taking suitable and safe evasive action
before said act was perpetrated.

I define "cause" as "root cause" - the knock-on chain of resulting collisons
can be traced back to the root cause. Yes - drive defensively: assume that
people might turn across your path without indicating or might overtake you
where you can see that it's not safe. But don't use that as an excuse for
the person who caused the accident in the first place to evade the full
weight of punishment.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen w*nkers in sports cars come
up behind me and then try to overtake into the path of an oncoming car that
I've seen but the w*nker hasn't. It's got to the stage where I'm getting
ready to hit the brakes as soon as the w*nker pulls out to overtake, to give
him chance to pull in ahead of me when he realises he's cocked it up.
Likewise when you're the oncoming car: last week I saw a long stream of cars
coming towards me - probably about five cars behind a tractor. Immediately I
think "what if a pillock decides to overtake". Sure enough, a Moron in a
Maserati (TM) pulled out from the back of the queue and began to overtake
one, two, three cars. By this stage I was hard on the brakes (the skidmarks
are still there) with headlights and horn on. Still he kept comingOnly when
he'd overtaken the tractor and passed within a hairsbreadth of sideswiping
me did he pull in - but not before giving me "the finger". Dammit, the guy
couldn't even swear in English - he had to use an American insult ;-)


I'm not, however, a perfect driver or cyclist; I have been involved in
accidents on both means of transport over the years.

As a cyclist, I always resist the temptation to overtake on the left
because
as a driver I know how dangerous it is.

Agreed. It would help if junction layouts were not set up to
encourage cyclists to do this. Things like advanced stop lines are
not really helpful to the cyclist or the car driver.

Agreed. Oxford is terrible for that. As a cyclist in traffic that's crawling
along, I take up a space behind the car in front, in the middle so he can
see me in his mirror and so the car behind me can see me. And I crawl
forward just the same as everyone else. When the traffic gets moving, I can
probably accelerate to 10 mph faster than most cars, but then I'm outpaced
and move back to the left hand side of the road out of the way. I've
actually found that a very large majority of motorists are very
cycle-friendly. Shame that a great proportion of cyclists are not
car-friendly.

That's the sort of
riding that is indefensible and is a reason why (IMHO) bikes *do* need
recognisable registration plates. If he'd had plates, I'd have stopped as
soon as it was safe and reported him to the police, as I suspect many of
the
other affected motorists would.

Perhaps, but the police would have taken no action as it'd be your
word against his (unless others also reported him, I suppose), hence
why I would prefer more actual police officers out and about. You'd
also have a job enforcing cycling bans.

Sadly that's the case. It's tempting to buy a video camera and stick it on
the roof of my car to record as evidence what I've seen. You can't station a
policeman at every junction to catch idiots like that, and even if you did,
he'd have a job getting into his car and struggling through the traffic to
catch up with the idiot on the bike. Better to have some foolproof way of
gathering photographic evidence to convict: maybe traffic light cameras
should have the camera facing the traffic, continuously recording the
traffic and preserving the last few seconds leading up to someone going
through the red light - that way you've got a better chance of identifying
the driver/rider as well as the vehicle. I saw a similar system on
Tomorrow's World about 10 years ago to monitor collisions at junctions in
Japan, but it never seems to have taken off.

As a matter of interest, how many people need to report a "his word against
yours" offence before the police will investigate and convict?


I was once driving down the A34 and I saw a car with his brake lights
permanently on. Several times he had to brake and other cars nearly went
into the back of him. I got his number and called in at my local police
station to report him. The police were not interested and made me feel an
idiot for even reporting him, when it ought to be a simple task to trace him
on the DVLC computer and arrange for a policeman to call round (or even a
letter to be sent saying "do you know...?") sometime over the next few days.
Had I been driving at 75 mph or had I gone through a red light at 3 AM when
there was manifestly no other traffic around, I bet they'd have been only to
pleased to investigate.

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

I don't believe points are appropriate, unless a cycling licence is
introduced. Otherwise, those who do have a car are punished more
harshly than those who do not.

It's long been possible for someone to get points on a licence they
don't have. My brother achieved this in the 1970s (for illegal pillion
riding on a motorcycle).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article .com,
() wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
It was obviously going to happen. All the mob who suddenly leapt onto
pedal bikes after the 7th July, are now being a menace to themselves
and anyone else who gets near them. I regularly see them going
through
red lights, treating the pavement and roadway and equally
appropriate places to hurtle along...etc.

The sad thing is that they're probably thousands of times more
likely to get maimed riding a cycle than using the tube or bus.

Surely it's time for cycles to be registered and insured ? I'm not
suggesting mandatory training. To be honest I think they all know the
correct way to drive, but they just don't care. Put a traceable
registration number on the back and it'll give them an incentive not
to ride like lunatics.

Plus it might help reduce the number stolen each year.

And how about some cycle paths to encourage cyclists off the roads (on
car and bike) and onto bikes.

More to the point, why do London councils, e.g. Camden, provide cycle
facilities which work in one direction only?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Martin Underwood wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
If car drivers "swerve to avoid an accident, hitting something else in
the process", they haven't avoided an accident, incidentally, they may
well have *caused* one. While I won't defend poor cycling or driving,
if you drive assuming that others *will* do something stupid or
dangerous, you're unlikely to hit them or anything else. ...

I define "cause" as "root cause" - the knock-on chain of resulting collisons
can be traced back to the root cause. Yes - drive defensively: assume that
people might turn across your path without indicating or might overtake you
where you can see that it's not safe. But don't use that as an excuse for
the person who caused the accident in the first place to evade the full
weight of punishment.

It's thinking like this that results in our child pedestrian
casualties being among the worst in Europe. For a variety of reasons,
of which being young is the commonest, people do stupid things on or
near roads. These actions only result in death or injury because the
roads are also full of heavy machinery which is moving too fast to
stop in time. Those in control of the ton or more of heavy machinery
have the responsibility to operate it safely - which is why they need
licenses and pedestrians and cyclists don't.

I'm not, however, a perfect driver or cyclist; I have been involved in
accidents on both means of transport over the years.

As a cyclist, I always resist the temptation to overtake on the left
because as a driver I know how dangerous it is.

Agreed. It would help if junction layouts were not set up to
encourage cyclists to do this. Things like advanced stop lines are
not really helpful to the cyclist or the car driver.

Overtaking _stationary_ motor vehicles is a fairly safe activity, if
you go slowly enough to stop if someone opens a door. Merging back in
when the line starts to move is easy.

What's dangerous is being close beside a _moving_ motor vehicle,
especially if its driver hasn't seen you. ASLs exist to ensure that
you can always get in front where the driver can see you.

Agreed. Oxford is terrible for that. As a cyclist in traffic that's crawling
along, I take up a space behind the car in front, in the middle so he can
see me in his mirror and so the car behind me can see me. And I crawl
forward just the same as everyone else.

A fine technique. But unnecesarily slow, especially if the queue is long.

When the traffic gets moving, I can
probably accelerate to 10 mph faster than most cars, but then I'm outpaced
and move back to the left hand side of the road out of the way.

Only do this if there's actually room to overtake you safely. Queuing
traffic the other way, for example, may restrict space your way. Then
your safest course is to take the lane until there is room to pass -
no matter how slowly you cycle.

I've actually found that a very large majority of motorists are very
cycle-friendly.

Agreed. But they often need to be told when it is and isn't safe to pass.

Shame that a great proportion of cyclists are not
car-friendly.

Not IME. Most cyclists are a lot too willing to defer to cars,
reducing their safety as a result.

It's tempting to buy a video camera and stick it on
the roof of my car to record as evidence what I've seen.

I am similarly tempted to mount one on the handlebars. I wonder which
of us would record more examples per mile of dangerous driving or cycling.

As a matter of interest, how many people need to report a "his word against
yours" offence before the police will investigate and convict?

I think it has more to do with ease of finding the offender than
strength of evidence. They also insist you fill in a paper form at a
police station, which makes the whole process prohibitively
time-consuming.

Colin McKenzie

Martin Underwood wrote:
wrote in message

And how about some cycle paths to encourage cyclists off the roads (on
car and bike) and onto bikes.

Now that I would definitely support. For slow vehicles like bikes, the road,
with cars doing 30, 40, 50, 60 mph is not the best place. Sadly, give the
way that pedestrians have no "lane discipline" and no idea what's behind
them, the pavement is an even worse place.

And any off-road cycle path will be shared with pedestrians. And
almost certainly give way at all side roads, making it both slower and
more dangerous than the road.

Key factors in safety and comfort of on-road cycling a
- speed difference (not absolute speed)
- space for overtaking

A speed difference up to 20mph is pretty safe. A road layout that
allows bikes to be overtaken with good clearance without the driver
changing lane is also safe, even with a greater speed difference.

What's frightening is if it isn't continuously safe to overtake, and
drivers slow down behind you or roar past.

What's dangerous is if they overtake (at any speed) where there isn't
room.

So if you cycle at 10mph, stay in 30 or 20mph zones. If you're doing
20, you should be OK on 40mph roads - and won't be welcome or as safe
on the shared path alongside.

Colin McKenzie

In message , Neil Williams
writes
Someone who does not drive, and does not intend to drive, is not in any
way punished by having points on a theoretical driving licence, unless
a licence was also issued for cycling and withdrawn when 12 points were
reached as with a car licence.
Sorry, don't buy it, if you can't be legal with a bike why should you be
trusted with a car.
--
Clive

In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

ASLs exist to ensure that
you can always get in front where the driver can see you.

Ho, ho. Fine as long as they're not occupied by taxis.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:52:20 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Neil Williams
writes
Someone who does not drive, and does not intend to drive, is not in any
way punished by having points on a theoretical driving licence, unless
a licence was also issued for cycling and withdrawn when 12 points were
reached as with a car licence.
Sorry, don't buy it, if you can't be legal with a bike why should you be
trusted with a car.

Read my post, as quoted above, again. That comment, while making a
reasonable point, is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:58:31 +0100, "Martin Underwood" a@b wrote:

I disagree. If you're on the road between one kerb and the other,
drink-drive laws should apply: you don't have to hit someone to cause an
accident. IF you cause another vehicle to go out of countrol (possible
causing much more damage than you yourself could cause) because he was
trying to avoid hitting you, you should bear 100% of the blame.

How on earth would you propose to enforce that?

Think about an extreme (fictitious) example. I'm driving along a
2-lane-in-each-direction single carriageway (i.e. no central
reservation) at 35mph. You're following me in a large articulated
lorry at 40mph, and wish to overtake. You do so, and I decide at the
same second to move to the right lane without looking. There is a car
coming up the right lane of the other side of the road at 60mph, but
for whatever reason (e.g. blind bend or dip) neither of us can see it.

To avoid hitting me, you swerve into the oncoming traffic as it
appears clear (but isn't). You and the car collide at a closing speed
of 100mph, and the car is written off and its driver seriously injured
or killed. I'm not hit at all.

Who bears the blame for that mess? I would argue that one single
person does not. OK, I've triggered the situation by being a prat,
but you have also taken misjudged evasive action which had a worse
consequence than you would have had by hitting me at a closing speed
of 5mph.

It is just not that simple.

To add to that, what about a heavily-drunken pedestrian stepping into
the road causing the same thing? Just as possible, indeed from my
experience a lot more likely.

I define "cause" as "root cause" - the knock-on chain of resulting collisons
can be traced back to the root cause.

Often not a single one.

I was once driving down the A34 and I saw a car with his brake lights
permanently on. Several times he had to brake and other cars nearly went
into the back of him.

It's sad the police won't respond to such things - goes with my
statement that more of them are required to allow them to actually do
so.

However, if anyone was to run into the back of someone with brake
lights permananently *on* (rather than off where you wouldn't know
there was a fault until you'd followed for a while), at least some of
the blame must go to them as well. If I see a car with brake lights
stuck on, I will hold right back, knowing I will get no notification
of what could be an emergency braking. I therefore potentially need
another several seconds of braking time because I'll need to notice
deceleration rather than red lights - and if I hold back I may also be
able to see over[1]/round the car to determine what might cause him to
brake as an assistance to my judgement.

[1] Van-derived MPVs with high seating positions have their advantages


Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.