|
Fascist cyclists
I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the
pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the public. I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it. |
Fascist cyclists
d wrote in
: I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the public. I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it. I suggest: - compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake illegally on the left coming up to a junction) - mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in front As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it. But I think I'm very much in the minority :-( |
Fascist cyclists
In message , Martin
Underwood writes As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent form of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as well as reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should be offered free insurance by the state :) (I only wish I wasn't so much of a "fair weather" cyclist!) -- Paul Terry |
Fascist cyclists
Not half!
I recall being hit by a cyclist on the pavement in Harlesden. I said something like "Ouch!" and got a mouthful of abuse in return, along with threats from his two mates. Needless to say I enjoyed the look on their faces when I replied "OK. So if you're so fsckin hard, how come you're scared to cycle on the road?" |
Fascist cyclists
" wrote in message
ups.com... Not half! I recall being hit by a cyclist on the pavement in Harlesden. I said something like "Ouch!" and got a mouthful of abuse in return, along with threats from his two mates. Needless to say I enjoyed the look on their faces when I replied "OK. So if you're so fsckin hard, how come you're scared to cycle on the road?" Hahahaha! Excellent one :) I was walking with the mrs up a street near us (mildmay grove south - quiet one-way street next to train tracks), and some asshat on a bike rode down the pavement, doing a wheelie, past my wife and I, passing within inches of us. I was sooo tempted to push a bin out in front of him or just jump at him shouting something, but then I figured he probably had an AK-47 and close air support, so I let it slide. I just don't get why the cops don't do more about it. As far as dangerous things that happen to me on a daily basis go, this is the biggest. Drug dealers, paedophiles, crack whores and the such don't affect as many people as nutter cyclists, do they? I might be wrong, and if I am I accept that, but if not, why isn't more being done about it? I guess it's fair enough for people to plead ignorance when it comes to such rules, as there's no mandatory bicycle test, so maybe a campaign of "stop doing that you ******s" information posters/adverts/sky-writing/whatever would benefit us? There's got to be something someone can do... |
Fascist cyclists
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ... d wrote in : I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the public. I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it. I suggest: - compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake illegally on the left coming up to a junction) I like that idea a lot. If it will financially hurt people to behave like eejits, maybe their eejit tendancies will dissipate. - mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in front I like the idea, but I don't think that would go down too well - that could be expensive, and require lots of paperwork and the such. I think it would be good, though, but I can see the uproar from cyclist groups. As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it. But I think I'm very much in the minority :-( From what I see every single day, you are indeed in a minority. Thanks for being so considerate, though! :) dave |
Fascist cyclists
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
... In message , Martin Underwood writes As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent form of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as well as reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should be offered free insurance by the state :) Interesting proposal... ;) I think that could possibly be counter-productive, and may encourage councils to not invest in cycle infrastructure. They might figure more cyclepaths = more cyclists = more claims = more payouts from them, and we all know what happens when councils think they might lose money... (I only wish I wasn't so much of a "fair weather" cyclist!) -- Paul Terry |
Fascist cyclists
Firstly, the subject, are you only against right wing cyclists?
Martin Underwood wrote: I suggest: - compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake illegally on the left coming up to a junction) What is making insurance compulsary going to do? If a cyclist causes such damage (which I have personally yet to see) and the damage was such that you could claim off their insurance then you could also claim off them. Anyway most cyclists I know (myself included) have 3rd party insurance (but very few have theft insurance because the bike needs to be stolen three times per year to make insurance viable). - mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in front As long as it doesn't get in the way of front or rear panniers, hit my knees as I turn the handlebars, still allows me to grip them and isn't expensive As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. Why don't you then? If you join the LCC you get free 3rd party insurance with your membership (although the excess is not insignificant) Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) Easier said than done on Fulham road. The road is easily wide enough to have a cycle lane on both sides and traffic treats cyclists as being in a different lane. When I stop in the queue for traffic lights I get cars going round me up to the bumper of the car I am behind. If I am being forced to the left of the cars in the queue, the traffic is stationary and queuing, there are no railings to the left (squash hazard), no junctions to the left and there is a decent size gap then I might as well continue cautiously because I have been forced from the usual road position by the other traffic. Also, I would like to point out that "overtaking" on the left is also illegal in cars in the circumastances it is for cyclists. Even if there is a gap the width of a car to the left of the one ahead, you cannot pass it unless it is indicating right or you are on a one way street or in a different lane and your lane is moving slower. So, heading left on Kings road, where the road goes left or straight on and has different lights for the different options (near Parsons Green)... any car going left which passes a car queuing to go straight on but before there are seperate lanes is also breaking the law in exactly the same way but car drivers are allowed to break the law - it's just cyclists that are hated because their journey is so much quicker...green monster? and I have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it. Neither have I. Although at least half of the junctions I use daily have taxis and cars which have jumped the red light and stopped between the normal line and the advanced start line for cyclists. But I think I'm very much in the minority :-( Not sure. Once again, during commuting sort of times, there are often many cyclists waiting at junctions with me and only a few go through the red lights. On Putney bridge (going South) many cars go through the red lights just before the end of the bridge. This is particularly annoying because the whole point of those lights is to let buses, cyclists and taxis (their lane is exempt from that set) get in front of the other traffic and into the turn right lane without negotiating 2 lanes of traffic. This is useful for cyclists because it means we don't need to be in the right turn lane all the way across the bridge (delaying motorists who are stuck behind us) and the sequncing is done such that motorists always have a green light once any of the lights on the junction ahead are green so it hardly affects you. But despite the light being on red for cars, etc. when I pass in the exempt lane - an average of two cars ignores them. I hope you understand these opinions of a considerate cyclist |
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood wrote: whose cars they scrape as they overtake illegally on the left coming up to a junction) One point I missed.. I don't know about your part of London but where I am there are cycle lanes on the approach to most busy junctions. Mostly, these are occupied by the wheels of a taxi or 4x4 (which, if it is a solid line lane, is illegal). The use of these cycle lanes to pass cars is perfectly legal, and the whole reason for the lanes being there. Although theres not much point when there is a car parked on the Advanced Stop Line. But, of course, lots of motorists passed their test long before cycle lanes were put in the highway code (and the area around the North side of Putney bridge doesn't exactly match the highway code anyway) so we couldn't possibly expect them to know that a really small lane with a picture of a bike, or a box contianing a picture of a bike is for cyclists only. We need some way of forcing everyone to read the highway code... The only way in the passed has been cameras (for box junctions and red lights) so maybe we need cycle lane cameras. |
Fascist cyclists
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:55:59 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , Martin Underwood writes As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent form of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as well as reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should be offered free insurance by the state :) Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are much better... |
Fascist cyclists
I was walking with the mrs up a street near us (mildmay grove south - quiet one-way street next to train tracks), and some asshat on a bike rode down the pavement, doing a wheelie, past my wife and I, passing within inches of us. I was sooo tempted to push a bin out in front of him or just jump at him shouting something, but then I figured he probably had an AK-47 and close air support, so I let it slide. That was me - and I am deeply offended by your remarks. And what exactly is an "asshat"? As you so braindeadly refer to me as. FYI, I was not performing a wheelie, but a hard brake swerve to avoid two drunken fat middle-aged fools - you and your podgey inebriated missus! And as for what you shouted after me - NO, you cannot dance, and NO I was not interested in your "missus for a fiver for ten minutes"............. But having said that, nice to have heard from you again and hoping you and your missus are well and the dentures fit better when you're sober. Take care Fondest regards. Eddie Merc's |
Fascist cyclists
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:18:07 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: d wrote in : I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the public. Add to that the utter ****wits who ride around (usually dressed in black) with no lights. I suggest: - compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists I agree thus far but insurance, for me, is to protect me from the actions of car drivers. Mate of mine has a SMIDSY the other day which trashed his bike and left him with a £500 dental bill. He's got the drivers details but has been told it's going to be very difficult to prove the crash caused it (it's from clenching his teeth prior to impact). Sure... if I ever make a mistake it'll cover me for that but I hope that I won't do so in the first place. (and before the flames - I drive, and cycle and walk) As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance. Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I have never gone through a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it. But I think I'm very much in the minority :-( I don't either but I'd heartily support the sniper idea for those that do... Can I also request the death penalty for people who drive their cars around with their side lights on plus front fog lights? |
Fascist cyclists
|
Fascist cyclists
|
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic. It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know you'll be turning left shortly afterwards. |
Fascist cyclists
|
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood wrote: [snip - discussion about turning left at traffic lights with ASL and cycle lane to the left] Should I wait indefinitely (blocking traffic that wants to go straight ahead) until there are no more cyclists coming up on my left. Or should I position myself close to the left kerb (on the cycle lane but before the advance stop line) to make sure that cyclists who aren't already on the advance area can't overtake on the left till I'm out of the way. It's a very difficult one. As a driver, I always feel very uneasy if the cycle lane continues right up to the junction because I know it's a more hazardous junction. At those junctions, as a cyclist, I only use the mini lane leading up to the junction if the lights are on red. If I don't get to the ASL before the lights change I am very wary of traffic turning left and will slow down to let it pass. If the lights are green on approach I will stay in the normal line of traffic. Luckily there is not much traffic which turns left at these junctions on my route. I agree they seem very badly designed |
Fascist cyclists
Adrian wrote in
70: Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic. It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know you'll be turning left shortly afterwards. It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as slowly as 5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards from the junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for ages is absurd and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I overtake him. Then the lights change just as I'm approaching the lights: maybe I'm first or second car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist catches up with me. The lights turn green. If he's already level with me or in front of me, fine - he goes first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right would be equally absurd. As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and (via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be turning, either with or without an indicator. |
Fascist cyclists
Phil Clark wrote:
Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are much better... It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a runner is rather more limited. Thus exercise can more feasibly be gained as part of the daily routine rather than as a separate activity. Neil |
Fascist cyclists
Neil Williams wrote:
Phil Clark wrote: Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are much better... It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a runner is rather more limited. And with panniers on you can carry a damned sight more shopping back from the supermarket than by walking or running! |
Fascist cyclists
In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes [snip] first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus in a bus lane. I think the problem stems from the design of the junction which permits/encourages a lane of vehicles (cyclists) to the left of the stream of cars that wants to turn left. A scheme that encouraged cyclists to overtake on the right when there was a stream of cars waiting to turn right would be equally absurd. There is a tendency to have advance stop lines to favour cyclists. They seem not to apply to motor bikes or taxis. ;) As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and (via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be turning, either with or without an indicator. Is there a blind spot for car drivers who glance behind? I recently became aware that my practice of changing lane to the left is unsafe for motor bikes passing on the left. I am trying to teach myself to glance behind as well as use my mirror. A collision is never a good idea regardless of right of way. -- Walter Briscoe |
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Cyclists, on the other hand, often overtake cars which are indicating left. As a car driver, I usually pull close to the kerb as I approach a junction where I'm turning left if I've recently overtaken a cyclist, to physically prevent him from overtaking illegally. I wish it wasn't necessary to resort to this tactic. It isn't necessary. Just don't overtake the cyclist if you know you'll be turning left shortly afterwards. It's not that simple. I may encounter the cyclist (maybe going as slowly as 5 mph when I'm going at 30) when I'm several hundred yards from the junction. To slow down to his speed and drive behind him for ages is absurd and would incur the wrath of other traffic. So I overtake him. Then the lights change just as I'm approaching the lights: maybe I'm first or second car. While I'm stopped, the cyclist catches up with me. The lights turn green. Ah, sorry - was thinking of a junction off a free-flowing road, not TL controlled. I think my closest near-death on a bike was sat stationary at lights and had a truck pull up just behind me - then when the lights went green, he overtook and promptly turned left without indicating... If he's already level with me or in front of me, fine - he goes first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be utterly stupid to pass you on the inside. As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points of view. Likewise. |
Fascist cyclists
Adrian wrote in
70: Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : If he's already level with me or in front of me, fine - he goes first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. Indeed. If you're already indicating left, then he'd have to be utterly stupid to pass you on the inside. .... something that's never stopped cyclists trying to force their way through in those circumstances! |
Fascist cyclists
|
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating. It's an offence against basic common sense and self-preservation. |
Fascist cyclists
In message of
Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:53:10 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes Walter Briscoe wrote in : In message of Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes [snip] first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus in a bus lane. Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating. I think a cycle in a cycle lane has right of way and usual rules about streams of traffic do not apply. It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning traffic is not in the left-most lane. I think you have to wait before you change lane. The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely a junction with another road? ISTR, driving test says pedestrians always have right of way. In practice, might usually rules unless there is a shunt. -- Walter Briscoe |
Fascist cyclists
Martin Underwood wrote:
Adrian wrote in 70: (snip) As a driver who occasionally cycles, I can see the problem from both points of view. I recognise that when I'm cycling I need to do everything possible to make it easy for drivers, by remaining visible to them and never, never getting myself into their blind spot on the left of the car. In dense/stationary traffic I usually take up a position behind the number plate of the car in front so I'm clearly visible to the car behind me and (via his rear view mirror) the car in front of me. While the traffic is moving slowly, I'll stay there. As soon as it speeds up beyond the speed I'm capable of, I'll move over to the left to let cars overtake me until I come to the next queue of traffic. But I don't try to overtake slow/stationary traffic - either on the left or the right - because I know that it may be turning, either with or without an indicator. I can totally understand not overtaking slow traffic on the left, as that can get you squashed easily. However, I'm unconvinced that overtaking stationary traffic is a problem. Stationary = not moving = not a risk, unless someone is getting out of a vehicle. I would (slowly) overtake stationary traffic until it begins to move again, at which point I'll ease myself back into the stream as appropriate to make sure that I am visible. An inability to overtake stationary traffic renders the congestion-busting benefit of cycling pointless. The only rule should be to cycle at an appropriate speed to take avoiding action when necessary. Obviously particular care should be taken at side roads. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Fascist cyclists
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ... - mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with the front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel with the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in front You hadn't noticed that motorcycles haven't needed front registration plates for maybe 30? years or more? Hence they are immune from certain speed cameras. Paul |
Fascist cyclists
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Walter Briscoe wrote:
In message of Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:53:10 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes Walter Briscoe wrote in : In message of Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus in a bus lane. Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating. I think a cycle in a cycle lane has right of way and usual rules about streams of traffic do not apply. I don't think we're talking about cycle lanes - i think we're talking about the practice of cycling up the left side of a normal lane, between the traffic and the kerb ('undertaking', i think it's called). Since this is illegal, the law doesn't have anything to say on the right of way of someone doing it! Myself, as a cyclist, i agree with Martin - if the car is ahead, the car gets priority. If the cyclist doesn't notice that the car is indicating, and rides into the side of the car as it turns, that's the cyclist's own stupid fault. I've done this myself a number of times (never actually hit the car, but been forced to brake or maneuver sharply), and it's quite clear to me that i have only myself to blame. If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane, though, then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning motorist, regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something that drivers along Torrington Place could do with reminding of. tom -- I sometimes think that the IETF is one of the crown jewels in all of western civilization. -- Tim O'Reilly |
Fascist cyclists
|
Fascist cyclists
The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over
vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely a junction with another road? Because road users going along a main road have priority over those turning in or out of side roads - whether either user is a ped. or with a vehicle is irrelevant. In practice, might usually rules - I'd suggest it dosn't really - motorists who 'steal' priority by threatening to run down anyone who gets in their path are like most bullies: parasites upon the existence of an (imperfect) level of order and cooperation. If might really ruled (i.e. anarchy) the vulnerability of cars to arson, theft & vandalism, either random or as revenge attacks by disgruntled other road users, would probably make owning one more trouble than it was worth. (Not a situation I advocate - personally, I'd prefer a shift towards more order rather than less). Jon |
Fascist cyclists
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Martin Underwood wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in : If there is a cycle lane to the left of the leftmost normal lane, though, then yes, of course the cyclist has priority over the turning motorist, regardless of whether the motorist is indicating. Something that drivers along Torrington Place could do with reminding of. I don't know about "of course". I don't think it's at all obvious. Okay, that's interesting. I think the first rule of the road i ever learned was that at a junction, vehicles not turning off have priority over those which are. I'd have expected the cars that were indicating to have priority over everything that was planning to pass them, whether or not it's in a different lane, and whether or not it's bikes in a bike lane or buses in a bus lane. Evidently not. It's a case of which rule ("traffic in a separate lane" versus "overtaking cars that are indicating") over-rides the other: I reasoned things the wrong way round. Is there an 'overtaking cars that are indicating' rule? The only thing i can find in the HC is rule 143, clause 8 [1]: 143: DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example [...] * when a vehicle is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled. That explicitly mentions indicating right - it doesn't prohibit overtaking a vehicle indicating left, as in this case. Although 139.7 [2] says: 139: Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should [...] * only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so Which does cover this case, and is even stronger than an 'overtaking cars that are indicating' rule - you can't overtake even if they aren't indicating. However ... I'll have to see if the Highway Code mentions this situation explicitly. Rule 159 [3], in the section 'Turning left': 159: When turning * keep as close to the left as is safe and practical * give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction. That second clause is the bunny, i think. Rule 158 sort of retroactively (proactively?) clarifies this: 158: Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists and motorcyclists in particular may be hidden from your view. [image showing vehicle cutting in on cyclists] [image showing vehicle giving a cyclist space on the road] Do not cut in on cyclists I think those two rules pretty definitely cover the situation that involves a cycle lane. Whatever the HC says, I'll check for cyclists over my left shoulder even more than I already do when I'm turning left. Very prudent! tom [1] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#143 [2] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139 [3] http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#159 -- Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory |
Fascist cyclists
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. Doubtless you're correct. But in practice you'd make no assumptions, keep a firm eye on him and drive defensively. Wouldn't you? |
Fascist cyclists
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:53:10 -0000, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely a junction with another road? Where did you invent that one from? If a pedestrian's on the pavement, he waits. If he's on the road, obviously you don't run into him using "right of way" as an excuse. D'oh! |
Fascist cyclists
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
... Walter Briscoe wrote in : In message of Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:50:18 in uk.transport.london, Martin Underwood writes [snip] first. But suppose he's a second or so later and is just behind me. Should I delay setting off to let him overtake me or should he wait until I've turned? I reckon the latter. I reckon the former. You are turning across his path. He has right of way. A similar thing would apply if you turn across the path of a bus in a bus lane. Even if I'm indicating that I'm turning. I thought it was an offence to overtake a vehicle that's indicating, on the same side as he's indicating. It all boils down to the absurdity of a road layout where the left-turning traffic is not in the left-most lane. The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely a junction with another road? Pedestrians always have right of way, simply because they're more squishy and easily broken than cars and trucks. |
Fascist cyclists
d wrote: I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of "rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every member of the public. I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it. Crossing Vauxhall Bridge last night, one ******* sailed through the green pedestrian phase at high speed and actually had the nerve to call me a **** when I shouted ****** at him. These people are little more than scum and the sooner the police do something the better, not that that will ever happen. Kevin |
Fascist cyclists
"Jon" wrote in message
oups.com... The one that always gets me is the fact that pedestrians have priority over vehicles that are turning into or out of a side road. Why should pedestrians, who normally have to stop at the kerb to wait for a gap in the traffic (except at zebra crossings and pedstraisn lights, obviously) be given precedence over vehicles at the most dangerous part of a road, namely a junction with another road? Because road users going along a main road have priority over those turning in or out of side roads - whether either user is a ped. or with a vehicle is irrelevant. In practice, might usually rules - I'd suggest it dosn't really - motorists who 'steal' priority by threatening to run down anyone who gets in their path are like most bullies: parasites upon the existence of an (imperfect) level of order and cooperation. If might really ruled (i.e. anarchy) the vulnerability of cars to arson, theft & vandalism, either random or as revenge attacks by disgruntled other road users, would probably make owning one more trouble than it was worth. (Not a situation I advocate - personally, I'd prefer a shift towards more order rather than less). There's a bit more to anarchy than just might rulling ;) Jon |
Fascist cyclists
In message ,
Martin Underwood writes Where I live (near Abingdon in Oxfordshire) I see a lot of cyclists go through red traffic lights as if they don't apply to cyclists - especially in the centre of Oxford. When Oxford's traffic system changed a couple (?) of years ago, I saw a cyclist cycling the wrong way alongside Balliol. A policeman on duty stopped her and gave her a pretty stern warning. The woman was absolutely astounded - and I *mean* **astounded** - at being pulled over for a traffic violation as she was "only on a bike". She simply could not believe that the rules of the road applied to her. (Most of the group I was with thought this was quite amusing. At couple or so people in the group, though, were themselves surprised that the highway code applied to cyclists.) As an occasional (and I hope law-abiding) cyclist, it rather shook me at the time. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Fascist cyclists
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk