In article 70,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see
the cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't"
implies a system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to
other road users should not be on the roads.

"Couldn't", in this instance, implies an excuse because they didn't
look.

You shouldn't NEED to look, because nobody in their right mind would
BE THERE in the first instance. If they are, it's their own ****ing
silly fault. But people like you insist on blaming the poor ****er
who's trying to thread a large truck or bus or whatever through a
busy city junction, instead of pointing the blame at the daft flat
******* whose stupidity is busy buying is hosed away.

That's no better an excuse than driving into the idiot coming out of a
side road without looking.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

A pretty good thread, especially your repeated insistence that road
transport be held to the same safety standard as the railways; but, and
especially in light of the latter, you really should have xposted to
uk.railway, uk.rec.cycling, and uk.transport, for maximum... er...
'effect'.

--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Larry Lard wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

A pretty good thread, especially your repeated insistence that road
transport be held to the same safety standard as the railways; but, and
especially in light of the latter, you really should have xposted to
uk.railway, uk.rec.cycling, and uk.transport, for maximum... er...
'effect'.

You seem to have forgotten uk.rec.driving - a key component in a proper
transport flamewar. Indeed, urd and urc go together like hydrazine and
nitrogen tet.

tom

--
No gods, no masters.

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

Don't overtake on the left, as you'll end up either:
a) dead, under the bus
b) dead, under 20 disembarking bus passengers

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

It's not anti-bike. It's anti-getting-people-killed-for-no-reason.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Half the problem is that bikes (both pedal and motor) try to take
advantage
of their narrow width to get right to the front of a queue of traffic,
rather than waiting their turn like everyone else. And I say that from
the
perspective of a cyclist as well as a driver - when I'm on my bike I
always
resist the temptation to overtake cars on the left near junctions,
because
as a driver I'm aware of how dangerous it can be. "

Yes, I agree entirely, and this situation is worsened by the imposition
of "bicycle boxes" or whatever they are called at the front of stop
lines at junctions, which can only encourage cycles and motorbikes to
overtake or undertake whenever there is stationery traffic waiting at
red lights.

I have been at the Bar long enough to remember motorcyclists being
prosecuted for this very action, which now seems to be officially
sanctioned if not encouraged.

Just like women voting - whatever next!

Marc.

In article ,
(d) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

Don't overtake on the left, as you'll end up either:
a) dead, under the bus
b) dead, under 20 disembarking bus passengers

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

It's not anti-bike. It's anti-getting-people-killed-for-no-reason.

I don;t think you understand cycling.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have a
yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

Don't overtake on the left, as you'll end up either:
a) dead, under the bus
b) dead, under 20 disembarking bus passengers

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

It's not anti-bike. It's anti-getting-people-killed-for-no-reason.

I don;t think you understand cycling.

Quite obviously we don't understand it in the same way as you do.

If that "understanding" involves a perceived right to go wherever the ****
you want because you're in the right, then I don't think I want to.

May I recommend www.highwaycode.gov.uk

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:47 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:


b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

It's not anti-bike. It's anti-getting-people-killed-for-no-reason.

I don;t think you understand cycling.

Au contraire, speaking as both a cyclist and driver, I have lost count of
the idiots who do not appreciate the danger of pedaling up the inside of
*anything* which is turning left, never mind PSVs or HGVs.

The fact that they need a warning sign to remind them of their imminent
nomination for a Darwin award speaks volumes.
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

In article . 170,
(Adrian) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Some Bendibuses (including some or all on routes 29 and 73) have
a yellow triangle sign on the rear with a black bicycle with an X
across it.

a) What is it supposed to mean?

Don't overtake on the left, as you'll end up either:
a) dead, under the bus
b) dead, under 20 disembarking bus passengers

b) Why this anti-bike attitude from TfL?

It's not anti-bike. It's anti-getting-people-killed-for-no-reason.

I don;t think you understand cycling.

Quite obviously we don't understand it in the same way as you do.

If that "understanding" involves a perceived right to go wherever the
**** you want because you're in the right, then I don't think I want
to.

May I recommend www.highwaycode.gov.uk

In a wide main road like Euston Road, a bendi-bus pulls in regardless of
cyclists riding where they should, close to the kerb. They are then
almost impossible to pass safely. I suggest you try it sometime instead
of pontificating.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In a wide main road like Euston Road, a bendi-bus pulls in regardless of
cyclists riding where they should, close to the kerb.

So long as it doesn't side-swipe them in doing so, I fail to see the
problem. Buses stop in bus stops. This is to be expected, and it
doesn't do any harm for other road users to assist them in doing so.

They are then
almost impossible to pass safely.

It is impossible to pass a stopped or left-turning bus (of any type)
safely on the left. There is always a significant chance of it
disgorging passengers or turning onto you. The right is the correct
place to pass, if appropriate. If the driver pulls out onto you while
doing that, he is an idiot.

The sign on the bus is only reinforcing that point.

I suggest you try it sometime instead
of pontificating.

I have done on a few occasions, and (while it didn't involve bendies)
spent a few years regularly cycling on Oxford Road in Manchester, which
has rather more buses than the Euston Road. I was only knocked into
once by a bus that pulled in a bit soon in that time; he was duly
informed of his error.

Neil