Stolen Bike

On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give you
right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every precaution to
avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have disappeared from
the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of your presence" is not
particularly helpful.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to control
and there were few of them so people were not used to their presence.
Now, people use roads with the full expectation that something big and
fast operated by a psychopath is round the next corner. Also, bulb air
horns were more acceptable than the nasty electric objects fitted today.

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

On 07/08/18 18:29, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:27:28 +0100, JNugent wrote:

It is intended only to alert other road-users to one's presence.

Er no. It means "You ****ing arsehole, why the hell didn't you indicate?!"

A horn conveys no information so how are your targets supposed to know
what your problem is?

It is not intended to convey the message: "Get out of my way or there
might be a crash". I such circumstances, you are supposed to slow down
or stop.

I don't, I drive as close as possible to the vehicle without touching
them, this scares them into not doing it again,

Have you ever followed up the result of your education with the
individuals concerned?

On 08/08/2018 15:24, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

Alerting him to your presence is the specific purpose of a horn; that
much has been said already.

Using the horn for its proper purpose is a very rare occurrence.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give you
right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every precaution to
avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have disappeared from
the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of your presence" is not
particularly helpful.

There's still the law about driving without due care and attention
and/or without due consideration for other road users.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to control
and there were few of them so people were not used to their presence.
Now, people use roads with the full expectation that something big and
fast operated by a psychopath is round the next corner. Also, bulb air
horns were more acceptable than the nasty electric objects fitted today.

The obvious use whilst moving would be when approaching ths "summit" of
a hump-backed bridge or a sharp bend. A multi-storey car-park near here
had a down-ramp with a give way line at the bottom of it, with the
posibility of traffic approaching from the left. A sign on the wall said
"Sound Horn". I never did. There were houses near the location and the
occupants were as entitled to reasonable efforts to keep down noise as
anyone else is. Likewise, an Italian friend used to sound his car horn
on a hump-backed bridge near his village. But the bridge had a house
adjacent to it. He would never listen to my remonstrations; I gained the
impression that he

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

That sort of sounds OK and in keeping with the HC instructions on
motor-vehicle horns.

I still believe that it would be better if car-horns were simply banned.
The nuisance caused by mis-use far outweighs the weight of the odd
anecdotal case for their use for safety-related purposes.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 15:24:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give you
right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every precaution to
avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have disappeared from
the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of your presence" is not
particularly helpful.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to control
and there were few of them so people were not used to their presence.
Now, people use roads with the full expectation that something big and
fast operated by a psychopath is round the next corner. Also, bulb air
horns were more acceptable than the nasty electric objects fitted today.

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

Horses panic at anything, silent or not.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 16:28:30 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 08/08/2018 15:24, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.
I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

Alerting him to your presence is the specific purpose of a horn; that
much has been said already.

Using the horn for its proper purpose is a very rare occurrence.

Why do you believe it's wrong to inform a driver using your horn that he
just did something very dangerous? If it helps him not to do it again,
you've achieved something.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.
The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give
you right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every
precaution to avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have
disappeared from the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of
your presence" is not particularly helpful.

There's still the law about driving without due care and attention
and/or without due consideration for other road users.

Vague bull**** to allow pigs to do you for anything they like when they
need the fines to pay for their doughnuts.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to control
and there were few of them so people were not used to their presence.
Now, people use roads with the full expectation that something big and
fast operated by a psychopath is round the next corner. Also, bulb air
horns were more acceptable than the nasty electric objects fitted today.

The obvious use whilst moving would be when approaching ths "summit" of
a hump-backed bridge or a sharp bend. A multi-storey car-park near here
had a down-ramp with a give way line at the bottom of it, with the
posibility of traffic approaching from the left. A sign on the wall said
"Sound Horn". I never did. There were houses near the location and the
occupants were as entitled to reasonable efforts to keep down noise as
anyone else is. Likewise, an Italian friend used to sound his car horn
on a hump-backed bridge near his village. But the bridge had a house
adjacent to it. He would never listen to my remonstrations; I gained the
impression that he

At such difficult to see past obstructions, I just slow down. Horns
really aren't necessary.

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

That sort of sounds OK and in keeping with the HC instructions on
motor-vehicle horns.

I still believe that it would be better if car-horns were simply banned.
The nuisance caused by mis-use far outweighs the weight of the odd
anecdotal case for their use for safety-related purposes.

Utter bull****. If you make a mistake and are about to pull in front of
someone, you need to be told to stop.

On 08/08/18 16:28, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2018 15:24, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/18 15:27, JNugent wrote:

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being
a C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

I once used horn to try and stop a van driver from reversing
into me. The HC seems to allow that.

Alerting him to your presence is the specific purpose of a horn; that
much has been said already.

It is a special case when stationary.

Using the horn for its proper purpose is a very rare occurrence.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

The original HC in the 1930's said "sounding your horn does not give
you right of way or absolve you from the duty of taking every
precaution to avoid an accident". Unfortunately this seems to have
disappeared from the modern version. "warn[ing] other road users of
your presence" is not particularly helpful.

There's still the law about driving without due care and attention
and/or without due consideration for other road users.

The requirement that a horn should not be used when stationary
seems a bit strange because (offhand) I can't think of a circumstance
nowadays where the horn could be useful while moving. Perhaps the
requirement came from the days when motor vehicles were hard to
control and there were few of them so people were not used to their
presence. Now, people use roads with the full expectation that
something big and fast operated by a psychopath is round the next
corner. Also, bulb air horns were more acceptable than the nasty
electric objects fitted today.

The obvious use whilst moving would be when approaching ths "summit" of
a hump-backed bridge or a sharp bend.

Perhaps you mean something like this? It is is harder seen from a
driver's perspective than from a high mounted camera. No need. Adjust
speed according to what can be seen.

https://goo.gl/maps/9MSMX69BxzM2
https://goo.gl/maps/R48YMSxzjQk

Incidentally, the bridge has a 2t mgw limit so several drivers shown
here are breaking the rules - plus many others plus a council official
with a Range Rover that knows full well.

A multi-storey car-park near here
had a down-ramp with a give way line at the bottom of it, with the
posibility of traffic approaching from the left. A sign on the wall said
"Sound Horn". I never did.

Weird.

There were houses near the location and the
occupants were as entitled to reasonable efforts to keep down noise as
anyone else is.

Well done you.

Likewise, an Italian friend used to sound his car horn
on a hump-backed bridge near his village. But the bridge had a house
adjacent to it. He would never listen to my remonstrations; I gained the
impression that he

On a bicycle, the voice can be useful because the approach behind
pedestrians or horse riders is otherwise silent. When there is
insufficient clearance to get past without having their awareness I
always slow to match their speed before announcing my presence.

That sort of sounds OK and in keeping with the HC instructions on
motor-vehicle horns.

Except motor vehicles already make so much noise that they don't require
embellishment. Making pedestrians aware of my presence when I approach
behind them isn't needed in the car as it is on the bike.

I still believe that it would be better if car-horns were simply banned.
The nuisance caused by mis-use far outweighs the weight of the odd
anecdotal case for their use for safety-related purposes.

Indeed. At most, such "safety-related purposes" could only cover small
insurance claims and can't possibly have effect on personal safety.

If the horn was not so unpleasant, the administrators that defined the
90dbA standard understood physics and the pad on the steering wheel was
force sensing to allow the driver to add expression it might be more
acceptable.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 15:24:39 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/08/18 18:29, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:27:28 +0100, JNugent wrote:

It is intended only to alert other road-users to one's presence.
Er no. It means "You ****ing arsehole, why the hell didn't you
indicate?!"

A horn conveys no information so how are your targets supposed to know
what your problem is?

Well let me see, Mr Smith turns right at a roundabout without indicating,
and someone correctly pulls in front of him, then sounds their horn when
they see he's about to collide with them. He can then look up the highway
code or whatever and find out why the other car had the right of way.

It is not intended to convey the message: "Get out of my way or there
might be a crash". I such circumstances, you are supposed to slow down
or stop.
I don't, I drive as close as possible to the vehicle without touching
them, this scares them into not doing it again,

Have you ever followed up the result of your education with the
individuals concerned?

Yes, I often have people banging on my door yelling at me. I had a bus
driver sacked for doing just that, after not indicating and deciding he
had priority over cars at a junction.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:56:59 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 08/08/2018 09:41, Peter Keller wrote:
On 07.08.2018 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 07/08/2018 09:17, Peter Keller wrote:
On 06.08.2018 20:02, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 09:16:17 +0100, Bod wrote:


He can afford a car yet uses a bicycle, that's gross stupidity.
Thanks greatly for the excellent compliment coming from YOU.
My bike is an excellent convenient healthy exhilarating convenient
economical viable means of transport.
It really is a very great compliment to be called grossly stupid
by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are
the ****witted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

Cyclists v drivers? They're often the same people.

Much has been written about a war between cyclists and drivers, as
if the two groups were such polar opposites that they could never
cross in a Venn diagram. But according to new research, people who
cycle the most are likely to own at least two cars.

Regular cyclists – those who cycle at least once a week – are also
disproportionately likely to read broadsheet newspapers, be well
educated, have a household income of at least £50,000 per year and
shop at Waitrose, claims the latest Mintel report, Bicycles in the
UK 2010. In addition, they are twice as likely to be men as women..

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ng-boom-survey

I guess the Guardian is wrong then, or cyclists wouldn't yell at
drivers all the time.
I don't yell at drivers all the time.
I use my voice like a car uses (or is supposed to use) a horn; as a
warning that unless someone does some kind of avoiding manoeuvre, a
clash may happen.

That is not the purpose of a motor vehicle horn.

It is intended only to alert other road-users to one's presence. It is
not intended to convey the message: "Get out of my way or there might
be a crash". I such circumstances, you are supposed to slow down or
stop.

Since horns are rarely, if ever, used for their legallt-intended
purpose, my view - for a long time - has been that rather than being a
C&U requirement, they should be banned except for the ones used on
official emergency vehicles.

Note, it is only an indecipherable shout; not an oath or plashemy or
foul language or insult or something.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that you're just supposed to stop
in order to avoid a collision.

That is why I said

I use my voice like a car uses (or is supposed to use) a horn; as a
warning that unless someone does some kind of avoiding manoeuvre, a
clash may happen.

Stopping, slowing down, turning to avoid the other are avoidance
manoeuvres.
I like to let others know that I m there, also.

I appreciate what you say. The central point is that in UK C&U law at
least, there is no other alternative, additional or anciliary purpose
for a motor vehicle's horn. It is required only for giving warning of
the presence of that vehicle ("vehicle A") to which it is attached. It
has no function in the avoidance of collisions other than by alerting
other road-users to the presence of Vehicle A. It follows that its use
will be of value only where another road user was unaware of the
presence of the vehicle A. Where it is clear that a relevant other road
user is aware of vehicle A's presence on the highway, sounding its horn
cannot possibly remove or reduce the need for the vehicle to be slowed
or stopped by its driver or rider.

You say "unaware of presence", but you should add "unaware that it has
priority over you at the junction".

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 10:33:18 +0100, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 12:44:54 +0100, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
wrote:

By all accounts, any interaction between a cyclist and a driver will
almost inevitably have the latter bleating that the cyclist 'doesn't
pay
road tax'. That this belief is so widespread, despite 'road tax'
having
been abolished over eight decades ago, means that it is not going to go
away any time soon. The sense of entitlement of the driver is
responsible for over 1,700 deaths every year in Britain.

Teach drivers that the roads do not belong to them. Beat it out of
them. Because that is the only way things are going to change.
Drivers
have to know that if they threaten the life or physical safety of
another road user, then they are going to get seriously injured.

I can get to my destination 10 times faster than you.

Not in any urban environment you can't.

I don't live in such ********s. This is the UK, not Indian slums.

I can carry 10 times as much luggage as you. I don't get all sweaty
getting there. Just because a minority **** up and kill people doesn't
automatically make all drivers bad.

And you kill ten times as many people as I do. Actually, more like eight
hundred and fifty times more.

I've never killed anyone, let alone injured them.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 10:12:55 +0100, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 11:24:10 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 04/08/2018 10:22, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

I pay road tax

No you don't.

Correct.
Vehicle tax doesn't actually pay for our roads. Not directly,
anyway.
Our vehicle tax goes into the same pot as all our other tax, and
then
that money is distributed all over the place.

It's actually our council tax that pays for our roads and our local
infrastructure.

What the government does with it is irrelevant. If I drive a car, I
pay a
LOT of tax in fuel duty and road tax/tax disk.whatever OCD people want
to
call it. If I were to sell my car and only cycle, I'd pay neither.

Ah, another retard who invokes the 'Medway Handyman Paradigm'. The money
goes into the pot, and some of it will probably find its way to the
roads,
so by this ****ing spastic's 'reasoning', he 'pays for the roads'.

I wonder if people who smoke cigarettes get to jump the waiting list at
the
local NHS hospital....

As I just said, it doesn't matter where the money goes, car drivers pay a
lot more tax than cyclists.