|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Very worrying. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
spindrift writes:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html If so, there was a 400+ article thread about it a few weeks ago. See http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....60adc17a?hl=en for details -dan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Aug 11, 11:13*am, Daniel Barlow wrote:
spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you meanhttp://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html If so, there was a 400+ article thread about it a few weeks ago. *See http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....60adc17a?hl=en for details -dan Whoops, sorry, I don't read UK Legal: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. -- you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible. I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational forces implicated in the worst brain injuries. (Guy 'Liar' Chapman) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. No he didn't. The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary. In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level 3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result of H&S issues for officers) In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to "complaint about Constabulary policies and procedures." I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues. I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). Jim Chisholm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Aug 11, 11:48*am, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. No he didn't. The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary. In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level 3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result of H&S issues for officers) In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to "complaint *about Constabulary policies and procedures." I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues. I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). Jim Chisholm- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - thanks Jim, my biggest worry was that this set a precedent. It used to be fairly robustly thought that when a vehicle collides with a vehicle in front then the driver behind is automatically at fault. That cycle lane is stupid. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:48:30 +0100, "J. Chisholm"
wrote: judith wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. No he didn't. snip I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). You're right - other people have no right coming in here and asking pertinent questions. Oh - you mean like not pointing out that the diagram was quite different from the photograph. Any idea why that was? Any chance of making the full CCTV footage available. I must say it seems odd that you haven't. I think you can as long as there is no commercial gain. Why don't you put the cctv on utube or similar? - then we can all judge what happened. -- you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible. I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational forces implicated in the worst brain injuries. (Guy 'Liar' Chapman) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Aug 11, 11:48*am, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
judith wrote: I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). Unlikely, Jim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet). -- Dave... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
On Aug 11, 11:58*am, judith wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:48:30 +0100, "J. Chisholm" wrote: judith wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. *I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. No he didn't. snip I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). You're right - other people have no right coming in here and asking pertinent questions. Oh - you mean like not pointing out that the diagram was quite different from the photograph. *Any idea why that was? Any chance of making the full CCTV footage available. *I must say it seems odd that you haven't. *I think you can as long as there is no commercial gain. Why don't you put the cctv on utube or similar? - then we can all judge what happened. -- * you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible. I encourage my children to wear helmets. *Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational forces implicated in the worst brain injuries. (Guy 'Liar' Chapman)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The diagram is the same as the picture, and you are able to view the footage by contacting the cyclist- the link's on the webpage above that you obviously haven't read properly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane.
spindrift wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:48 am, "J. Chisholm" wrote: judith wrote: On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:13:24 +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote: spindrift writes: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html I assume you mean http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article16.html Yes - that'll be the one. It's where the diagram differs from the photograph in respect of positioning. Still - what's a bit of accuracy in a case like this. I notice that he hasn't made more of the footage available. I wonder why that is? Perhaps he selected the best stills for his purpose. No he didn't. The Police now have copies of 'Cyclecraft' at the Collision Enquiry Unit, as does the CPS Unit attached to Cambridgeshire Constabulary. In addition some Officers within the force have been trained to 'Level 3' bikeability, and I believe all officers who ride bikes as part of their duties will recieve some training. (This is likely to be a result of H&S issues for officers) In addition as part of the 'resolution' of my dispute, the cmplaint has been reclassified from " complaint about individual conduct" to "complaint about Constabulary policies and procedures." I'm a believe in "cockup theory" rather than "consipracy theory", and I think we are making progress in getting the Police to understand the issues. I just wish people like Judith had more sense (or shut up). Jim Chisholm- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - thanks Jim, my biggest worry was that this set a precedent. It used to be fairly robustly thought that when a vehicle collides with a vehicle in front then the driver behind is automatically at fault. That cycle lane is stupid. If you were a regular user you would understand the need. The other day a daft motorist failed to read or comprehend the N notices and drove up to the raised bollard. Of course it didn't lower, but then an equally daft taxi driver drove up close behind, followed by a bus, which of course could not know the first vehicle wasn't a taxi. They then all had to slowly reverse to allow the first driver out. I just sped by in the 'by-pass' lane on my bike. Jim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cyclists was in the turn lane came into my lane | Hank | General | 9 | February 2nd 06 06:33 AM |
cyclists was in the turn lane came into my lane | Hank | Racing | 7 | February 2nd 06 06:33 AM |
cyclists was in the turn lane came into my lane | Hank | Recumbent Biking | 7 | February 2nd 06 06:33 AM |
99% of cyclists do not ride in the bike lane so | Misąjourle | Recumbent Biking | 38 | January 20th 06 09:10 AM |
A cyclists was in the turn lane | pat | Racing | 1 | January 13th 06 10:34 PM |