DfT Stats - 2009

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 11:56:39 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

snip


Case law thought accepts filtering. In David v Schrogin 2006, the Court
of Appeal said:

"a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic
could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance
to take avoiding action."

All lower Courts are bound by the decision. They are very very unlikely
to differentiate between a cyclist and a motorcyclist in this respect.

Tony


I find it truly incredible what you are saying.

You have quoted - and then put the words in quotes to make it
absolutely clear that the words were part of that Court of Appeal
Judgment in 2006.

Well I must have a corrupted version of that appeal case - as I cannot
find the words "filter" or "filtering" in my copy of that judgment

I trust that you will be able to explain how this quite significant
error has crept in to your argument.

I have added in uk.legal - as perhaps someone there could give a view
on the correct wording - as I am willing to believe that I am
incorrect here.

kathstarke wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 11:56:39 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:
Case law thought accepts filtering. In David v Schrogin 2006, the
Court of Appeal said:

"a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving
traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider
had no chance to take avoiding action."

All lower Courts are bound by the decision. They are very very
unlikely to differentiate between a cyclist and a motorcyclist in
this respect.

Tony


I find it truly incredible what you are saying.

You have quoted - and then put the words in quotes to make it
absolutely clear that the words were part of that Court of Appeal
Judgment in 2006.

Well I must have a corrupted version of that appeal case - as I
cannot find the words "filter" or "filtering" in my copy of that
judgment

I trust that you will be able to explain how this quite significant
error has crept in to your argument.

I have added in uk.legal - as perhaps someone there could give a
view on the correct wording - as I am willing to believe that I am
incorrect here.


He has pasted that false wording from
http://www.motorbikestoday.com/news/...tering_law.htm

You are correct that those words do not appear in the judgement
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/974.html

In any event it is wrong-headed to claim that Davis v Schrogin legitimises
"filtering" because that was not the behaviour being litigated.

Davis was overtaking a line of slow/stationary traffic on their right side,
using the empty oncoming lane to do so - "The claimant on his motorcycle was
well out into the oncoming lane about half or two thirds of the way across
it from the central white line. That was so as to make himself as visible as
possible. He had his headlight on". In other words he was simply
overtaking in the normal way, at least until the unfortunate Schrogin
decided to execute a U-Turn across his path.

"Filtering" in the UK usage generally refers to motorcycles and bicycles
weaving between lanes of traffic, undertaking and overtaking in the
interstitial lane boundaries. I don't think this is always wrong or
dangerous, but it's clearly a more complex and risky undertaking because it
relies upon occupying the safety space.

On 05/12/2010 14:42, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

But that still brings us back to the question of how much room is "plenty",
given that there could easily be only about a foot between mirror tips when
passing a car.

He doesn't want to know that.
It does not compute.

That would be a matter for the opinion of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" if
it ever came to Court in the UK. I suspect the Court would also review
practice in other jurisdictions which have considered the issue and reached a
conclusion such as the US 3ft passing laws in 11 states or the French 1m in
town, 1.5m countryside passing law or the Canadian Highway Safety Code
statement "When passing a cyclist, keep a distance of around 1m between your
vehicle and the cyclist, and 1.5 m on rural roads.".

So 1-1.5m would seem about right as a minimum distance.

Told you.

"It does not compute" stretched out to a whole paragraph.

In message , at 20:48:20 on
Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Phil W Lee remarked:
If you look at the picture on the HC website, it's obvious that the line
taken when overtaking a cyclist is different to that taken when overtaking
a car. If the overtaker in that image used the same line when overtaking a
car, they'd be in serious danger of scraping it. It certainly wouldn't
leave a safe amount of clearance.

But the clearance shown in that picture is sufficient that if given to
a car, it would put the overtaking car onto the opposite pavement.

That's because the gap you need to leave comprises two parts:

One part between yourself and the other vehicle's envelope
The other, the size of the envelope.

A bicycle has a much larger envelope (wobble room) than a car.
--
Roland Perry

Justin wrote:
On 1 dec, 20:30, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 18:03, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety
and the ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to
play lemming on the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws.
The Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left
hand side, other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be
ignorant of Rule 72 and Rule 73.

Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then
perhaps you can explain why cyclists habitually igno

Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?

No comment, I take it these are all new to you as they are to most
cyclsists?



182
[snip]
183

So you need me to explain those to you? Because you don't seem to
understand them.

I am not a cyclist.

Is that why you said earlier in this thread; "Cycling has become so
dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting"?

Are you perhaps going to claim that the training you mention refers to
something other than cycling?

Oh dear. You tried to be a clever little **** yet again - and failed.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 17:32:25 +0000, JMS wrote:




And people still wonder why I despise him so.


The AMAZING Instant Slime Hag!
Like vultures of the sea, they descend on the dead and dying, worming
their way
through flesh until only bones remain. They are amongst the last
survivors of the
earliest fish, their once-standard anatomy now so alien that it took a
couple years for
man to figure out that they weren't worms. Their skull is little more
than a "donut" of
cartilage, and their spine so undeveloped that they only barely qualify
as vertebrates.

--

snip

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On 5 dec, 23:31, "The Medway Handyman" davidno-spam-
wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 1 dec, 20:30, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 18:03, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety
and the ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to
play lemming on the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws.
The Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left
hand side, other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be
ignorant of Rule 72 and Rule 73.

Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then
perhaps you can explain why cyclists habitually igno

Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?

No comment, I take it these are all new to you as they are to most
cyclsists?

182
[snip]
183

So you need me to explain those to you? Because you don't seem to
understand them.

I am not a cyclist.

Is that why you said earlier in this thread; "Cycling has become so
dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting"?

Are you perhaps going to claim that the training you mention refers to
something other than cycling?

Oh dear. *You tried to be a clever little **** yet again - and failed.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

No that's not why I said that.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 1 dec, 20:30, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 18:03, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety
and the ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to
play lemming on the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws.
The Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left
hand side, other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be
ignorant of Rule 72 and Rule 73.

Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then
perhaps you can explain why cyclists habitually igno

Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?

No comment, I take it these are all new to you as they are to most
cyclsists?



182
[snip]
183

So you need me to explain those to you? Because you don't seem to
understand them.

I am not a cyclist.

Is that why you said earlier in this thread; "Cycling has become so
dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting"?

Are you perhaps going to claim that the training you mention refers to
something other than cycling?

Oh dear. You tried to be a clever little **** yet again - and failed.

words can mean anything a real cyclist wants them to mean.

On 6 dec, 07:33, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 1 dec, 20:30, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 28 nov, 18:03, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Justin wrote:
I'm not here to be "nice", I do have concerns over road safety
and the ignorance/arrogance of some cyclists who seem to want to
play lemming on the roads.

But little knowledge of the highway code.

Also untrue, but I can see that you are now clutching at straws.
The Highway Code does not recommend passing vehicles on the left
hand side, other than in particular circumstances. You seem to be
ignorant of Rule 72 and Rule 73.

Of course if you are getting sniffy about the Highway Code then
perhaps you can explain why cyclists habitually igno

Rules 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78?

No comment, I take it these are all new to you as they are to most
cyclsists?

182
[snip]
183

So you need me to explain those to you? Because you don't seem to
understand them.

I am not a cyclist.

Is that why you said earlier in this thread; "Cycling has become so
dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting"?

Are you perhaps going to claim that the training you mention refers to
something other than cycling?

Oh dear. *You tried to be a clever little **** yet again - and failed..
Nice to know that you don't think I am a ****. What caused the change?
words can mean anything a real cyclist wants them to mean.

I have not riden my bike since September and am currently training for
a half marathon. Interesting that Medway should define a cyclist as
someone who has not cycled for 2 months. See my thread " running
instead of cycling - heartrates" in which Medway displayed an enormous
sense of humour. I have not cycled on British roads since February
2010.

Justin wrote:

I am not a cyclist.

Is that why you said earlier in this thread; "Cycling has become so
dangerous in GB that I no
longer train there when visiting"?

Are you perhaps going to claim that the training you mention refers
to something other than cycling?

Oh dear. You tried to be a clever little **** yet again - and
failed.

Nice to know that you don't think I am a ****. What caused the change?

Nothing. I still think you are a ****. I just don't think you are clever.

words can mean anything a real cyclist wants them to mean.


WRIGGLE ALERT

I have not riden my bike since September and am currently training for
a half marathon. Interesting that Medway should define a cyclist as
someone who has not cycled for 2 months. See my thread " running
instead of cycling - heartrates" in which Medway displayed an enormous
sense of humour. I have not cycled on British roads since February
2010.

I haven't driven my van for 35 minutes, but I'm still a motorist you ****ing
idiot.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.