Light works

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:27:58 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014
19:02:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:58:42 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
07:43:42 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:17:53 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014

08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS

wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



Bloody right I do.

If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly

they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!

By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more

right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their

sense of entitlement.

If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or

two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the

police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online

This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their

actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.

Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with

powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving

the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an

example).





Damned Right!



The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red

lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.

( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.

states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)



You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.

You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.





Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do

you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other

traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to

yourself (taking the lane)?



--

Cheers,



John B.

Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic, then when there are four or more
vehicles behind you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do
so and let those vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you
a ticket for "impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle
that's impeding traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can
also be ticketed for holding up four or more vehicles.

I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".

So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you
only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.

Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised
traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even
when it is unsafe to do so.

Major logic failure there somewhere.

I believe that a look at your state's traffic regulations will show
that the words "not impede" are applicable to all road traffic. At
least the states I lived in had laws worded that way.

On the contrary - we have a high court decision that a cyclist riding
on the public highway cannot be impeding traffic as he is part of it,
and that he cannot be regarded as moving unreasonably slowly if (s)he
is moving at a reasonable speed for the type of vehicle concerned.
Even if there is a nearby facility (which was what prompted the case).

The law here is completely clear that it is for the overtaking driver
to ensure that the overtaking is done safely.

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?

It would apply equally to an ox-cart, if anyone wanted to use one.

Probably not in Jolly Old England, but in the U.S. we do have groups
of people who still travel by horse and buggy - the "plain folks",
Amish and such.

Lots of farmers in Quebec use horse pulled wagons , following them on bikes
waiting to pass can be interesting.
--
duane

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Fri, 19 Sep
2014 18:39:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:
In the UK; we have "construction & use" legislation that specifically
mentions power to weight ratio.

Theoretically - you can be ticketed for limping home with a knackered
engine.

That only applies to motor vehicles though.
Those for which a public highway is a right-of-way can travel at
whatever speed they deem appropriate for themselves, their vehicle,
and the prevailing conditions - unless such a speed is patently
excessive to the point of recklessness.

In the UK its possible to get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic,
and/or obstructing it.

I don't recall what law is invoked though.

Driving too slowly is something plod regard as a sign of drink driving - so
the driver could be pulled over on "reasonable suspicion" and breathylised.

Cyclists can go as slow as they like - as long as they don't do it in
everyone else's way.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
John B. Slocomb considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014
19:02:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:
On the contrary - we have a high court decision that a cyclist riding
on the public highway cannot be impeding traffic as he is part of it,
and that he cannot be regarded as moving unreasonably slowly if (s)he
is moving at a reasonable speed for the type of vehicle concerned.
Even if there is a nearby facility (which was what prompted the case).

The law here is completely clear that it is for the overtaking driver
to ensure that the overtaking is done safely.

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?

It would apply equally to an ox-cart, if anyone wanted to use one.

One E-European country has banned those and horse drawn on public roads - it
emerged about the time of the horse meat scandal.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:27:58 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:
..

Out of curiosity, does that imply that one can drive a any vehicle
down the highway at any speed commensurate with its type. Or did it
apply only to bicycles?

It would apply equally to an ox-cart, if anyone wanted to use one.

Probably not in Jolly Old England, but in the U.S. we do have groups
of people who still travel by horse and buggy - the "plain folks",
Amish and such.

Apparently in the Republic of Ireland, some towns have feral horses running
about.

The authorities can't prove who owns them - but they soon run into
difficulties when they try to remove them!

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news
John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:
Probably not in Jolly Old England, but in the U.S. we do have groups
of people who still travel by horse and buggy - the "plain folks",
Amish and such.

There are still a few people here who use all manner of horse drawn
vehicles - the reason I pointed out that it would apply to ox-carts is
because I couldn't (and still can't) think of anything that is, by
it's nature, even slower. yet still qualifies as a legitimate vehicle
of some sort.

Milk-float - usually electric vehicles, they can put on a turn of speed but
all the milk crates slide off the back if they do.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Duane considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:48:20 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:


Cambridge's law sounds better but I doubt it would be practical in
Montreal or other cities of similar populations. I also doubt it would be
practical in rural Quebec. There you're either on roads that rarely see
cars so you can mostly ride where you want or the traffic is too heavy and
fast for you to do anything but keep to the right.

It's exactly the same law in the whole of England and Wales, so there
is no distinction between rural areas, small towns, and cities as
large as London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff, etc.
I'm not sure about Scotland, as their legal system is different, and
only some UK laws apply there as well.

The only difference in Cambridge is the number of cyclists, which is
sufficient that motorists simply can't ignore them or forget that they
may encounter one anywhere.

Some country lanes in darkest wurzel country aren't exactly over generous
for one single motorcycle with nothing oncoming.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 17:01:06 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
. ..
"Ian Field" considered Fri, 19 Sep
2014 18:39:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:
In the UK; we have "construction & use" legislation that specifically
mentions power to weight ratio.

Theoretically - you can be ticketed for limping home with a knackered
engine.

That only applies to motor vehicles though.
Those for which a public highway is a right-of-way can travel at
whatever speed they deem appropriate for themselves, their vehicle,
and the prevailing conditions - unless such a speed is patently
excessive to the point of recklessness.

In the UK its possible to get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic,
and/or obstructing it.

I don't recall what law is invoked though.

If you ever find out, post it here.
I don't believe that any such law exists, and more importantly,
neither did the House of Lords when they threw out the Cadden
conviction.

Driving too slowly is something plod regard as a sign of drink driving -
so
the driver could be pulled over on "reasonable suspicion" and
breathylised.

There is no power to breathalize a cyclist.

AFAIK; in the UK, a cyclist *CAN* be done for drink driving - not too sure
how they can stop anyone doing it again though, maybe confiscate their
chain.

In the UK, we have a tradition that anyone caught committing a traffic
offence and hasn't got a licence - the penalty points are held over in case
they ever get one.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 17:09:12 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news
John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:
Probably not in Jolly Old England, but in the U.S. we do have groups
of people who still travel by horse and buggy - the "plain folks",
Amish and such.

There are still a few people here who use all manner of horse drawn
vehicles - the reason I pointed out that it would apply to ox-carts is
because I couldn't (and still can't) think of anything that is, by
it's nature, even slower. yet still qualifies as a legitimate vehicle
of some sort.

Milk-float - usually electric vehicles, they can put on a turn of speed
but
all the milk crates slide off the back if they do.

I think you'll find that's a matter of acceleration, not speed, unless
you have discovered a previously unknown branch of physics.

That could be it - years ago I had a Yamaha XS250 (Yamaha make *REALLY* crap
4-strokes!) - the going joke was; that they tended to get run over by
milk-floats pulling away from traffic lights.

Mine wasn't quite that bad till it started using the alternator rotor as a
main bearing.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 18:07:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
. ..
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 17:01:06 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
m...
"Ian Field" considered Fri, 19 Sep
2014 18:39:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:
In the UK; we have "construction & use" legislation that specifically
mentions power to weight ratio.

Theoretically - you can be ticketed for limping home with a knackered
engine.

That only applies to motor vehicles though.
Those for which a public highway is a right-of-way can travel at
whatever speed they deem appropriate for themselves, their vehicle,
and the prevailing conditions - unless such a speed is patently
excessive to the point of recklessness.

In the UK its possible to get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic,
and/or obstructing it.

I don't recall what law is invoked though.

If you ever find out, post it here.
I don't believe that any such law exists, and more importantly,
neither did the House of Lords when they threw out the Cadden
conviction.

Driving too slowly is something plod regard as a sign of drink driving -
so
the driver could be pulled over on "reasonable suspicion" and
breathylised.

There is no power to breathalize a cyclist.

AFAIK; in the UK, a cyclist *CAN* be done for drink driving - not too sure
how they can stop anyone doing it again though, maybe confiscate their
chain.

It's a straight fine.
But slightly amusingly, several magistrates have decided that anyone
who can actually cycle is not drunk within the meaning of the
legislation.
Only magistrates court decisions, so not a legal precedent, although
magistrates are encouraged not to reach conflicting conclusions.
It does mean that it's difficult to get a conviction on that without a
guilty plea though.

In the UK, we have a tradition that anyone caught committing a traffic
offence and hasn't got a licence - the penalty points are held over in
case
they ever get one.

Yes, but you can't be giving points for offences committed on or in a
vehicle for which no license is necessary.

I was told by a copper that you can - but it wouldn't be the first time an
upholder of law and order talked out his arse!

"Ian Field" wrote:
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 18:07:51 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 17:01:06 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Fri, 19 Sep
2014 18:39:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:
In the UK; we have "construction & use" legislation that specifically
mentions power to weight ratio.

Theoretically - you can be ticketed for limping home with a knackered
engine.

That only applies to motor vehicles though.
Those for which a public highway is a right-of-way can travel at
whatever speed they deem appropriate for themselves, their vehicle,
and the prevailing conditions - unless such a speed is patently
excessive to the point of recklessness.

In the UK its possible to get a ticket for not keeping up with traffic,
and/or obstructing it.

I don't recall what law is invoked though.

If you ever find out, post it here.
I don't believe that any such law exists, and more importantly,
neither did the House of Lords when they threw out the Cadden
conviction.

Driving too slowly is something plod regard as a sign of drink driving -
so
the driver could be pulled over on "reasonable suspicion" and
breathylised.

There is no power to breathalize a cyclist.

AFAIK; in the UK, a cyclist *CAN* be done for drink driving - not too sure
how they can stop anyone doing it again though, maybe confiscate their
chain.

It's a straight fine.
But slightly amusingly, several magistrates have decided that anyone
who can actually cycle is not drunk within the meaning of the
legislation.
Only magistrates court decisions, so not a legal precedent, although
magistrates are encouraged not to reach conflicting conclusions.
It does mean that it's difficult to get a conviction on that without a
guilty plea though.

In the UK, we have a tradition that anyone caught committing a traffic
offence and hasn't got a licence - the penalty points are held over in case
they ever get one.

Yes, but you can't be giving points for offences committed on or in a
vehicle for which no license is necessary.

I was told by a copper that you can - but it wouldn't be the first time
an upholder of law and order talked out his arse!

In Quebec you get demerit points on your driver's license for certain
cycling infractions. If you don't have a driver's license at the time it
stays on your record for 5 years and if you get a license in that time the
points are applied.
--
duane