Light works

"Duane" wrote in message
...
"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.

Sounds probably similar to the UK, but I never bothered studying the
details.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" considered Sat, 20 Sep
2014 18:12:14 +0100 the perfect time to write:



"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.

I think you'll find that Yamaha have improved considerably since the
days of the XS250/400/500 (and although they were indeed dire, the
XS650 wasn't too bad, the XS750/850 was excellent, and the 1100 was
one of the more reliable muscle bikes of the era).

That I know of - their first 4-stroke that was any good, was a 650 straight
up vertical twin, someone told me the engine was designed in Scotland of all
places.

Basically; if anyone offers you a Yammy with model number starting "XS" -
demand money to take it away!

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?
--
Cheers,

John B.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
John B. Slocomb considered Sun, 21 Sep 2014
18:41:56 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?

Carriage!

Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:10:48 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .
John B. Slocomb considered Sun, 21 Sep 2014
18:41:56 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?

Carriage!

Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin.

Apparently a simple matter of semantics :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:06:45 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sun, 21 Sep 2014
18:41:56 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?

Carriage!

there is a difference?

My dictionary shows "Carriage" as "a vehicle with wheels drawn by one
or more horses". A cart as "a heavy open wagon usually having two
wheels and drawn by an animal", although I'm not sure that is actually
correct as "dogcart" is defined as "a cart drawn by a dog" which would
seem to negate the "heavy".

It would seem that a carriage might be a cart but a cart not a
carriage :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:08:39 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Mon, 22 Sep 2014
07:19:11 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:10:48 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
John B. Slocomb considered Sun, 21 Sep 2014
18:41:56 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?

Carriage!

Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin.

Apparently a simple matter of semantics :-)

No more than the difference between a car and a truck (and I don't
mean a pickup, as USians use the word, I mean an honest to goodness
cargo hauler).

A cart is for carting goods, a carriage is for conveying people.
Even the truck has a driver, and maybe even an assistant (or several,
in the case of very large loads) but the primary purpose remains the
moving of cargo.

As a matter of law, in the UK, a bicycle is generally, at least, a
carriage, but only a very few are ever likely to fall under the
classification "cart" (a few cargo bikes and tradesman's bicycles
might be so classified, although as it makes no legal difference it's
unlikely ever to be challenged).

And this has something to do with the statement I was replying to?
"Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin"
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:08:39 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Mon, 22 Sep 2014
07:19:11 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:10:48 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
m...
John B. Slocomb considered Sun, 21 Sep 2014
18:41:56 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:46:40 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
07:37:19 +0700 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.

Isn't the Duke of Edinburgh an aficionado of the horse drawn cart?

Carriage!

Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin.

Apparently a simple matter of semantics :-)

No more than the difference between a car and a truck (and I don't
mean a pickup, as USians use the word, I mean an honest to goodness
cargo hauler).

A cart is for carting goods, a carriage is for conveying people.
Even the truck has a driver, and maybe even an assistant (or several,
in the case of very large loads) but the primary purpose remains the
moving of cargo.

As a matter of law, in the UK, a bicycle is generally, at least, a
carriage, but only a very few are ever likely to fall under the
classification "cart" (a few cargo bikes and tradesman's bicycles
might be so classified, although as it makes no legal difference it's
unlikely ever to be challenged).

And this has something to do with the statement I was replying to?
"Obviously the cart is for the village bumpkin"

He has to shift his turnips somehow.

On Friday, August 29, 2014 3:34:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:42:20 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:

Frank Krygowski schreef op 29-8-2014 3:52:



On 8/28/2014 9:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:











I would think the bigger issue(s) on a mountain bike would be (1)



electric



wire fatigue with suspension forks, (2) axle and internal failures on



big hit



bikes, (3) no stand light, and (4) less options for a bright light



(SuperNova



is about it apart from some of the Chinese products).







I really wonder how much beating the internals can take -- maybe it's



a lot.



I don't do a lot of trail riding at night, but my choice would be a



light that



works when the bike is stopped and that I can use to see my wounds.







I guess one can always hypothesize unsolvable problems.







1) Wire fatigue is eminently controllable through fairly simple design.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Friday, August 29, 2014 3:34:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:42:20 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
I don't know if a hub dynamo is a good thing on a mountain bike and defer
to those who use them. Personally, I wouldn't bother with one because of
all the wiring and additional crap on my bike that would get infrequent
use, being that night trail riding is not something I would do often. A
battery light would be a more reasonable option, and I could simply shift
a light from my road bike for trail riding. I also wonder whether a
dynamo would put out enough light when I was picking my way up forested
single track at 4mph. It seems to add so much complexity without a real
pay-off. The calculus is different on a commuter that gets a lot of
night time use.



-- Jay Beattie.

Either of the common topclass dynamos, Shimano sports version or a SON
appropriate to wheel size, will put out enough light. I have both and the
cheaper Shimano is excellent. The question is the lightdistribution of the
lamps they normally drive. The German lamps, which are in many ways the
best, are crippled by their legislation and useless except on smooth
well-demarcated roads. (Krygowski, with his usual railroad vision, claims
German lamps are socialized by being limited to being like dipped car
lamps, which is true, but it makes them worthless for many common
functions a cyclist demands of his lamps; their socialization is one way,
in favour of motorists.)

You don't have to be stuck with German light fittings, there's probably
oodles of other stuff on Ebay that will work with a hub.

As I'm into constructing my own lighting sets, I'd probably start with a
rechargeable battery to charge off the hub, then rig something to run off
that.