Cops stopping RLjers in London again.

JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
using parts of the roadway assigned for their use. Can you, then, think
of any good reason that cyclists in a part of the roadway reserved for
their use should *not* be permitted to overtake slower-moving vehicles
in an adjacent lane?

Oh yes, easily.

The implied question which you seem to have missed is "well, what is it
then?" Let me ask it explicitly, for the avoidance of doubt: "Please
give me a good reason that cyclists in a part of the roadway reserved
for their use should *not* be permitted to overtake slower-moving
vehicles in an adjacent lane"


-dan

JNugent wrote:
Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

As a matter of curiosity, when you approach a queue of traffic while
walking down the road, do you wait in line behind it or do you use
the
footway to jump the queue?

?
I'm allowed to do that.

Is that a "yes"? Is that a "yes" from the man who earlier today
recommended the removal of all cycle lanes because they allow cycle
users legally[*] to do the same thing, on the grounds that
queue-jumping
is "un-British"? Do you not think that's a trifle inconsistent?

The footway is not part of the carriageway.

So if you're a pedestrian on a road where there is no footway, and
there's a queue of stationary traffic, do you walk past or stay in the
queue until the traffic moves on?


PS: I shouldn't have risen to the bait and continued the
personalisation that you introduced. I ought to have said that
pedestrians are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using the footway
and that traffic is allowed to "overtake" pedestrians by using the
carriageway. Those parts of the highway are separate and the concept
of either stream "overtaking" the other is spurious.


And cycles are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using a cycle lane -
and this seems to make you want to get rid of cycle lanes. Should we
not, by the same logic, get rid of footways - or even the carriageway.
Strange that there are legal ways of letting cars, cycles and
pedestrians pass each other as necessary, and there is only one that
you would like taken away on the grounds that it is "un-British".

Only one?

I don't think so.

I am against all queue-jumping devices (including so-called bus-lanes)
for precisely the same reasons.

Overtaking lanes on motorways?

--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
francis wrote:

Even worse are the RLJs at pedestrian crossings who think it ok to
just swerve around the pedestrians crossing.

Even worse because they cause so many serious casualties?

Rob Morley writes:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
francis wrote:

Even worse are the RLJs at pedestrian crossings who think it ok to
just swerve around the pedestrians crossing.

Even worse because they cause so many serious casualties?

It would be something of a skewed value system that considers it worse
to swerve around other people than to cause *them* to get out of the
way, but I expect that wasn't what francis was trying to say. My guess
is he's suggesting that all other things being equal it's worse for an
RLJing cyclist to be in potential conflict situations with unprotected
pedestrians than with motor vehicle users - if so, then I would agree.
In the event of a collision most vehicle users will get off without
injury but the consequences to a ped could be serious or even fatal.
Bloody rude.


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Rob Morley writes:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
francis wrote:

Even worse are the RLJs at pedestrian crossings who think it ok to
just swerve around the pedestrians crossing.

Even worse because they cause so many serious casualties?

It would be something of a skewed value system that considers it worse
to swerve around other people than to cause *them* to get out of the
way, but I expect that wasn't what francis was trying to say. My guess
is he's suggesting that all other things being equal it's worse for an
RLJing cyclist to be in potential conflict situations with unprotected
pedestrians than with motor vehicle users - if so, then I would agree.
In the event of a collision most vehicle users will get off without
injury but the consequences to a ped could be serious or even fatal.
Bloody rude.


-dan

I would add that I have only very rarely seen a motorist driving over a
pedestrian crossing when pedestrians are already crossing during their
phase of the lights, I often see cyclists doing this especially in the
centre of London.

--

Tony Dragon

Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

As a matter of curiosity, when you approach a queue of traffic while
walking down the road, do you wait in line behind it or do you
use the
footway to jump the queue?

?
I'm allowed to do that.

Is that a "yes"? Is that a "yes" from the man who earlier today
recommended the removal of all cycle lanes because they allow cycle
users legally[*] to do the same thing, on the grounds that
queue-jumping
is "un-British"? Do you not think that's a trifle inconsistent?

The footway is not part of the carriageway.

So if you're a pedestrian on a road where there is no footway, and
there's a queue of stationary traffic, do you walk past or stay in
the queue until the traffic moves on?


PS: I shouldn't have risen to the bait and continued the
personalisation that you introduced. I ought to have said that
pedestrians are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using the footway
and that traffic is allowed to "overtake" pedestrians by using the
carriageway. Those parts of the highway are separate and the concept
of either stream "overtaking" the other is spurious.


And cycles are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using a cycle lane -
and this seems to make you want to get rid of cycle lanes. Should we
not, by the same logic, get rid of footways - or even the
carriageway. Strange that there are legal ways of letting cars,
cycles and pedestrians pass each other as necessary, and there is
only one that you would like taken away on the grounds that it is
"un-British".

Only one?

I don't think so.

I am against all queue-jumping devices (including so-called bus-lanes)
for precisely the same reasons.

Overtaking lanes on motorways?

Are they for use in jumping queues?

JNugent wrote:
Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

As a matter of curiosity, when you approach a queue of traffic
while walking down the road, do you wait in line behind it or
do you use the
footway to jump the queue?

?
I'm allowed to do that.

Is that a "yes"? Is that a "yes" from the man who earlier today
recommended the removal of all cycle lanes because they allow
cycle users legally[*] to do the same thing, on the grounds that
queue-jumping
is "un-British"? Do you not think that's a trifle inconsistent?

The footway is not part of the carriageway.

So if you're a pedestrian on a road where there is no footway, and
there's a queue of stationary traffic, do you walk past or stay in
the queue until the traffic moves on?


PS: I shouldn't have risen to the bait and continued the
personalisation that you introduced. I ought to have said that
pedestrians are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using the footway
and that traffic is allowed to "overtake" pedestrians by using the
carriageway. Those parts of the highway are separate and the
concept of either stream "overtaking" the other is spurious.


And cycles are allowed to "overtake" traffic by using a cycle lane
- and this seems to make you want to get rid of cycle lanes. Should we
not, by the same logic, get rid of footways - or even the
carriageway. Strange that there are legal ways of letting cars,
cycles and pedestrians pass each other as necessary, and there is
only one that you would like taken away on the grounds that it is
"un-British".

Only one?

I don't think so.

I am against all queue-jumping devices (including so-called
bus-lanes) for precisely the same reasons.

Overtaking lanes on motorways?

Are they for use in jumping queues?

Obviously, yes.

In article , Dave Larrington wrote:
Quite possibly. But as Mr SMith of this parish will attest, the fact of a
vehicle having a registration plate is no guarantee that the name on the
Great Welsh Computer is actually that of the driver. Especially if the
drive is one of the growing number with a cavalier attitude to such boring
technicalities as tax, MOT, insewerants etc. etc.

A friend of mine was assaulted by a driver a while ago. The police weren't
able to do anything at the time because someone had escaped from police
custody at the hospital and apparently every spare officer was needed to
look for them, but did, eventually, promise to look up the registration
number of the van.
The registered owner said he'd sold it a while back and not got round to
sending in the paperwork, and had no idea now who the buyer was.
The police said there was nothing further they could do, end of case.

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Dave Larrington wrote:
Quite possibly. But as Mr SMith of this parish will attest, the fact of a
vehicle having a registration plate is no guarantee that the name on the
Great Welsh Computer is actually that of the driver. Especially if the
drive is one of the growing number with a cavalier attitude to such boring
technicalities as tax, MOT, insewerants etc. etc.

A friend of mine was assaulted by a driver a while ago. The police weren't
able to do anything at the time because someone had escaped from police
custody at the hospital and apparently every spare officer was needed to
look for them, but did, eventually, promise to look up the registration
number of the van.
The registered owner said he'd sold it a while back and not got round to
sending in the paperwork, and had no idea now who the buyer was.
The police said there was nothing further they could do, end of case.

It does make you wonder what the use of it is. If it isn't much use, it
does make you wonder why we bother with it. I wonder how much it costs
to run DVLA. I wonder how much benefit it gives (in terms of crime
detection) by existing.

--
Matt B

On Jul 17, 6:50*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
Rob Morley writes:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
francis wrote:

Even worse are the RLJs at pedestrian crossings who think it ok to
just swerve around the pedestrians crossing.

Even worse because they cause so many serious casualties?

It would be something of a skewed value system that considers it worse
to swerve around other people than to cause *them* to get out of the
way, but I expect that wasn't what francis was trying to say. *My guess
is he's suggesting that all other things being equal it's worse for an
RLJing cyclist to be in potential conflict situations with unprotected
pedestrians than with motor vehicle users - if so, then I would agree.
In the event of a collision most vehicle users will get off without
injury but the consequences to a ped could be serious or even fatal.
Bloody rude.

-dan

I would add that I have only very rarely seen a motorist driving over a
pedestrian crossing when pedestrians are already crossing during their
phase of the lights, I often see cyclists doing this especially in the
centre of London.

--

Tony Dragon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can you understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, and the
fact that you haven't seen it happen is no more proof that it doesn't
happen than my Kylie analogy:

In the first half of last year, 533 people were killed or injured on
zebra crossings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3044335.stm