cyclist nearly kills himself

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:43 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:05:16 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...


When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
violating the Highway Code?

Clue: THIS IS A UNITED KINGDOM NEWSGROUP. The clue is in the name.

Not a Ukrainian newsgroup?


Clue:

Country abbreviation of United Kingdom is UK
Country abbreviation for Ukraine is UA.

No ****!

On 20 Dec 2006 02:52:55 -0800, "The Luggage"
wrote:

Art wrote:

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:04:46 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...

When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
violating the Highway Code?

When was the Highway Code the Road Traffic Act?

See other post, thicko.

D'oh! If you actually knew how to use the internet, you might have
noticed that Conor posted _before_ you posted your comments elsewhere
in the thread, thicko.

I read them and reply to them in the sequence I see them,
****eforbrains.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:03 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...

See other post, thicko.

What other post, thicko?

My other post.

LEARN HOW TO POST PROPERLY.

LEARN TO READ, ****EFORBRAINS.

Art said the following on 21/12/2006 04:56:

That's probably because they don't just do it after amber. They do it
any time.
You're still talking about car drivers, right?

Obviously not.

Why "obviously"? Are drivers in your area all as good as gold? Here
(Somerset/Avon), drivers consistently continue to drive through red
lights even when the other lights have changed to green and traffic or
pedestrians have started is already across the junction or crossing.
This happens in many other parts of the country as well, and is
universally ignored by the authorities. Yet it's only when cyclists
jump red lights that it attracts media interest, as if it's acceptable
for drivers of motor vehicles to do it, but not cyclists. I'm certainly
not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why should
cyclists be singled out?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Art wrote on 21/12/2006 04:57 +0100:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:44:03 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...

See other post, thicko.

What other post, thicko?

My other post.

LEARN HOW TO POST PROPERLY.

LEARN TO READ, ****EFORBRAINS.


Erudite debates like this make us realise just what we're normally
missing over in urc.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"Art" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:43:33 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article , Art says...


And this from an asshole who sits for hours (if not days) on end in
the cab of a lorry!

At least I'll unload 20 tonnes by hand a few times a week.

We have machines for that kind of monkey work, thicko.
Think automation!

i.e idleness.

"Earl Purple" wrote in message

Ian wrote:

I can't find a report on the Court case at the moment, but it related to
this incident
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/4262766.stm
. I note that another pedestrian was killed by a cyclist only just over a
week ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6168129.stm in Devon.

Neither of those links says that the cyclist was riding on the
pavement. The pedestrians might have stepped out into the road without
looking. Quite likely in fact if the cyclist was going at a speed
significant enough to kill, it is unusual for a cyclist to be able to
achieve a high enough speed on a pavement.


From other reports at the time the pedestrian was knocked over whilst
walking along the pavement.

Ian

Paul Boyd wrote:
I'm
certainly not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why
should cyclists be singled out?

The difference (from the perspective of the pedestrian not wishing to be
hit) is that if I wait until the front car has stopped, no other car (save
in the most exceptional of circumstances) is going to run the red light.
However it is a common experience (here in London) to be crossing at traffic
lights, or a light controlled crossing, with cars stopped in both directions
and to find oneself confronted by a cyclist weaving through pedestrians on
the crossing.

Clearly not all cyclists do that, and I'm pretty sure all on URC would
deplore that behaviour, but the fact is it happens far to frequently and
gives the rest of us who cycle responsibly a bad name.

pk

"TripleS" wrote

[snip]

Those people who cycle in the primary position (as I do when
appropriate) do find it to work pretty well. It certainly is much
better than any
alternative when approaching a hazard such as the road narrowing
for example.


Well as I said, I can see some merit in the idea, but unless it is
done in a reasonable manner I can imagine it may upset some
drivers, and possibly lead to conflict.

I'm not saying that drivers would be right to expect cyclists to
'keep out of my way' etc., but I'm wary of anything that might
increase that feeling.

If a lane is wide enough for a car and bike to share, then courtesy
says that the cyclist should do so. If it's too narrow to share,
then self preservation says that the cyclist should keep the motorist
out.

This is a judgement call to some extent. It should be the cyclist's
call, not the motorist's. The cyclist has more at stake.

A beginner cyclist will be less adapt at judging the exact distance
needed, but a beginner cyclist needs and deserves greater clearance
anyway, so if a beginner keeps a motorist out of a lane when an
experienced cyclist wouldn't, that's only fair.

It's a good idea for the cyclist to create the impression that the
reason the motorist has to stay out is because the lane is too
narrow, not to create the impression the cyclist is being
deliberately obstructive. This is fairly easy in practice. The near
side tyre track of the cars is about the optimum riding position.

David Knowles's word "conflict" is rather ambiguous. I've seen
traffic engineering papers where a conflict is deemed to exist
whenever a cars brake lights go on, or a car makes a noticeable
change in course. If that's the meaning here, then conflicts are
exactly what we want. We don't motorists to obliviously continue in
a straight line right over the top of cyclists. On the other hand,
if "conflict" means some road users trying to murder others, that's
probably a bad thing

It's conventional wisdom that the amount of room a motorist gives a
cyclist is roughly equal to the amount of room the cyclist gives the
kerb. That's probably oversimplified, but nevertheless, in getting
on for 100 000 miles of cycling, and four times that distance
driving, I've found it a good rule to follow in practice.

Jeremy Parker

p.k. wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote:
I'm
certainly not saying that cyclists should be jumping lights, but why
should cyclists be singled out?

The difference (from the perspective of the pedestrian not wishing to be
hit) is that if I wait until the front car has stopped, no other car (save
in the most exceptional of circumstances) is going to run the red light.
However it is a common experience (here in London) to be crossing at traffic
lights, or a light controlled crossing, with cars stopped in both directions
and to find oneself confronted by a cyclist weaving through pedestrians on
the crossing.

A common occurrence when I am on my bicycle is for traffic to be in a
queue so unable to move even though the light is green, and pedestrians
just cross without looking at the possibility that a cyclist may be
passing. Of course the cyclist is also looking out for pedestrians who
are crossing anyway but ringing the bell and even yelling "look out"
doesn't always get the message through.

Another common thing for drivers to do is think they are being
courteous to let traffic out in front of them even though they have
right of way. The problem is the drivers will do that even when there
is a cyclist nearby, usually one they have just overtaken, and the
cyclist is highly unlikely to want to stop and give way (when they have
right of way).

Clearly not all cyclists do that, and I'm pretty sure all on URC would
deplore that behaviour, but the fact is it happens far to frequently and
gives the rest of us who cycle responsibly a bad name.

The correct way to behave when crossing at a traffic light is to wait
for the signal to change, then make sure all the traffic has stopped or
is clearly going to stop, and then move out. Jumping out the second the
signal turns red without looking first is not the appropriate course.

Most cyclists I see will go through red signals only when there is
nothing there, i.e. no traffic or pedestrians to stop for.

btw, it is not always possible for a cycle to stop in 3 seconds and you
cannot expect cyclists to slow down as they approach green lights in
case they change.