Use the cycle path, it is there for a reason

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.

On 20/03/2014 08:11, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 05:45:20 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Bertie Wooster considered Wed, 19 Mar 2014
10:06:35 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:28:00 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 19/03/2014 09:22, Roger Merriman wrote:
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 01:24:28 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

"Tarcap" considered Sun, 9 Mar 2014 02:02:00
-0000 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/S...caravan-lorry-
coming-close/story-20783946-detail/story.html

I cannot see where the lorry and trailer went anywhere near the cycle path

If the driver can't or won't cope with cyclists on a public highway,
he should turn his license in.

His atrocious driving has already cost him his job, since his
transport manager viewed the footage.

I missed that: where was it reported? Or have you made it up by wishful
thinking?

not at all,
http://road.cc/content/news/113535-caravan-firm-sacks-driver-who-was-filmed-overtaking-cyclist-inches-spare-video
among others have it if one cares to look.

And the police are investigating with a view to prosecution, now they
know the identity of the driver - with the company assisting them in
their enquiries.

Hopefully, it'll get him banned for a long, long time.


Hello, hello, hello : it's half past one in the morning - and what have we
got?


to be fair unlike most video close passes where distance is difficult
guage, thats a close and fast overtake with a trailer, its certinly a
poor overtake, but due to distances being distorted by the lense etc,
police are rarely keen to accempt as evidence.

Roger


It could not have occurred if the cyclist had been on the cycle path.

That is my thought too. But it is not up to the driver to punish a
cyclist by frightening him, just because the cyclist has chosen to use
the road instead of a shared use path.

I still feel that the cyclist was being deliberately antagonistic, and
trying to find something to complain about with his helmet camera. But
perhaps I misjudge.

Even the DfT say that shared use paths are unsuitable for cyclists who
may travel at over 18mph - quite how the decided on that precise
figure I'm not sure, because it's not as if shared use paths are in
any way required to meet any design standard which would imply such a
speed, and most would be unsafe at more than about half that.

I shudder at the thought of cyclists using the shared use path
alongside the Regent's Canal through Camden at 18mph. 6mph (double
walking speed) is plenty.

With such irresponsible guidance from the DfT I can imagine some
cyclist with a helmet camera filming himself speeding along the
Limehouse Cut at 18mph, then posting the film clip with indignation
about "bloody pedestrians" getting in his way when he was officially
cycling at a reasonable speed.

How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike...

....particularly so in the Greenwich *Foot* Tunnel, where this advice
carries the force of law and is not optional.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:58:27 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.


Do you think that the speed limits should apply to cyclists?

"Judith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 06:03:58 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

snip


It includes this quote, from Mark Turley, Transport Manager for Forest
of Dean Caravans:
"The driver is no longer an employee of ours after talking to him. It
was a stupid piece of driving and we've been let down by one of our
employees.


So no mention of him getting the sack - or how much his agreed termination
payment was then - given that he was already over retirement age and was
doing
the job for his beer money.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:24:24 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:58:27 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.


Do you think that the speed limits should apply to cyclists?

I think that all road users should show due consideration for other
road users. That includes cyclists.

I do not see that excessively high speeds by cyclists are a major
issue, and I note that the Royal Parks have abandoned their speed
limits for cyclists. They must have good reason to do so.

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:24:24 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:58:27 +0000, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack
common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.


Do you think that the speed limits should apply to cyclists?

I think that all road users should show due consideration for other
road users. That includes cyclists.

I do not see that excessively high speeds by cyclists are a major
issue, and I note that the Royal Parks have abandoned their speed
limits for cyclists. They must have good reason to do so.

Probably because the lack of number plates makes it pointless. Who do you
send the speeding ticket to?
Seems like a good argument for compulsory registration to me.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:20:40 -0000, "Tarcap"
wrote:



"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:24:24 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:58:27 +0000, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack
common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.


Do you think that the speed limits should apply to cyclists?

I think that all road users should show due consideration for other
road users. That includes cyclists.

I do not see that excessively high speeds by cyclists are a major
issue, and I note that the Royal Parks have abandoned their speed
limits for cyclists. They must have good reason to do so.

Probably because the lack of number plates makes it pointless. Who do you
send the speeding ticket to?
Seems like a good argument for compulsory registration to me.

Seems like your flogging a dead horse there - but lobby your MP by all
means.

On 20/03/2014 10:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

If cyclists had any common sense - they wouldn't be cyclists.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:51:31 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:24:24 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:58:27 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:55 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:11:44 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


How about some sensible guidance from the DfT: use shared use paths
with consideration for other users, and be ready to dismount and walk
your bike.


It is amazing that you think the DfT need to issue such guidance.

I suppose, however, you know as well as most that, cyclists do lack common
sense - and hence need such guidance spelling out to them

Add the word, *some* before *cyclists do lack common sense* and I will
agree with you.

It is interesting to note that while some cyclists seem to need
guidance on speed, motorists need legislation on speed. Even then many
motorists see a limit as a target rather than a limit.


Do you think that the speed limits should apply to cyclists?

I think that all road users should show due consideration for other
road users. That includes cyclists.

I do not see that excessively high speeds by cyclists are a major
issue, and I note that the Royal Parks have abandoned their speed
limits for cyclists. They must have good reason to do so.


Probably the difficulty of policing as cyclists do not show any sort of ID