|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:
I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws& steam traction engines etc. There there. Live with it - unlike your opinions, bikes aren't anachronisms, they're a great way to get about, especially when there's too much busy, modern traffic. Fortunately enough people realise this, and support the use of bikes rather than complaining about them. And that includes the current mob in government. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:37:08 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote: "Steve Walker" wrote in message ... Tom Crispin wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker" Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence & skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph. Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently exceeding that legal limit? And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket trolleys along the footway? What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed. The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave near cyclists. There were precious few cyclists around in 1835 either. The *riding* almost certainly refers to horses, but handcarts almost certainly refers to the predecessor of the supermarket trolley. The situation has become so bad that they paint lanes on the road for bikes and allow cyclists to use some footpaths because many are **** scared sharing the main carriageway with fast heavy vehicles, driven by angry lunatic drivers. Ho bleeding hum... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence & skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph. Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently exceeding that legal limit? And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket trolleys along the footway? What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed. The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor traffic to avoid. Maybe not. But there certainly were large, fast-moving and frequently barely controlled horse-drawn coaches and carts. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave near cyclists. Yes, we have. Every driver who's passed a UK driving test has proven they are familiar with the Highway Code - which includes plenty of rules on how to play nicely with other traffic. No matter _what_ form it may take. BTW, the bicycle hadn't been invented in 1835, either. Yes, there were the odd roughly similar ancestor about, just as there were roughly similar ancestors to the car about. If you want to get picky about it, Cugnot predates Baron von Drais by about 40 years - and von Drais was less than 20yrs before those laws were passed. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
S wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:24 pm, "Steve Walker" wrote: What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed. Motorists do many dangerous and forbidden things as well, e.g., speeding, running red lights, driving against the traffic in one-way streets, just to name a few. Yes, and Peter Sutcliffe killed lots of women. Your point is....? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote: I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. There there. I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise then please start a new thread. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote: On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote: I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws& steam traction engines etc. There there. I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise then please start a new thread. If you don't want to get called names, don't write mindless tripe like you did above. If you want others to behave like grown-ups, maybe you ought to start yourself? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 04:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100, wrote: On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote: On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote: snip No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well. Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain circumstances: Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case. "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng That was *never* ever official guidance. Quite. And "former" says all you need to know. It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it. And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not "pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists speeding past? Are we talking about the same house? This one certainly does not have an exit directly onto any part of a footway that a cyclist is likely to be using: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgem...7622780824857/ The question stands whichever particular example is used: What possible "consideration" is being shown by cyclists to footway users exiting their homes directly onto the footway? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 15:12, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker" wrote: JMS wrote: On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng That was *never* ever official guidance. It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it. This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in many other situations (recently in respect of carrying knives, for example). Statements made by politicians, whether to constituents, the press or even directly to parliament, cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law. Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway alongside the A2 through Deptford would be treated in exactly the same way as a highly skilled and confident cyclist using the same stretch of footway? http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?layer=...33.35,,2,14.71 Unless the general principle is that self-proclaimed "nervous" offenders are let-off (eg, for drink-driving) without penalty, the answer, of course, is "Yes". |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 18:53, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker" wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker" wrote: This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in many other situations (recently in respect of carrying knives, for example). Statements made by politicians, whether to constituents, the press or even directly to parliament, cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law. Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway alongside the A2 through Deptford would be treated in exactly the same way as a highly skilled and confident cyclist using the same stretch of footway? Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence& skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph. Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently exceeding that legal limit? Only if they wanted to. It was never intended to be compulsory, any more than it was intended that pedestrians should be mixing with road-users legally allowed to travel at 30mph. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property
On 26/10/2010 19:37, mileburner wrote:
"Steve wrote in message ... Tom Crispin wrote: On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker" Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence & skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph. Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently exceeding that legal limit? And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket trolleys along the footway? What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed. The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave near cyclists. The situation has become so bad that they paint lanes on the road for bikes and allow cyclists to use some footpaths because many are **** scared sharing the main carriageway with fast heavy vehicles, driven by angry lunatic drivers. It ISN'T compulsory. They are free not to cycle at all if not competent to do so. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 3 | June 18th 10 07:48 AM |
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 0 | June 17th 10 06:32 PM |
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane. | spindrift | UK | 66 | August 19th 08 10:29 AM |
odd couples | [email protected] | Racing | 4 | December 11th 06 01:42 AM |
Why do cyclists not use the cycle path? | Tony Raven | UK | 30 | August 13th 06 12:22 AM |