***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 24 *****
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 14 Jun 15 at 19:21
|
This (link to Google streetview)
tinyurl.com/py22g6a
I travel across on my driving commute. I'm never sure what it's supposed to mean. And indeed, last night, a cyclist decided to bomb in front of me, forcing rapid brake application on my part and a vehement gesticulation on his. He was zooming up the cycletrack on my left, as you see that picture, so I didn't see him approach until he whizzed over the road.
No harm done, but I think it's confusing. Whose right of way is it supposed to be? I've seen cars treat it as a zebra crossing and I've seen cars nip over with no quarter leaving pedestrians looking puzzled. It feels a bit like an accident waiting to happen.
I've half a mind to ask the Council, but I thought wisdom here might say these "crossing a main road cycle tracks with odd markings" are common and it's just me being out of date.
There is a sign saying "caution cyclists crossing" or some such as well.
What do we think?
Edit I should add that in my opinion it's jolly clearly the driver's right of way, but...
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 28 May 15 at 08:12
|
>> And indeed, last night, a cyclist decided to bomb in front of me, forcing rapid
>> brake application on my part and a vehement gesticulation on his. He was zooming up
>> the cycletrack on my left, as you see that picture, so I didn't see him
>> approach until he whizzed over the road.
So the cyclist didn't see, or ignored, the give way marker in his cycle lane then. Oh and the "cyclists dismount" sign.
>>I've seen cars treat it as a zebra crossing and I've seen cars nip over with no quarter leaving >> pedestrians looking puzzled.
Its not for pedestrians, it offers them no rights or protection.
>> What do we think?
>>
>> Edit I should add that in my opinion it's jolly clearly the driver's right of
>> way, but...
It is. It is nothing more an indicator of where the cycle lane goes, and provide no user with any rights or protection. Clearly you have a duty to be aware of cyclists crossing that road, because you have been warned, but nothing more.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 May 15 at 08:28
|
More or less what Z says.
It's a crossroads. Arbury road has priority as there are (albeit faded and in need of repainting) give way markings in form of a triangle and pair of broken lines. Cyclists on the pavement track should yield to vehicles or other cycles on the road.
The injunction 'Cyclists Dismount' though is an unnecessary distraction and has no legal authority.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 May 15 at 08:51
|
|
It is not a crossroads. It is a cycle track crossing a road, cyclists have no priority whatsoever. Unfortunately if you hit one it will be your fault as always.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 28 May 15 at 08:54
|
Yeah, I guess I was getting at - is it confusing for cyclists/pedestrians - because if it is then that's not a good situation?
It SEEMS clear enough to me, and apparently to you, as others not used to the road, but it also seems that people actually using it struggle sometimes.
Arbury Road is one of those new fangled 20 limits as well, so problems might be mitigated by that. Having said that, I'm pretty convinced that I'm about the only one who does 20 (well, 22/3 on the speedo) down there, judging by the long tailbacks that sit behind me, with cars in my rear mirror weaving as they look for an overtake. I know it's THEIR problem, but still it feels like that makes everything a bit more dangerous.
But the unintended consequences on driver behavior of 20 limits is another discussion I guess.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 28 May 15 at 09:03
|
>> Yeah, I guess I was getting at - is it confusing for cyclists/pedestrians -
Well clearly. Pedestrians are confused because it looks like it should be for them but its not. They could be led into some false sense of security.
As for the cyclists, clearly they are confused, but as Bromp says, to them signs are an unnecessary distraction, not a legality.
(jeez and you wonder why they get a bad name with attitudes like that)
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 28 May 15 at 09:13
|
>> As for the cyclists, clearly they are confused, but as Bromp says, to them signs
>> are an unnecessary distraction, not a legality.
>>
>> (jeez and you wonder why they get a bad name with attitudes like that)
Why does a cyclist need to dismount to use a crossroads? Can you point out the legal authority/meaning for square blue sign with words 'Cyclists Dismount'?
They pop up like daisies in the night and are about nothing but over protective H&S by the highway authority.
|
>> Why does a cyclist need to dismount to use a crossroads? Can you point out
>> the legal authority/meaning for square blue sign with words 'Cyclists Dismount'?
>>
>> They pop up like daisies in the night and are about nothing but over protective
>> H&S by the highway authority.
>>> (jeez and you wonder why they get a bad name with attitudes like that)
I rest my case M'lud.
|
>> It is not a crossroads.
Perhaps not but it should be treated as such.
|
|
Why? Do cyclists treat junction priorities with respect?
|
>> It is not a crossroads.
>
>Perhaps not but it should be treated as such.
No it shouldn't. It should be treated as a crossing, given that we're so worried about legal authority and all.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 28 May 15 at 10:37
|
>> No it shouldn't. It should be treated as a crossing, given that we're so worried
>> about legal authority and all.
Its marked with give way lines and can safely be used in that fashion. Against that background the dismount sign is just a distraction. THe only reason i mentioned legality was because z decided to chuck in Pat's parrot cry about 'attitude.
Let's try again, what need is there for a cyclist in control of his machine and obeying the give way to get off?
|
>> Let's try again, what need is there for a cyclist in control of his machine
>> and obeying the give way to get off?
None as far as I can see...and I'm not even sure that the sign is aimed at cyclists using the crossing.
The cycle lane is on a pavement, and does not continue beyond the sign so I would assume it refers to cyclists wishing to continue on that side. If it refers to the crossing it is badly positioned.
|
>> None as far as I can see...and I'm not even sure that the sign is
>> aimed at cyclists using the crossing.
>>
>> The cycle lane is on a pavement, and does not continue beyond the sign so
>> I would assume it refers to cyclists wishing to continue on that side. If it
>> refers to the crossing it is badly positioned.
I considered that, but then I checked the sign on the other side of the road (you can see the back of it) - and checking the position of that, it is clear it is meant for cyclists using the crossing.
|
>> Pat's parrot cry about 'attitude<<
Rather like your parrot cry that cyclists are above the law and know best then?
I'm sitting back and observing the 'attitude'!
Pat
|
>> a cyclist in control of his machine and obeying the give way to get off?
No need at all, I suppose. Should I ever see such a cyclist I will let you know.
This "legal authority" thing P's me off.
There is no "legal authority" for this road sign, and that is justification for ignoring it; There *is* a legal authority which says you shouldn't go across a red light, but you ignore it because its safer that way.
It seems that your legal authority is subjectively variable in its relevance.
Do you have any objection to that discretion applying to everybody, or is it just for cyclists?
It *IS* an attitude thing. Around where I usually live in the UK there are several cycling groups and many individual cyclists, including me. The individuals are forever blasting across pedestrian crossings, ignoring red lights and occasionally getting in my way - I am sure I get in their way at times as well.
That's just life in a society of road users.
But there is one particular large group that delights in cycling in the middle of one particular small country road and holding everybody up. They will *not* move over, and seemingly delight in their power. When challenged they are rude and shout/feel that this is apparently ok because they are obeying the law and the car drivers should get over it.
*That's* what gets me, this somehow divine right to be allowed to behave however they wish whilst everybody else must give them their every legal "right".
There is a large section of the cycling population that needs to get over itself and start sharing. And "sharing" doesn't mean enforcing your every right and taking advantage of the rights of others. It means give and take, and looking out for yourself and being responsible.
It means accepting that you are part of a society and behaving as such.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 28 May 15 at 12:51
|
>> But there is one particular large group that delights in cycling in the middle of
>> one particular small country road and holding everybody up. They will *not* move over, and
>> seemingly delight in their power. When challenged they are rude and shout/feel that this is
>> apparently ok because they are obeying the law and the car drivers should get over
>> it.
>> It means accepting that you are part of a society and behaving as such.
I don't dispute the part of society thing but it cuts both ways. When you ride out regularly in a group, even a small one, you soon notice the far too numerous close passes and dangerous overtakes. The vast majority are just thoughtless rather than malicious but no less life threatening. If a vehicle in opposite direction 'appears' while Mrs HiLux is overtaking on a blind bend who's caught when she tucks in sharpish?
A few of those and folks start riding 'assertively' and blocking passing in the way you identify.
Even up here in SW Scotland on Monday I had to 'ride out' to deter close and fast passing on the single track down to Mull of Galloway lighthouse. The incompetence of some drivers on roads with passing places has to be seen to be believed.
Those dismount signs are 'advice'. Not the sort that aids safety but the sort that lawyers hope will cover the highway engineer's arxe in case of an accident.
Can I ask you again Mark; what benefit arises from dismounting to cross Arbury Road?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 28 May 15 at 21:52
|
I have no idea.
As i said, IMO its the attitude. You'll even try to justify the particular group i told you about.
|
>> As i said, IMO its the attitude. You'll even try to justify the particular group
>> i told you about.
I prefer the word explain to justify. As I've not seen them I don't know the detail of your particular circumstance but I've been in groups in the Chilterns where we've needed to take action to preserve our own safety margin.
|
>> As i said, IMO its the attitude. You'll even try to justify the particular group
>> i told you about.
I prefer the word explain to justify. As I've not seen them I don't know the detail of your particular circumstance but I've been in groups in the Chilterns where we've needed to take action to preserve our own safety margin.
|
>> Those dismount signs are 'advice'. Not the sort that aids safety but the sort that
>> lawyers hope will cover the highway engineer's arxe in case of an accident.
>>
>> Can I ask you again Mark; what benefit arises from dismounting to cross Arbury Road?
I'll tell you what, I'll lead you by the hand, back to the OP of this thread, and point you at
And indeed, last night, a cyclist decided to bomb in front of me, forcing rapid brake application on my part and a vehement gesticulation on his. He was zooming up the cycletrack on my left, as you see that picture, so I didn't see him approach until he whizzed over the road.
Now do you think that would have happened if he had dismounted?
|
>> And indeed, last night, a cyclist decided to bomb in front of me, forcing rapid
>> brake application on my part and a vehement gesticulation on his. He was zooming up
>> the cycletrack on my left, as you see that picture, so I didn't see him
>> approach until he whizzed over the road.
>>
>> Now do you think that would have happened if he had dismounted?
Would an injunction to 'stop engine' prevent a similar accident at a full crossroads? Of course not, the idea is logically absurd.
OP incident happened because the cyclist missed or ignored the road markings. The dismount instruction isn't there to 'belt and brace' the give way, it's to protect the highway authority in event of an accident.
Cannot find the link ATM but Warrington Cycle Campaign's 'farcility' of the month feature a few years ago was a shared pavement with a dismount sign every time a driveway crosses.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 May 15 at 08:55
|
>> OP incident happened because the cyclist missed or ignored the road markings. The dismount instruction
>> isn't there to 'belt and brace' the give way, it's to protect the highway authority
>> in event of an accident.
Only you can turn an attempt at a belt and braces approach to cycling safety into malfeasance.
|
>> Only you can turn an attempt at a belt and braces approach to cycling safety
>> into malfeasance.
Run out of arguments so now you'll play the man instead of the ball?
|
>> >> Only you can turn an attempt at a belt and braces approach to cycling
>> safety
>> >> into malfeasance.
>>
>> Run out of arguments so now you'll play the man instead of the ball?
No because the argument here is not the ball its the man.
|
I've been trying to remember when these 'Cyclists Dismount' signs first appeared. They weren't around when I did cycling proficiency in 1969 and I don't remember them when I was out touring most weekends in early/mid eighties.
I think the first place I remember them was on those crossings that avoid the danger of grade separated junctions by taking the cyclist across the on/off slips crossing kerb>kerb like a pedestrian. The cyclist was expected to dismount and cross the slip pushing the bike.
Since then they've spread like wild fire and are now commonplace at end of cycle routes and at perceived hazards along them. They're not directive/prohibitive - there's the usual red bordered circular sign depicting a bike for that purpose. What they seem to mean is 'this junction is a hazard and you might manage it better if you get off an push'. They take no account of the cyclist's competence or confidence and are placed on a precautionary principle.
This blog covers them and includes the Warrington Cycle Campaign pic I could not find earlier:
radwagon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/cyclists-dismount-sign.html
And this short item covers the law. Although it's Scottish the situation is same in England and Wales:
www.cycling-accident-compensation.co.uk/dismounting.aspx
Finally here's a win for taking the issue on:
road.cc/content/news/130401-cyclists-dismount-no-thanks-says-rider-who-persuaded-contractor-change-signs
(I saw that one in action as it was on a route I used between work sites in 2012/13).
|
>They take no account of the cyclist's competence or confidence and are placed on a precautionary principle.
You mean they're like speed limits and blood alcohol limits?
|
>> You mean they're like speed limits and blood alcohol limit
Except that (a) 'dismount' is advice not direction and (b) there's at least a bit of actual science and methodology involved DD and speed limits.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 May 15 at 20:45
|
Bromp, am I right in thinking you're away on holiday in the van?
If so just forget about defending the indefensible and enjoy it:)
I'm asking myself if I mean attitude or obsession now!
Pat
|
>> Bromp, am I right in thinking you're away on holiday in the van?
>>
>> If so just forget about defending the indefensible and enjoy it:)
Back home now Pat.
I can see that explaining why folks pre-empt reds to mitigate dangerous junctions might seem indefensible. But ignoring advisory signs that would have you jumping off and on the bike like a w****'s* fleas is something else.
*Apparently the word W H O R E (with possesive apostrophe s) upsets the swear filter.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 May 15 at 22:13
|
>
>> was because z decided to chuck in Pat's parrot cry about 'attitude.
You provide the ammo, I'll fire it. You can't hide the fact that you are a very very poor ambassador for the cycling fraternity and appear to naturally exude the very attitude that gives them such bad press.
|
Coincidentally when I read this I was just about to post an example of where the local custom is for almost all cyclists to cross the traffic light controlled junction on red - also on Arbury Road, Cambridge!
This is looking north up Arbury Road, at the junction of Union Lane/Arbury Road with Milton Road. goo.gl/7R3ofR
The cyclist in the street view is almost certainly going to wait for the all red phase - there's one whenever a ped presses a button, and there's nearly always at least one in this residential area with shops nearby - and cycle across the junction.
It's a good thing they do. Last night I left Chesterton at 17.10 and decided to brave the speed humps up Arbury Road, rather than encounter the teatime efflux from the Science Park.
Priority at those lights is for Milton Road and the green phase for Union Lane/Arbury Road is very short. While I was waiting at the red, about fifth in line, a couple of cyclists passed up the inside (the drivers mostly leave room for them, probably because some will try and squeeze by anyway) and crossed on the all-red phase. Despite the fact that they had cleared the junction by the time green came, only three cars got through; had they been crawling behind the bikes, it wouldn't even have been that - it's uphill there, as much as it ever is in Cambridge.
The simple truth is that the available protocols make it very difficult to cater for both cars/lorries/buses, pedestrians and cycles. The interesting thing about Cambridge in this respect is that cycles are so numerous that there is a kind of evolution of ways of everybody getting around.
It certainly irritates some people, cyclists and non-cyclists, but for the 80%, the cyclists who are not aggressively inconsiderate and the motorists who are prepared to take an extra second or two and keep calm, it works reasonably well.
It's still something that needs to be solved, IMO - a system that relies on people breaking the rules is always going to create tension with some, especially those who are not inured to it.
|
|
Thanks Manatee, that's an interesting observation. The evolution you mention has come in central London too; cycles have achieved critical mass.
|
Since we're "doing Cambridge", Huntingdon Road is the subject of a little cycling controversy locally as well.
For years, the bit in question looked like this (Google streetview again)
tinyurl.com/oa4xwrt
So - it's a bus stop, but bus has to pull into cycle lane to use it.
This has been deemed dangerous, as cyclists then have to pull out to overtake the stopped bus.
The solution (and an image of it) is documented here (Cambridge News)
tinyurl.com/nzzm6jk
Now the bus stop "floats" in the carrigeway. Cyclists don't have to stop, but proceed to "undertake" as the cycle lane is now unobstructed.
Note that the article says "put on hold". It's off hold and happening - roadworks everywhere, (and at 1.8 million for what is turning out to be a hundred yards of concrete and some paint, it must be ten thousand pounds a traffic cone.)
The flip side is that no other traffic at all can now overtake a stopped bus - it's not that clear in the picture but there's a new raised section in the middle of the road to prevent that. And bus passengers will have to cross the cycle lane and mill about on the titchy little bit of "pavement" by the bus door.
This is a - perhaps the - major commuting route into Cambridge. There are dark mutterings about the traffic queues being even longer now.
Anyway, this is all to point out the obvious - Cambridge is not really, through circumstance as well as political choice, pro-car. Indeed, it's been announced that "workplace levies" for parking are back on the agenda for discussion this July. Who knows whether employers will pick up the proposed £200-£300 per space cost or pass it on to employees...
|
It seems that the Edinburgh cyclists don't have the skill or common sense to negotiate the tram tracks which are obvious, well marked, do not move, and they know the location of.
tinyurl.com/pznfrtl
|
>> It seems that the Edinburgh cyclists don't have the skill or common sense to negotiate
>> the tram tracks which are obvious, well marked, do not move, and they know the
>> location of.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/pznfrtl
Were you run over by a bike as a child or something?
It's clearly a widespread problem if reports are true, and a predictable one where cycle lanes intersect tram lines obliquely.
|
How do they manage in The Netherlands where they have many trams and cyclists? And quite a lot of rain, as well.
Is there some structural difference in the rails? Or can the dutch just ride better?
|
p.s. isn't it nice of those lawyers to join in with the campaign and say cyclists should complain, campaign and sue.
I mean, its not like the lawyers have got a vested interest or anything.
|
"...a predictable one where cycle lanes intersect tram lines obliquely." Obviously not predictable enough for the town's cyclists.
The council should just take the common H&S defence and simply ban cycling near the tram lines.
|
You can predict that large potholes will damage the wheels and tyres on your car, and you can't always avoid them. I suppose the councils could close roads while they get around to mending them.
The difference is that the cycle lanes are dangerous by design (by which I do not mean that they were designed to be dangerous, merely that, as designed, they are dangerous).
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 28 May 15 at 16:11
|
>> How do they manage in The Netherlands where they have many trams and cyclists? And
>> quite a lot of rain, as well.
>>
>> Is there some structural difference in the rails? Or can the dutch just ride better?
Its the way they have laid out the cycle lanes in Edinburgh, rather than bisect the lines at right angles, with minimum rail contact, they have made them bisect at angles that makes the cyclist have to traverse some of the length of line. A cyclist spill is inevitable.
|
|
Maybe they could put a blue sign with "Cyclists Dismount" on it?
|
>> Maybe they could put a blue sign with "Cyclists Dismount" on it?
Stirrer.
|
There were some mistakes made. They just need to sort them out instead of defending the indefensible and blaming the cyclists.
That will also help the council's legal position. There isn't much of a defence one they know there is a problem with the layout if they do not try to mitigate it.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833
goo.gl/1M5aOF
|
>> There were some mistakes made. They just need to sort them out instead of defending
>> the indefensible and blaming the cyclists.
>>
>> That will also help the council's legal position. There isn't much of a defence one
>> they know there is a problem with the layout if they do not try to
>> mitigate it.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833
>>
>> goo.gl/1M5aOF
>>
I don't know if you "know" Edinburgh, but the example you give of a cycle sign painted between tram tracks is there to indicate that you are approaching the restricted part of Princes Street that is tram, bus, taxi , and cyclist only. It is an old photo and not a cycle lane.
|
>> Its the way they have laid out the cycle lanes in Edinburgh, rather than bisect
>> the lines at right angles, with minimum rail contact, they have made them bisect at
>> angles that makes the cyclist have to traverse some of the length of line. A
>> cyclist spill is inevitable.
>>
I know the Haymarket area well, the physical layout makes it almost impossible for 90° track crossings. A little common sense, or even a short, minor route change would solve the problem. This seems to be beyond the comprehension of the militant minority of the Edinburgh cyclists. Compensation seems to be their motivation.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 28 May 15 at 16:26
|
>> Or can the dutch just ride better?
>>
I saw the report on the lunchtime news, the cyclists interviewed were Lycra clad. Attitude has been mentioned, I have seen many cyclists in the low countries and scandinavia. They treat their cycle tracks as a means of transport, not a race track.
|
>>the cyclists interviewed were Lycra clad.
Another behaviour that should be added to the list of "things you can be shot for".
|
Lycra is a name for an American product called spandex - invented in the fifties - and with startling imagination, spandex is an anagram of "expands".
Just saying.
|
>> Another behaviour that should be added to the list of "things you can be shot
>> for".
>>
Attitude was the key word. The only cyclists I have seen in the traditional cycling countries wearing Lycra have been racing or training, not commuting.
|
Perhaps 'attitude' should be an offence, for annoying people who haven't actually done anything wrong.
I think it's been tried actually, by Stalin et.alia.
|
>> 'attitude' should be an offence, for annoying people who haven't actually done anything wrong.
>> I think it's been tried actually, by Stalin et.alia.
You don't have to go to the former Soviet Union for it. Standard practice in the British armed forces:
'Sergeant, put that man on a charge... dumb insolence.' There were boys at school, even the odd intrepid girl, who were specialists at dumb insolence. But one could be punished for it without being guilty as charged, if one was given to reverie and internal dialogue... School itself is a dangerous minefield.
|
>> 'Sergeant, put that man on a charge... dumb insolence.'
If I remember correctly the charge was " Conduct predudicial to good order and naval discipline". I am sure the Army and RAF had something similar.
|
>> >> 'Sergeant, put that man on a charge... dumb insolence.'
>>
>> If I remember correctly the charge was " Conduct predudicial to good order and naval
>> discipline". I am sure the Army and RAF had something similar.
>>
Section 68 of the Army Act. Responsible for my good self, and thousands like me, spending more time than the others on the company office verandah waiting for the CSM to take us for a little stroll to meet the boss.
Usually applied if you hadn't actually been caught in the act of slapping a junior NCO, peeing on the CO's rose bushes or various other services to humanity, but it was beyond doubt that you had been involved in similar and that alcohol had usually played its part.
|
|
Ah, 'dumb insolence'. I remember my dad using that phrase to me. Saying I didn't know what it meant seemed to constitute more of it.
|
>> Attitude was the key word. The only cyclists I have seen in the traditional cycling
>> countries wearing Lycra have been racing or training, not commuting.
It is a peculiarity of the UK that many seem to think it's impossible to cycle in your street clothes. I cannot help explain that as personally I've never suffered from the misapprehension. My London commute was carried out in the slacks and shirt I wore to work in.
On the MTB or tourer Rohan trousers or shorts and ordinary T shirt do fine though I do posess a cycle specific shower/wind proof jacket.
We do though, at least in London, commute longer distances than most of our Continental neighbours.
|
>> The solution (and an image of it) is documented here (Cambridge News)
>>
>> tinyurl.com/nzzm6jk
>>
>> Now the bus stop "floats" in the carrigeway. Cyclists don't have to stop, but proceed
>> to "undertake" as the cycle lane is now unobstructed.
I missed this post while involved in the 'stushie' over injunctions to dismount.
Similar solutions have been proposed in London, I think on one of the cycle superhighways. IMHO this arrangement swaps potential cyclist conflict with motor vehicles for almost inevitable conflict with pedestrians. Not a good change.
My first manual for urban riding was the chapter called Traffic Jamming in the late Richard Ballantine's opus 'Richard's Bicycle Book'. Somewhere he warns of the (obvious) risk of undertaking a stopped bus. Nothing has changed in the forty years since those words were written.
Muh better to ride with the traffic (another Ballantine principal) and learn to handle it.
|
>> >> The solution (and an image of it) is documented here (Cambridge News)
>> >>
>> >> tinyurl.com/nzzm6jk
>> >>
>> >> Now the bus stop "floats" in the carrigeway. Cyclists don't have to stop, but
>> proceed
>> >> to "undertake" as the cycle lane is now unobstructed.
>> IMHO this arrangement swaps potential cyclist conflict with motor vehicles for almost inevitable conflict with
>> pedestrians. Not a good change.
Totally agree. Can you imagine the problems with bus passengers queuing to get on the bus?
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq-Rjiuq2FE
>>
Building up to a Darwin award?
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-32913503
The woman in her 50s was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash which involved a car, a van and a tanker at about 06:40 BST in Molesey Road, Walton-on-Thames.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclist-32-dies-after-crash-with-coop-lorry-in-london-in-sixth-fatal-accident-this-year-10283760.html
A 32-year-old woman has become the sixth cyclist to die in London this year after a crash with a lorry.
|
(Not directed at henryk) Do you ever pass the advanced stop line when the light is on red? Then you're guilty of jumping the red light, ironically the single thing that most cyclists seem to be castigated for.
In fact, judging from my own experience riding around major cities, far more cars are guilty of this offence than cyclists, and frankly it matters not. Make it legal for a bike to cross through a red light and the issues remain - aggression, frustration, and a sense of entitlement will change things not a jot.
This thread has run for 2300 or more posts and it's still going around in b***** circles. The only way to solve the problem (since the British public - riders and drivers - cannot conceivably be educated) is to entirely segregate pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
The fight over who gets what will be long and messy, but only in a metaphorical sense. Not messy in the way this lady's life ended yesterday.
|
>> (Not directed at henryk) Do you ever pass the advanced stop line when the light
>> is on red? Then you're guilty of jumping the red light, ironically the single thing
>> that most cyclists seem to be castigated for.
>>
>> In fact, judging from my own experience riding around major cities, far more cars are
>> guilty of this offence than cyclists, and frankly it matters not. Make it legal for
>> a bike to cross through a red light and the issues remain - aggression, frustration,
>> and a sense of entitlement will change things not a jot.
>>
Could not agree more. The current trend seems to be for car drivers to stop with their backsides on top of the white line rather than their front bumper behind it; or to stop at said line and then creep forward in anticipation of the green light. I've even seen quite a few police cars do this.
In the interests of fairness, I will add that some lorry drivers are equally guilty of this.
|
Another cyclist fatality near here yesterday. No cause given.
www.berkhamstedtoday.co.uk/news/cyclist-killed-in-collision-1-6772111
Accident happened on Tring Hill near this junction with Upper Icknield Way.
goo.gl/Y4GYbA
It's a 50 limit, but traffic is often faster and it is often difficult to get out of the junction when turning right - I take a detour to avoid it.
Police are appealing for witnesses.
|
An Albanian illegal immigrant with fake ID and no driving licence kills 65 year old grandfather who was on his bike.
And the sentence? ... fourteen 'king months B&B.
Scuse if no doubt this has been posted before as I don't often read this thread.
Words fail me though but, I really do believe this once great country has gone to hell in a handcart.
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/581819/Illegal-migrant-with-no-driving-licence-jailed-over-cyclist-death
|
>> An Albanian illegal immigrant with fake ID and no driving licence kills 65 year old
>> grandfather who was on his bike.
>>
>> And the sentence? ... fourteen 'king months B&B.
Beleive it or not that's the top end of the sentencing range for the offence of death by careless:
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf
See page 15.
CTC have a camapaign focussing on this sort of thing:
www.roadjustice.org.uk/
|
>> Beleive it or not that's the top end of the sentencing range for the offence
>> of death by careless:
Oh and he'll be deported on release.
|
"Oh and he'll be deported on release."
Not if he's got his 'girlfriend' pregnant.
|
>> Not if he's got his 'girlfriend' pregnant.
>>
Even for a wily (and no doubt over-breeding muslim) illegal immigrant, this would be a major achievement from inside prison.
|
"this would be a major achievement from inside prison."
According to my wife (who worked in a cat C prison stocked with folks awaiting deportation) the trick is do the deed before you get put inside. And there's no need to make uncalled-for insinuations about religions and their reproductive habits.
|
>> Not if he's got his 'girlfriend' pregnant.
Only in Daily Wail world or perhaps that of a vote hunting Home Secretaries. In practice the bar is set pretty high:
www.lawfirmuk.net/english/familylife.htm
|
"Only in Daily Wail world or perhaps that of a vote hunting Home Secretaries. In practice the bar is set pretty high: "
It wouldn't be any good me asking which prison you'd worked in because you wouldn't be able to tell me for security reasons.
|
>> It wouldn't be any good me asking which prison you'd worked in because you wouldn't
>> be able to tell me for security reasons.
I merely observe the immigration tribunal decisions. Probably a better indicator of reality than POA gossip.
|
Even if he was given 14 years B&B, it still wouldn't bring back Michael Dixon.
The thing that really annoys me though, as if being killed isn't enough, is that Zizi Lushi came into this country illegally in the back of a lorry, like so many others are trying to do every-single-hour-of-every-single-day.
And he is just one who has been caught - how many others are driving around on our roads uninsured and with fake ID.
|
>> Even if he was given 14 years B&B, it still wouldn't bring back Michael Dixon.
>>
>> The thing that really annoys me though, as if being killed isn't enough, is that
>> Zizi Lushi came into this country illegally in the back of a lorry, like so
>> many others are trying to do every-single-hour-of-every-single-day.
>>
>> And he is just one who has been caught - how many others are driving
>> around on our roads uninsured and with fake ID.
Ok so you don't give a shot that some bloke is dead, it would have been fine if it had been a white cockney for example, but its the fact he is an illegal immigrant.
Good job he wasn't Jewish eh?
Pity you couldn't have been just as outraged by the multiply banned unlicensed uninsured lorry driver who drove over a cyclist. But he was a white british bloke wasn't he.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 10:22
|
>> Pity you couldn't have been just as outraged by the multiply banned unlicensed uninsured lorry
>> driver who drove over a cyclist. But he was a white british bloke wasn't he.
And to the person who gave me a scowly face you are a pathetic cowardly slimy little turd.
|
>>
>> >>
>> And to the person who gave me a scowly face you are a pathetic cowardly
>> slimy little turd.
>>
And probably an illegal immigrant logging on here with fake ID.
|
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> And to the person who gave me a scowly face you are a pathetic
>> cowardly
>> >> slimy little turd.
>> >>
>>
>> And probably an illegal immigrant logging on here with fake ID.
knocking his gf up in the luxury of his taxpayers flat in westminster as we speak.
|
>> Ok so you don't give a shot that some bloke is dead, it would have
>> been fine if it had been a white cockney for example, but its the fact
>> he is an illegal immigrant.
>>
>> Good job he wasn't Jewish eh?
>>
>> Pity you couldn't have been just as outraged by the multiply banned unlicensed uninsured lorry
>> driver who drove over a cyclist. But he was a white british bloke wasn't he.
You do come out with a load of old cobblers sometimes sunshine .. of course I care about the fact that 'some bloke' is dead.
And the bit about being an illegal immigrant and not a 'white cockney', is that he shouldn't have been here in the first place, let alone driving a car.
Why bring Jews into it I wonder, what have got against them??
Why don't you go and play with your silly trains you sad, sad little man.
|
>> You do come out with a load of old cobblers sometimes sunshine .. of course
>> I care about the fact that 'some bloke' is dead.
"The thing that really annoys me though, as if being killed isn't enough, is that
Zizi Lushi came into this country illegally in the back of a lorry, like so
many others are trying to do every-single-hour-of-every-single-day.
>> Why bring Jews into it I wonder, what have got against them??
I don't what you have against them. You know that better than me surely you make enough noise about them
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 12:59
|
>> No comment on this then dogface?
It's all very, very sad. Sad for the deceased's family, and sad for the perp and the perps family.
But for the grace of God, there go any one of us really, it only takes a moments distraction after all.
And talking of dogfaces, I've just come back from puppy class with Cody, and boy was it packed tonight!
|
>> The thing that really annoys me though, as if being killed isn't enough, is that
>> Zizi Lushi came into this country illegally in the back of a lorry, like so
>> many others are trying to do every-single-hour-of-every-single-day.
UK economy is fastest growing in UK and in some parts of the country we have full employment. It's really no surprise that we're a magnet for migrants looking for work, even the low paid illegal sort.
Plenty get stopped at Calais etc but others slip through the net.
Maybe we should go for those employing them?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 12:50
|
>> UK economy is fastest growing in UK and in some parts of the country we have full employment
Didn't realise you were a Tory fanboy, Bromp.
|
>> UK economy is fastest growing in UK
To be fair, it's also the slowest growing.
It's a little unkind to call Bromptonaut a Tory fanboy. Would you applaud him if he droned out a Labour-left miserablist dirge? Surely not Lygonos.
My guess is that most of the immigrants who make their way here are heading for the land of milk and honey but haven't realized how wide the Atlantic is. They just end up here willy-nilly.
|
>> >> UK economy is fastest growing in UK
>>
>> To be fair, it's also the slowest growing.
What I meant to type of course was fastest growing in EU...
|
>> What I meant to type of course was fastest growing in EU...
:o}
|
>>It's a little unkind to call Bromptonaut a Tory fanboy. Would you applaud him if he droned out a Labour-left miserablist dirge?
True dat.
I guess his take on the UK economy and employment outstripping the rest of the EU is due to the legacy left to the Coalition by Brown and Balls.
|
Because we don't have any British people driving with no licence or insurance?
He gets close to the maximum penalty, gets imprisoned and will be deported.
If there is an issue it is that perhaps the law doesn't set a high enough limit for the penalty. But presumably that would be true whatever the nationality of the person who offended?
|
As promised here is the latest on the thread in Volume 22
www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/alan-drummond-called-to-full-public-inquiry-following-driver-sentencing?
Bet he won't be 'employing' anyone for a while, thank goodness.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 17:37
|
Doubtless the HellDrivers-style tipper pilot was asking for it Pat.
Tippers and concrete mixers are among the most intimidating things you meet on the road, crap drivers apart.
Round here they have enormous great tractors with enormous great wheels barrelling down the lanes. They can make you flinch into the bank believe me. At least they are tall enough to be visible over the hedges to give you a bit of panic time.
|
>>>>
>> Round here they have enormous great tractors with enormous great wheels barrelling down the lanes. They can make you flinch into the bank believe me. At least they are tall
>> enough to be visible over the hedges to give you a bit of panic time.
>>
>>
It's not the tractors I mind, but the various medieval torture devices they are towing behind them. Damn great spikes and knives sticking out all over the place, they fair put the willies up a chap especially when walking or cycling.
|
>> It's not the tractors I mind, but the various medieval torture devices they are towing
>> behind them. Damn great spikes and knives sticking out all over the place, they fair
>> put the willies up a chap especially when walking or cycling.
>>
It's their workplace not just your playground. ;-)
|
>> As promised here is the latest on the thread in Volume 22
>>
>> www.commercialmotor.com/latest-news/alan-drummond-called-to-full-public-inquiry-following-driver-sentencing?
Thanks for that Pat, I'll watch out for the Commissioner's decision and any subsequent appeal to the Upper tribunal.
Mildly amused by the Commercial Motor report's reference to commissioner Nick Denton (pictured). The illustration is actually a library picture of the classic English law reporting non sequiter - a judges gavel.
It's an american affectation and not one that's used in England and Wales (or I think Scotland)
The BBC's former legal correspondent Marcel Berlins had a bit of a personal crusade on the point.
|
I will be on holiday on 24th June so I may not pick it up (I don't spend as much time on here as you do when I'm away:) )
I would appreciate it is you would keep an eye out Bromp.
From the way the preliminary hearing has been bypassed for a full public enquiry I don't think there will be an appeal.
Nick Denton is very strict but also very fair, and he won't like this one.
Pat
|
tinyurl.com/o9wfc7r
The last sentence of this piece shows there is a general problem, but the sherrifs (magistrates) comment about drivers is not good news.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 15:18
|
>> tinyurl.com/o9wfc7r
>>
>> The last sentence of this piece shows there is a general problem, but the sherrifs
>> (magistrates) comment about drivers is not good news.
The report is of a drunk Edinburgh cyclist ignoring red lights and a subsequent direction to stop from a copper in uniform. Idiot. A well deserved night in the cells and a £200 fine might make him a bit more careful/observant.
£6000 in fines from around 200 offenders is £30 each - that's the fixed penalty or running red on a bike. London probably had a similar 'spike' when the City and Met forces had a clampdown in late 2013.
A clampdown on motorists and buses amber gambling and nipping through in first second of red would stick a couple of noughts on that £6k.
We all need to stop it.
|
|
And the sherrifs comment that had he been hit by a motorist the focus would be on the motorist?
|
Foolish to defy a policeman drunkenly when you are technically in the wrong of course.
But crossing a red light with due caution at lightly trafficked times is perfectly OK in my book. There aren't many intersections where it's always dangerous to break a red. You just have to time it right.
This applies to all road user categories.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 16:38
|
>> But crossing a red light with due caution at lightly trafficked times is perfectly OK
>> in my book. There aren't many intersections where it's always dangerous to break a red.
>> You just have to time it right.
>>
Agreed.
There's a computer-controlled junction near me where all lights are red when it's quiet and oncoming traffic is given a green light. This works fine in a car but it doesn't pick up me on a bike. So I have no choice but to look carefully and go through on red.
It's a ropey system anyway, one morning it was jammed on red and after waiting five minutes I gave up and drove through anyway with main beam and hazards on. What else can you do at 4am?
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Sat 6 Jun 15 at 22:12
|
>> And the sherrifs comment that had he been hit by a motorist the focus would
>> be on the motorist?
The full quote is as follows:
You may not think it’s an offence but if you cycle through a red light at night when you have had something to drink, if you are knocked down or injured by another vehicle, the focus is on the driver, but if you don’t comply with the rules of the road, then it is likely this will happen. Police officers were right to take you aside.â€
Nothing new really to my reading. Same if a drunk pedestrian steps out in front and is knocked down. Enquiries will focus on the driver to extent of determining whether he may have failed to maintain a lookout or steer/brake/avoid or whether he was DUI himself.
|
|
So you think the motorist is always in the wrong until proven otherwise?
|
>> So you think the motorist is always in the wrong until proven otherwise?
No. I asked how the Sheriff's statement changed the status quo ante where motorists were expected to watch out.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoY3aDyahbc&feature=youtu.be
I'm only surprised that he posted it. Bet the MX5 driver nearly pee'd himself laughing.... I would have.
Also note a complete lack of rearward observation upon setting off, and also before overtaking the other cyclist. Lucky he didn't end up far worse.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 22:40
|
The lack of checking behind on any occasion and particularly before moving off/pulling out was lamentable. Failure to observe road ahead after flipping the bird at Johnny Mazda even more so.
In fact the camera was so steady at start that I briefly thought it was on the bike rather than rider's helmet.
I'm going to get into trouble with Mark for this observation but....
OTOH 'taking the road' through the pinch point might be advisable. Few such places are wide enough for a safe pass by a car but that won't stop the usual dopes (or hyper press on types) from trying.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 09:40
|
>
>> OTOH 'taking the road' through the pinch point might be advisable. Few such places are
>> wide enough for a safe pass by a car but that won't stop the usual
>> dopes (or hyper press on types) from trying.
Except of course at this point he tried to "take the road" AFTER the pinch point.
|
|
It seemed to me that the plonker on the bicycle was exactly the type who, in a car, would be one of the "hyper press on types". A numpty is still a numpty even if he is on a bike, indefensible, skill free behaviour
|
>> It seemed to me that the plonker on the bicycle was exactly the type who,
>> in a car, would be one of the "hyper press on types". A numpty is
>> still a numpty even if he is on a bike, indefensible, skill free behaviour
Indeed. Which reiterates the point Runfer makes in these threads - idiocy and 'attitude' are human characteristics present in all forms of transport.
|
> Except of course at this point he tried to "take the road" AFTER the pinch
>> point.
Agreed. I was, as ever, trying to explain what a cyclist might need to do in a given circumstance.
That's a different thing from justifying each and every specific instances of egregious behaviour which some folks believe is my habit.
|
>> That's a different thing from justifying each and every specific instances of egregious behaviour which
>> some folks believe is my habit.
I wonder why that might be? Do you have a possible explanation?
|
>> I wonder why that might be? Do you have a possible explanation?
Not biting.
|
There is a 'pinch point' near me where I always ignore the cycle route and take the road. Nothing to do with any politics but a simple case of tyre preservation. The cycle route is covered in scattered chippings, and other detritus and it is highly likely that a visit from the p*nct*re fairy would result. And woe betide anyone who gets a p*nct*re there, no footpath or verge to go in, the road is tree lined at that point.
There are a fair amount of 'cycle facilities' in my area that only serve to bolster the local authorities cycle lane figures and in fact are quite dangerous to use.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 14:05
|
>> There is a 'pinch point' near me where I always ignore the cycle route and
>> take the road. Nothing to do with any politics
Nothing 'political' should be read into my advocacy of 'taking the road' at pinchpoints. The technique is recommended by John Franklin in 'Cyclecraft', the nearest thing we have to an official riding manual.
|
"taking the road" is an entirely reasonable safety procedure when cycling.
However, it is interpreted by a number of cyclists on country roads around where I live in a somewhat aggressive manner where a single cyclist or a pair take the road for a number of miles on country roads at low speed building up a significant queue behind them instead of doing a road in a few stages stopping as appropriate to let a queue of cars pass.
It would be considered wrong if it was a tractor who refused to pull in and let a queue of cars past so it cannot be right for cyclists to do it.
I understand the need for cyclists safety and cars that push by when they shouldn't, I think the balancing courtesy is often forgotten by some of the two wheelers.
If it matters the usual roads I see it on are the A4155 between Marlow and Henley or between Marlow and Bourne End
To follow on from what I said earlier numpty motorists in one situation does not excuse numpty cyclists in other situations
Last edited by: commerdriver on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 16:21
|
Taking up the road for a number of miles and at low speed while not facilitating passing is unreasonable. OTOH needing to wait for a minute or so to pass on a hill or through a section of Z bends is just part of the UK road experience.
Round here it's quite unusual to go for long without finding a stretch where there is decent visibility and an opportunity to tuck in and let cars behind pass. Those who won't afford the cars that space when they can bring us all into disrepute.
Trying to co-ordinate a medium or large group in that sort of manoeuvre is more problematic. The Folding Society do a 'club' ride once a month sometimes getting 20+ Bromptons and other more esoteric folders and vintage machines out for a 20-30 mile spin. Try to avoid main roads as far as possible - some of the best have been on the redways and byways of Milton Keynes - but you need to link the lanes together somehow. Tail end Charlie, who keeps the riders further forward under control, is a skilled role.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 16:53
|
>> OTOH 'taking the road' through the pinch point might be advisable. Few such places are
>> wide enough for a safe pass by a car but that won't stop the usual
>> dopes (or hyper press on types) from trying.
>>
I don't think he was "taking the road" actually; simply in too much of a hurry to coast for a second or two behind the other cyclist who had quite sensibly slowed down to allow the lorry to pass him safely. My guess is that he hadn't been too impressed by being overtaken earlier by an ordinary citizen on a bicycle, think his ego might just have got the better of him.
|
>> I don't think he was "taking the road" actually;
No he wasn't. Missed need to 'own' road through the pinch and then pulled out after without doing a 'lifesaver'.
Numpty.
|
We are going around in circles in this country when we talk about cycling.
Unless the infrastructure is inproved we are never going to see more people cycling.It is a bit like sea defences the money won't be spend.
|
>> Unless the infrastructure is inproved we are never going to see more people cycling.It is
>> a bit like sea defences the money won't be spend.
It's an odd mix.
The sustrans type infrastructure making use of old railway lines, by ways etc is well developed and well used. But that's mostly out in the country and is of little use for the ordinary rider looking to go to the shops or to work.
Far too much of what there is in towns and cities is a mish-mash of bus lanes, relatively short cycle lanes and shared use pavements etc. In so far as they form 'routes' (ie links between defined places) there's no evidence of any proper standards and many examples are, in Manatee's phrase, dangerous by design. Northampton's efforts are typical.
London has tried the 'Cycle Superhighways' www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/routes-and-maps/cycle-superhighways but the earlier examples at least suffer from the defects listed above. Some parts are no more than blue paint in place of green. The section of CS2 round Bow was a death trap as originally set up. It's reported to have been improved since but is still no place for the faint hearted. The Aldgate end isn't much better.
The new East-West route looks good as a plan but may yet fail at the implementation stage. I'm not clear how it will avoid the problem of narrowness and junction confliction that afflict the current route from Bloomsbury to Tottenham Ct Road via Tavistock Way.
Does anybody have a local exemplar of how it should be done?
|
|
There are roads near me that cyclists are banned from.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 14 Jun 15 at 13:43
|
To make the changes is expensive there is no cheap way around it.The Dutch found that out when big money was spend on proper cycle paths segregated from fast traffic.
Anything can be done where there is a will there is a way.If any section for a cyclist is a deathtrap or not for the fain hearted it is not working is it?
|
Holland, if I remember rightly, decided that cycling was the answer to the fuel crisis after the Yom Kippur war. Thereafter spent a lot of money getting it right.
Here in UK we invariably try to do it on the cheap.
|
Holland is much smaller and flatter than this country.
In the first half of the last century there was a lot of enthusiasm for cycling, and roads built at that time often have cycle tracks alongside them. There are a good few miles of that on the A24 between London and here. But the cycle tracks aren't much used, all covered with gravel and cubes of toughened glass.
Quite a lot of cyclists on the roads round here though. People in speedos on proper racing bikes, usually alone, and younger people on more cumbersome mountain bike things, often in groups. They keep car drivers on their toes in the lanes. The temptation when you know every bend and every pothole is to go dangerously fast. It's taken me decades to learn that.
|
Is this confusing? - Crankcase
