It appears that it is dangerous to stop at red lights. :-)
tinyurl.com/czqr84w
|
|
Doesn't normally bother them :)
|
Looks like officialdom in some form has killed this triathlon ride off. In previous years a 'by-pass' of the lights has been allowed by coning off a lane - probably to allow a left turn irrespective of the lights.
A pragmatic solution or blatant exception to the law according to one's POV.
This time the powers have said no. A loss to local business as well as the riders.
|
>> Looks like officialdom in some form has killed this triathlon ride off. In previous years
>> a 'by-pass' of the lights has been allowed by coning off a lane - probably
>> to allow a left turn irrespective of the lights.
>>
>> A pragmatic solution or blatant exception to the law according to one's POV.
I think a coned off left turn, that kept traffic away from the cyclists, IS a pragmatic solution. However that only works where the cyclists wish to turn left AND the road layout is large enough to allow it.
What happens if the cyclists wish to go straight through a set of lights?...(and the report said there were six sets).
You either need a Traffic Order to close the whole road...or..the cyclists have to obey all the laws and Highway Code. Anything in the middle is a fudge.
>>
>> This time the powers have said no. A loss to local business as well as
>> the riders.
The local powers didn't say 'no'. They said 'Yes, but comply with all the laws and Highway Code'. I'd agree in such a race that would be a farce...but nevertheless they didn't say 'no'.
I wonder if the organisers failed to plan fully and apply for a Traffic Order from the local authority (which is expensive). In the old days, many events relied on a wink and a nod and a hope that the local Police would facilitate it anyway...nowadays the closing of the roads etc is very much a local authority issue and the wink and nod long gone.
|
Another cycling one. - Fullchat
