Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Steve Firth on 28 Nov 2009 06:42 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > There was an element of exaggeration in Steve's post I think, 25 mph? Peter Messen.
From: JNugent on 28 Nov 2009 07:46 Peter Grange wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:51:26 +0000, JNugent > <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:37:18 -0000, "mileburner" >>> <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:1j9ueyx.1mu5i2w1uedkqdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... >>>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by a motorist, but a >>>>>> cyclist has managed to do this. >>>>> Walking on pavements in London I have to dodge a flying cyclist every >>>>> few hundred yards. Just a walk from place to work to sandwich bar can >>>>> see me dodging a dozen or more pavement cyclists. Even more galling >>>>> because there's a cycle lane on the pavement bu the cyclists choose not >>>>> to use them. I've not had to dodge a single car in the last twelve >>>>> months. >>>>> >>>>> There are also "Give Way" markings for cyclists which are use whenever >>>>> the cycle lane crosses the pavement. Would you like to guess how many >>>>> cyclists obey those markings? >>>> What I have often wondered about those multitude of give way markers on >>>> cycle routes is who the cyclist is supposed to give way to. The complexity >>>> of some of them, (where there are pedestrians and traffic at a junction) is >>>> so great that it is far easier to just use the road, and its safer. >>>> >>> Which is one of my objections to most shared-pavement cycle lanes. The >>> cyclist is expected to stop and give way at every side turning off the >>> road to which the cycle lane is parallel. >> Not "expected" - "required". > Wow, that _really_ makes a difference. It certainly does. It means that a cyclist who fails to do give way at such a spot, and is consequently involved in an accident, is at fault. >> Though "give way" doesn't actually mean "stop". If there is no-one using the >> crossed route at that particular point and time, it is possible to give way >> without stopping. >>> In some cases this means a stop every few yards, >> Maybe (though rarely). That would be at one end of the continuum. >>> whereas on the road the cyclist, along with the >>> motorised traffic, has right-of-way over traffic joining from the side >>> road. This makes using the cycle lane for commuting, or any other >>> reason where time matters, a no-no, and puts the cyclist at risk at >>> each crossing point. There would be an uproar if the priorities were >>> reversed for motorised traffic, where safety would doubtless be raised >>> as an issue. >> Quite. > Indeed. You agree it's dangerous then. I certainly do. No footway should *ever* have a cyclepath marked out on it. Bikes belong on the carriageway and nowhere else except when crossing to get onto private land or a legitimate parking place (just as with other vehicles).
From: Mark Goodge on 28 Nov 2009 07:49 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:42:54 +0000, Steve Firth put finger to keyboard and typed: >Keitht <KeithT> wrote: >> >> That would be the same reason a set of lights was installed at a minor >> crossroads near me -- drivers never seemed to understand 'give way' and >> managed to run in to each other constantly. >> Now they just run the red lights as if they didn't exist and still smash >> in to each other. > >You're a liar, HTH. Oddly enough, I think he may be right, at least up to a point. It's entirely plausible that the small minority of drivers who flouted the law and drove dangerously when it was just a "give way" junction are the same small minority who drive dangerously and flout the law after the lights were installed. Obviously if KeithT is suggesting that most drivers - or even a significant minority of them - run red lights on a regular basis then he's clearly an idiot. But the idea that the best way to deal with drivers who break existing laws, regulations and directions is to replace them with something stronger is itself a bit daft. Mark -- Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
From: PeterG on 28 Nov 2009 08:07 On Nov 27, 9:47 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 > 09:48:29 +0000 the perfect time to write: > > > > >On 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > >>like they were saying: > > >>>> Perhaps you could clarify what you said. Are you proposing that killer > >>>> cyclists should face appropriate jail sentences or are you proposing > >>>> that the law should be enforced as it has been to-date. In a weak, > >>>> ineffective manners which permits cyclists to kill and then walk free? > > >>> As far as I am concerned, if you unlawfully kill someone whilst riding a > >>> bike that is not substantially different from unlawfully killing someone > >>> whilst driving a car. What have I said which makes you think I believe > >>> differently? > > >>You should believe differently, because it is different. > > >>There is no equivalent, applicable to cycling, to the offences of Causing > >>Death by Dangerous Driving or Causing Death by Careless Driving. > > >>They were introduced specifically because, in the case of a road > >>collision, it's very difficult to prove the gross negligence required for > >>a Manslaughter conviction - basically, juries were very reluctant to > >>convict because of the "There but for the grace..." angle. CDbDD and > >>CDbCD carry much less onerous tests, so are considerably easier to prove > >>- and thereby convict. > > >>Which all means that, yes, there IS a substantial difference between > >>unlawfully killing someone whilst riding a bike and unlawfully killing > >>someone whilst driving a car - and that the cyclist IS much more likely > >>to walk free. > > >There are legal differences. However if you kill someone as a result > >of a deliberate act or a failure to take due care whilst performing a > >potentially dangerous activity (like driving, cycling, walking, waving > >a chainsaw about in your local Tesco etc) you should be held to > >account. There are differences in the frequency of deaths resulting > >from various activities, which is why the laws are different, but for > >the victim it's 100% the same. > > The surviving relatives are more likely to feel that their dearly > departed has been judged as having some value if the instrument of > their death is something other than a motor vehicle though. > And of course, the same goes for injured survivors. Well there you have it, a cyclist believes it is better to be killed by a bike than to be killed by a car. Ans its better if you are injured by a bike than by a car. Is this a typical cyclist (it would explain why they ride on pavements) or a typical tossser? Of course it could be both. PeterG
From: johnwright ""john" on 28 Nov 2009 08:16
NM wrote: > On 28 Nov, 09:54, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: >> johnwright > wrote: >>> NM wrote: >>>> On 27 Nov, 09:35, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> NM wrote: >>>>>> On 27 Nov, 00:31, Paul Weaver <use...(a)isorox.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 26 Nov, 18:25, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: >>>>>>>> Doesn't make it legal. They probably are not enlightened just >>>>>>>> trying to avoid filling in the reams of paperwork they would need >>>>>>>> to if they stop a cyclist for any offence. >>>>>>> Or indeed stop anyone for any offence. I've certainly been let off >>>>>>> with warnings while driving plenty of times. >>>>>>> Having said that, I have delightedly seen cyclists given FPNs for >>>>>>> pavement cycling in London :) >>>>>> Good, more of that is required. >>>>> I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the >>>>> traffic and >>>>> make it safer for everyone. >>>> And the attrition rate amoungst cyclists will increase. >>> Perhaps that's why more women cyclists get killed. Women as a cohort >>> tend to be more compliant than men. >> I see no one has taken this particular point on so I feel the need to >> expand on it a little. Years ago I was a gliding instructor and did >> around 4-500 trial lessons as they call them. In this the "pupil" sits >> in the front and the instructor sits in the back. You can talk but not >> interact in any other way. This is unscientific in the sense that no one >> planned it, but almost without exception if the passenger was a young >> woman I could persuade her to land the glider on her very first flight >> simply by telling her what to do. This never ever happened with a young >> man, since they were not inclined to be compliant. > When I was taking my PPL instruction the best instructors were women > who without exception let you make mistakes then showed you what you > did wrong whereas the 'men' (usually mere boys trying to get some > instruction hours under their belt towards their CPL) would delight in > showing you how much better they could do it than you. I suspect that's part of the same difference. I hope its not considered un-PC to say it :-) > When I did taildragger the pilot insisted on yelling 'I have control' > during the crucial last couple of feet before the deck whereas the > lady just let me hit the ground and bounce a couple of time, later > calmly discussing my errors, result I took to it like a duck to water, > the difference being she didn't have to prove anything and her > dominance/manhood was not an issue. Indeed. Perhaps that amongst the moral panic about men and children says why women end up as better primary school teachers. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |