From: Dave Larrington on 19 Dec 2007 04:06
Brimstone <brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
> As would not "driving Minis as fast I could around roundabouts" thus
> giving the other drivers time to see you.
In most of the Minis I've driven, that's about 7 mph
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something
that folds, buy a deckchair.
From: Roger Thorpe on 19 Dec 2007 05:13
> Nonsense, everyone has a speed at which they feel comfortable, this will
> vary from situation to situation and with the amount of other traffic,
> at this speed they are aware and concentrating on what they are doing,
> make them go slower and their mind wanders, out of boredom and their
> attention drops.
This is the least convincing argument that I've heard. I sometimes
travel for eight hours or so at an average of 16 MPH with no trouble at
From: Adrian on 19 Dec 2007 05:20
Rob Morley (Rob Morley <nospam(a)ntlworld.com>) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
>> Does that ring any bells (like the ones that should be fitted to the
>> bicycle but are not?)
> What function do you think a bell serves, other than to warn a
other road user
> of the approach of a bicycle?
None whatsoever. Same as a horn on a car doesn't. In fact the HC
specifically says that's all it's for.
It's still a legal requirement.
From: Roger Thorpe on 19 Dec 2007 05:28
Clive George wrote:
> Safety when not obeying them isn't an absolute - just as you say safe
> speed isn't the absolute prescribed figure. It depends on the
> circumstances - what other vehicles/people are present, how much can you
> see, how fast are they going. You're very keen on observing the hazards
> and making an appropriate decision when it comes to speed limits - why
> not apply this to other laws too? After all, it's easy to provide cases
> where it is perfectly safe to ignore a red traffic light - and indeed,
> it's even easy to provide them where it's not only safe, but doesn't
> even slightly affect other road users.
> And that applies no matter what your mode of transport. Of course, the
> fact that it's rather easier when you're small, manoeverable and have
> better opportunities for observation could be a reason for considering
> some modes rather more than others (and indeed the law recognises this
> to an extent).
Yes, you can get away with it without reducing your own safety too much,
but really, as a cyclist I'd rather you didn't do it. This sort of
behaviour just erodes our status as legitimate road users and
antagonises some motorists.
From: Peter Clinch on 19 Dec 2007 05:31
> It's still a legal requirement.
To be fitted at sale, not to be fitted in use.
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/