Should I or shouldn't I?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: JNugent on 5 Jul 2008 15:40 Rob Morley wrote: > %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >> The fac that a rule has the backing of criminal law for some users >> does not mean that the rule may be ignored by all users. > Obviously not - it may only be ignored by those users to whom it does > not apply. "Ignored", regardless of the reasons why it was enacted (even if it expressed only within a section of an Act which refers to motor vehicles? Or not exactly ignored but "breached" with due diligence? >> Do you think >> that it was sensible for Crispin, the person who instructs others how >> to ride a bicycle, to overtake a line of stationary traffic in the >> circumstances that led to an accident? > Just as sensible as riding down a road with a row of parked vehicles at > the side. You would never expect all of the parked cars in a row next to the kerb to sprout drivers, have their engines turned on and to move off one after the other, all within a few seconds. Well, no-one normal would.
From: Tom Crispin on 5 Jul 2008 16:04 On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:40:21 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote: >You would never expect all of the parked cars in a row next to the kerb >to sprout drivers, have their engines turned on and to move off one >after the other, all within a few seconds. > >Well, no-one normal would. 20% of deaths and serious injuries among London's cyclists are by a driver or passenger opening their car door into the path of a cyclist.
From: Alex Heney on 5 Jul 2008 17:34 On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:29:39 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Rob Morley <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100 >> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >> > >> > Note that 165 and 191 make reference to two separate vehicles. That is >> > that in the circumstances where one vehicle has stopped and another is >> > moving one may not overtake either. >> > >> > And the Highway Code applies to cycles. They are specifically >> > included. >> >> The Highway Code is only a general guide to legislation and good >> practice. The relevant legislation in this case specifies that it >> applies only to motor vehicles. >> >> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24> >> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#28> > >I did not state that Crispin should be prosecuted. No, but you quoted it as a "MUST", which in the HC means that it is (supposedly) a legal requirement. It would seem that in this case, it is only a legal requirement for motor vehicles, not for bikes. Which doesn't really make you wrong, since you only quoted the HC, but it does make the HC wrong. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Nobody home but the lights, and they're out too. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 5 Jul 2008 17:58 On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:20:42 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:20:00 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >wrote: > >>Danny Colyer <danny_colyer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/07/2008 17:46, Steve Firth wrote: >>> > And, apparently the Tom Crispin who missed the Highway Code instruction >>> > that one must not overtake a vehicle in a zigzag zone. >>> >>> Rule 165: >>> "You MUST NOT overtake ... the nearest vehicle to a pedestrian crossing". >>> >>> Rule 191: >>> You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the >>> vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. >>> >>> I have seen no suggestion that Tom was overtaking the *nearest* vehicle >>> to a pedestrian crossing. >> >>His description of the circumstances makes it soudn that it was the >>nearest vehicle to the pedestrian crossing. > >Does this help? >www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/positions > >It wasn't me crossing the zigzags, but the van clearly intended to do >so, and indeed would have to to reach the loading bay. It may have intended doing so, if indeed it was aiming for the loading bay, but it certainly had not done so at the point you show it having hit you. So the zig-zags are irrelevant to any decision about fault. But there are actually three separate things he could reasonably have pulled out for. He could have been attempting to turn right into the junction. Or he could have been going for the parking space marked at the spot you shave shown yourself ending up. Or he could have been going for the loading bay. Given all these possibilities, you really should have been prepared for somebody to pull out And if the positions of the bike and the van at the end are accurate, then it is almost impossible that you were actually past the van when he started pulling out. Based on what you have told us, and on what you have drawn in to that photo, I really think you will be doing well to get better than 50%, even in court. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager I didn't cheat, I just changed the Rules! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
From: Alex Heney on 5 Jul 2008 17:58
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:08:35 +0100, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:07:57 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >wrote: > >>Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >> >>> >>> Does this help? >>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/positions >> >>Not a great deal. >> >>> It wasn't me crossing the zigzags, but the van clearly intended to do >>> so, and indeed would have to to reach the loading bay. >> >>Yes, looking at that the existence of the zig-zag seems completely >>irrelevant to the accident. >> >>I'd be assessing that as 50:50 responsibility for the accident. You were >>apparently overtaking on the "wrong" side of the road at a junction. >>That's a foolish location to attempt to overtake a vehicle. > >It's odd how your assessment is at odds with everyone else. > No it isn't. It is what I have been saying all along, and what I still think is most likely, after seeing the photo. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager I didn't cheat, I just changed the Rules! To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |