Re: Hob Goblins on the TV.

[[email protected]]

On 19 Jul, 21:31, Walt Davidson > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:45:48 +0100, "Robin" > wrote:
> >Where does it say in HC that cyclists must use a cycle path?
> >Cycle paths would be ok if they were designed for high speed commuting,
> >unfortunately they are designed just to keep children cyclists away from
> >traffic. they are no use to a commuter cyclist that will be going at over 20
> >MPH.
> >http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=786
> >http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=300
>
> If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be required to pay
> road tax and third party insurance like the rest of us.
>
> I have absolutely no time for cyclists. *Typically, they cycle around
> town on unlit machines after dark, wearing black clothing. *They seem
> to believe that traffic signals and road signs do not apply to them.
> They cycle on public footpaths, on zebra crossings and in pedestrian
> precincts. *In the space of half an hour yesterday morning, I had to
> perform two emergency stops to avoid running over two middle-aged
> cyclists who suddenly cycled across pelican crossings when the lights
> were against them. *The whole community pays for cycle paths through
> council tax, and then the b*stards refuse to use them. *A plague on
> the lot of them!

"Suddenly", "emergency stop"?

0/10 for observational skills and hazard perception. Maybe it's time
for you to pay a visit to the opticians and/or sit a re-test.

[cager]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On 19 Jul, 21:31, Walt Davidson > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:45:48 +0100, "Robin" > wrote:
>> >Where does it say in HC that cyclists must use a cycle path?
>> >Cycle paths would be ok if they were designed for high speed commuting,
>> >unfortunately they are designed just to keep children cyclists away from
>> >traffic. they are no use to a commuter cyclist that will be going at over 20
>> >MPH.
>> >http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=786
>> >http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=300
>>
>> If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be required to pay
>> road tax and third party insurance like the rest of us.
>>
>> I have absolutely no time for cyclists. *Typically, they cycle around
>> town on unlit machines after dark, wearing black clothing. *They seem
>> to believe that traffic signals and road signs do not apply to them.
>> They cycle on public footpaths, on zebra crossings and in pedestrian
>> precincts. *In the space of half an hour yesterday morning, I had to
>> perform two emergency stops to avoid running over two middle-aged
>> cyclists who suddenly cycled across pelican crossings when the lights
>> were against them. *The whole community pays for cycle paths through
>> council tax, and then the b*stards refuse to use them. *A plague on
>> the lot of them!
>
>"Suddenly", "emergency stop"?
>
>0/10 for observational skills and hazard perception. Maybe it's time
>for you to pay a visit to the opticians and/or sit a re-test.

How about:

The cyclist was on the pavement where they often ride
I was a motorist on the road
The cyclist on the pavement reached a pelican crossing.
The lights were red for the cyclist
The lights were green for me
The cyclist rode across the crossing without stopping
This was a "sudden" action.
I had to carry out an emergency stop.
This happened twice to me within about half an hour

Now what were you saying about someone having to take a test - did
you mean all cyclists?

[[email protected]]

On 21 Jul, 07:02, cager > wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >On 19 Jul, 21:31, Walt Davidson > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:45:48 +0100, "Robin" > wrote:
> >> >Where does it say in HC that cyclists must use a cycle path?
> >> >Cycle paths would be ok if they were designed for high speed commuting,
> >> >unfortunately they are designed just to keep children cyclists away from
> >> >traffic. they are no use to a commuter cyclist that will be going at over 20
> >> >MPH.
> >> >http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=786
> >> >http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=300
>
> >> If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be required to pay
> >> road tax and third party insurance like the rest of us.
>
> >> I have absolutely no time for cyclists. *Typically, they cycle around
> >> town on unlit machines after dark, wearing black clothing. *They seem
> >> to believe that traffic signals and road signs do not apply to them.
> >> They cycle on public footpaths, on zebra crossings and in pedestrian
> >> precincts. *In the space of half an hour yesterday morning, I had to
> >> perform two emergency stops to avoid running over two middle-aged
> >> cyclists who suddenly cycled across pelican crossings when the lights
> >> were against them. *The whole community pays for cycle paths through
> >> council tax, and then the b*stards refuse to use them. *A plague on
> >> the lot of them!
>
> >"Suddenly", "emergency stop"?
>
> >0/10 for observational skills and hazard perception. Maybe it's time
> >for you to pay a visit to the opticians and/or sit a re-test.
>

[snip cager crap]

Your preconceptions are miles out, dimwit. I am predominately a car
driver, also a motorcyclist and occasional cyclist. My comment was
about a bigoted old fool with the observational skills of a myopic bat
who finds it necessary to do "emergency stops" when something
travelling at a few MPH "suddenly" appears in front of him.

Maybe you need a test in Usenet posting

[originating froup ukra reinstated]

[billy]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On 21 Jul, 07:02, cager > wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>> >On 19 Jul, 21:31, Walt Davidson > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:45:48 +0100, "Robin" > wrote:
>> >> >Where does it say in HC that cyclists must use a cycle path?
>> >> >Cycle paths would be ok if they were designed for high speed commuting,
>> >> >unfortunately they are designed just to keep children cyclists away from
>> >> >traffic. they are no use to a commuter cyclist that will be going at over 20
>> >> >MPH.
>> >> >http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=786
>> >> >http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=300
>>
>> >> If cyclists want to use the roads, then they should be required to pay
>> >> road tax and third party insurance like the rest of us.
>>
>> >> I have absolutely no time for cyclists. *Typically, they cycle around
>> >> town on unlit machines after dark, wearing black clothing. *They seem
>> >> to believe that traffic signals and road signs do not apply to them.
>> >> They cycle on public footpaths, on zebra crossings and in pedestrian
>> >> precincts. *In the space of half an hour yesterday morning, I had to
>> >> perform two emergency stops to avoid running over two middle-aged
>> >> cyclists who suddenly cycled across pelican crossings when the lights
>> >> were against them. *The whole community pays for cycle paths through
>> >> council tax, and then the b*stards refuse to use them. *A plague on
>> >> the lot of them!
>>
>> >"Suddenly", "emergency stop"?
>>
>> >0/10 for observational skills and hazard perception. Maybe it's time
>> >for you to pay a visit to the opticians and/or sit a re-test.
>>
>
>[snip cager crap]
>
>Your preconceptions are miles out, dimwit. I am predominately a car
>driver, also a motorcyclist and occasional cyclist. My comment was
>about a bigoted old fool with the observational skills of a myopic bat
>who finds it necessary to do "emergency stops" when something
>travelling at a few MPH "suddenly" appears in front of him.


Perhaps you could tell us as what you do if another vehicle appears in
front of you?

and then : When would you carry out an emergency stop?

[Daniel Barlow]

billy > writes:

> Perhaps you could tell us as what you do if another vehicle appears in
> front of you?

I can't tell if you're the same anonymous poster as the previous
anonymous poster, but in that case he says the cyclist was clearly
visible on the pavement.

Not to have anticipated the possibility he'd move onto the road at a
crossing would be an instant fail in a driving test. There's even a
computerised hazard perception test that all candidates have to do
these days, just in case there isn't a zebra crossing on the test
route.

> and then : When would you carry out an emergency stop?

I trust you are aware of the aphorism that the superior driver uses
his superior observation skills to avoid situations where he may need
to use his superior driving skills.

Vehicles (or any other road users) very rarely just "appear". More
usually they move from one place to another. Sometimes they move from
places where you cannot see them to places that you can: this is why
the maxim is "drive within the distance you can see to be clear", not
"the distance you imagine ought to be clear".


-dan

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:02:40 +0100, cager wrote:

> How about:
>
> The cyclist was on the pavement where they often ride
> I was a motorist on the road
> The cyclist on the pavement reached a pelican crossing.
> The lights were red for the cyclist
> The lights were green for me
> The cyclist rode across the crossing without stopping
> This was a "sudden" action.
> I had to carry out an emergency stop.
> This happened twice to me within about half an hour

Compare this to my ride home yesterday where I stopped for a pedestrian at
a zebra crossing but the car behind me (who could clearly see the
pedestrian - my head isn't that big) sped up and went over the crossing,
nearly hitting both me and the pedestrian. The driver didn't gain
anything from this either, as the level crossing was down a few yards down
the road causing a long queue.

Then there was the cement mixer who drove through a set of traffic lights
while they were on red for him, nearly taking out the cars who were going
through the junction as the lights were on green for them.

*All* idiots should be removed from the road, whether they are walking,
rding or driving.

peter

[Ekul Namsob]

naked_draughtsman > wrote:

> *All* idiots should be removed from the road, whether they are walking,
> rding or driving.

Agreed. I would remove the driver who, this morning, drove across the
pelican crossing where I was taking my daughter to school. The lights
for the driver were green. The school crossing lady, however, was
holding up a large stop sign and wearing high-viz. Small children
sometimes don't manage to cross the road between the time when the light
begins to flash and the time when it turns red.

As has been mentioned before, all classes of road user include idiots.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[JNugent[_4_]]

naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:02:40 +0100, cager wrote:
>
>> How about:
>>
>> The cyclist was on the pavement where they often ride
>> I was a motorist on the road
>> The cyclist on the pavement reached a pelican crossing.
>> The lights were red for the cyclist
>> The lights were green for me
>> The cyclist rode across the crossing without stopping
>> This was a "sudden" action.
>> I had to carry out an emergency stop.
>> This happened twice to me within about half an hour
>
> Compare this to my ride home yesterday where I stopped for a pedestrian at
> a zebra crossing but the car behind me (who could clearly see the
> pedestrian - my head isn't that big) sped up and went over the crossing,
> nearly hitting both me and the pedestrian. The driver didn't gain
> anything from this either, as the level crossing was down a few yards down
> the road causing a long queue.
>
> Then there was the cement mixer who drove through a set of traffic lights
> while they were on red for him, nearly taking out the cars who were going
> through the junction as the lights were on green for them.
>
> *All* idiots should be removed from the road, whether they are walking,
> rding or driving.
>
> peter

So what would you *do* about daft pedestrians?

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:27:47 +0100, JNugent wrote:

> So what would you *do* about daft pedestrians?

Good point. There would need to be an offence of dangerous/careless
walking - I can see that going through parliament easily and being
strictly enforced by the police. Is walking in the road illegal in some
other countries?

peter

[JNugent[_4_]]

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> So what would you *do* about daft pedestrians?

> Good point. There would need to be an offence of dangerous/careless
> walking - I can see that going through parliament easily and being
> strictly enforced by the police. Is walking in the road illegal in some
> other countries?

Legendarily so in some states of the USA (perhaps all of them).

[Matt B]

naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:27:47 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>
>> So what would you *do* about daft pedestrians?
>
> Good point. There would need to be an offence of dangerous/careless
> walking - I can see that going through parliament easily and being
> strictly enforced by the police. Is walking in the road illegal in some
> other countries?

Isn't "walking" in the road illegal in some circumstances in this
country? Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1
and 2 on the Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?

--
Matt B

[Nick Finnigan]

Matt B wrote:
>
> Isn't "walking" in the road illegal in some circumstances in this
> country?

Motorway (or big A road in Scotland where the MSPs can't say Motorway)

>Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1
> and 2 on the Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?

Unless there is a 'red spear at an angle through a pedestrian' sign.

[Clive George]

"Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
...
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> Isn't "walking" in the road illegal in some circumstances in this
>> country?
>
> Motorway (or big A road in Scotland where the MSPs can't say Motorway)
>
>>Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1 and 2 on the
>>Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?
>
> Unless there is a 'red spear at an angle through a pedestrian' sign.

Does it actually need the spear bit? Won't a person in a red circle do?

cheers,
clive

[Neil Williams[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:35:00 +0100, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>Does it actually need the spear bit? Won't a person in a red circle do?

I think it will. Better, though, than the somewhat contradictory "no
builders wearing hard hats shouting and waving their hand at you"
signs you sometimes seem to get.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

[Nick Finnigan]

Clive George wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt B wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1 and 2 on the
>>>Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?
>>
>> Unless there is a 'red spear at an angle through a pedestrian' sign.
>
>
> Does it actually need the spear bit? Won't a person in a red circle do?

If you know the sign conventions, that would do, but TPTB presumably
want the extra emphasis, to make it more ominous.

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B > writes:

> Isn't "walking" in the road illegal in some circumstances in this
> country? Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1
> and 2 on the Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?

If you are causing traffic chaos, you are probably wilfully and
without lawful cause or excuse obstructing the right of others to pass
and repass: if so, I would suggest that this is covered by existing
legislation irrespective of whether you're walking or piloting a giant
hamster ball

I assume that you have no sensible reason for zigzagging: if you
have, this changes matters

-dan

[Matt B]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Matt B > writes:
>
>> Isn't "walking" in the road illegal in some circumstances in this
>> country? Can you, say, legally walk zig-zagedly along between lanes 1
>> and 2 on the Hammersmith Flyover, causing traffic chaos?
>
> If you are causing traffic chaos, you are probably wilfully and
> without lawful cause or excuse obstructing the right of others to pass
> and repass: if so, I would suggest that this is covered by existing
> legislation irrespective of whether you're walking or piloting a giant
> hamster ball

OK, so "walking", or indeed riding or driving, on the road /can/ be
illegal in this country. The criterion is whether any obstruction which
may be being caused is "wilful".

So could I /legally/ walk along the bus lanes in central London during
the rush hour, carrying a double mattress, with no fear of prosecution?

--
Matt B

[Brimstone[_5_]]

Matt B wrote:

> So could I /legally/ walk along the bus lanes in central London during
> the rush hour, carrying a double mattress, with no fear of
> prosecution?

Unlikely, you'd get done for carrying an unsecure load, unless it was
strapped to your back.