Don't filter on the inside of lorries at junctions, it is quite simple. [Archive]

JNugent[_7_]

November 10th 10, 08:23 PM

On 10/11/2010 20:05, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, > wrote:
>> On 10/11/2010 10:52, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
>>>> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>>>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>
>>> Just the opposite is encouraged judging from this.
>>
>>> http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/assets/images/image1209.png
>>
>> Yes, but the point is that it shouldn't be, for more than one reason.
>
> Why not?

Because it is dangerous (there's plenty of evidence for that) and because it
is a form of queue-jumping, which is against all the best traditions of the
British people.

I don't like queuing either, but sometimes we have to. It's life as we know it.

> On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> no bother with them at all.

And you're all that matters, aren't you?

> Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> at their stop line.

You're all that matters, aren't you?

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 10th 10, 08:32 PM

On Nov 10, 8:23*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 20:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2010 10:52, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> >>>> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> >>>>http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo....
>
> >>> Just the opposite is encouraged judging from this.
>
> >>>http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/assets/images/image1209.png
>
> >> Yes, but the point is that it shouldn't be, for more than one reason.
>
> > Why not?
>
> Because it is dangerous (there's plenty of evidence for that) and because it
> is a form of queue-jumping, which is against all the best traditions of the
> British people.
>
> I don't like queuing either, but sometimes we have to. It's life as we know it.
>
> > On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> > no bother with them at all.
>
> And you're all that matters, aren't you?
>
> > Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> > line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> > at their stop line.
>
> You're all that matters, aren't you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not at all, but if I wanted to queue, I'd use my car.
On my bike I expect not to queue and the ASLs would suggest the
Council does not expect us to either.

--
Simon Mason

thirty-six

November 10th 10, 08:48 PM

JMS

November 10th 10, 08:51 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:05:38 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 7:00*pm, JNugent > wrote:
>> On 10/11/2010 10:52, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > *wrote:
>> >> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
>> >> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>> >>http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>
>> > Just the opposite is encouraged judging from this.
>>
>> >http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/assets/images/image1209.png
>>
>> Yes, but the point is that it shouldn't be, for more than one reason.
>
>Why not?
>On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
>no bother with them at all.
>Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
>line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
>at their stop line.

So another case where you routinely break the law?

--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 10th 10, 09:02 PM

On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:

>
> >Why not?
> >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> >no bother with them at all.
> >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> >at their stop line.
>
> So another case where you routinely break the law?

I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
line.
I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
and then remount.
All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.

Out of interest, where do I otherwise break the law?
--
Simon Mason

The Medway Handyman[_3_]

November 10th 10, 09:23 PM

JNugent wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 20:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, > wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2010 10:52, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>>>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead
>>>>> vehicle waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>>
>>>>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>>
>>>> Just the opposite is encouraged judging from this.
>>>
>>>> http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/assets/images/image1209.png
>>>
>>> Yes, but the point is that it shouldn't be, for more than one
>>> reason.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because it is dangerous (there's plenty of evidence for that) and
> because it is a form of queue-jumping, which is against all the best
> traditions of the British people.

Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the very low
speed of their non viable form of transport.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 10th 10, 09:29 PM

On Nov 10, 9:23*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> wrote:

>
> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the very low
> speed of their non viable form of transport.

If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
vehicles slower than them.
Which would be cars.
That's why cycles often win city centre commuter races such as the
infamous Top Gear one where Richard Hammond beat the tube, a car and
even a speedboat with Clarkson in it.

--
Simon Mason

Peter Keller

November 10th 10, 09:38 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:02:48 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-
lorry.6619997.jp

A few, but not many as the cops can't be everywhere.
My condolences to Philip Lecutier's family.
However is is totally stupid to filter inside a lorry, especially if the
lights might turn green. The drive cannot see you. Even if a bike lane
is marked, the back of the lorry can swing into it as he makes the turn.
I wait behind lorries, then follow them around the turn, and ensure I can
see the driver's face via his external mirror. That way he can see me.
If the lights are red, it might be justifiable to carefully filter
through, but be prepared to immediately jump onto the footpath if it
starts moving!
Incidentally, did the lorry have side guards? The report did not say.
They may have reduced death to serious injury or less.

Peter

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 10th 10, 09:45 PM

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:51 pm, JMS > wrote:
>
>>
>>> Why not?
>>> On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have
>>> had no bother with them at all.
>>> Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my
>>> stop line to get the same start that I would have had if they had
>>> stopped at their stop line.
>>
>> So another case where you routinely break the law?
>
> I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
> line.
> I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
> and then remount.

yes, of course you do, I believe you.

thirty-six

November 10th 10, 11:02 PM

On Nov 10, 9:38*pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:02:48 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:
> > How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-
>
> lorry.6619997.jp
>
> A few, but not many as the cops can't be everywhere.
> My condolences to Philip Lecutier's family.
> However is is totally stupid to filter inside a lorry, especially if the
> lights might turn green. *The drive cannot see you. *Even if a bike lane
> is marked, the back of the lorry can swing into it as he makes the turn. *
> I wait behind lorries, then follow them around the turn, and ensure I can
> see the driver's face via his external mirror. *That way he can see me.
> If the lights are red, it might be justifiable to carefully filter
> through, but be prepared to immediately jump onto the footpath if it
> starts moving!
> Incidentally, did the lorry have side guards? *The report did not say. *
> They may have reduced death to serious injury or less.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> 67.4% of statistics are made up.

"skip loader wagon." - Killer type goods vehicle number 1

With the wagon unloaded, these are nimble beasts, not for the unwary
to go near. These machines are usually operated to no standard at
all, your suggestion of a guard rail is met with muted laughter.

thirty-six

November 10th 10, 11:06 PM

On Nov 10, 9:02*pm, Simon Mason > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
>
>
> > >Why not?
> > >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> > >no bother with them at all.
> > >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> > >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> > >at their stop line.
>
> > So another case where you routinely break the law?
>
> I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
> line.
> I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
> and then remount.

Get away, go on pull the other pne, it's got bells on it.

> All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.

Abandoning the controls of a vehicle on the public highway, are you
sure that is legal?

>
> Out of interest, where do I otherwise break the law?
> --
> Simon Mason

The Medway Handyman[_3_]

November 10th 10, 11:56 PM

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the
>> very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
> vehicles slower than them.

Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.

The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they are
obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at much faster
rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt to make up for the
pathic speed they maintain overall.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

The Medway Handyman[_3_]

November 10th 10, 11:59 PM

thirty-six wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:38 pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:02:48 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead
>>> vehicle waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-
>>
>> lorry.6619997.jp
>>
>> A few, but not many as the cops can't be everywhere.
>> My condolences to Philip Lecutier's family.
>> However is is totally stupid to filter inside a lorry, especially if
>> the lights might turn green. The drive cannot see you. Even if a
>> bike lane is marked, the back of the lorry can swing into it as he
>> makes the turn. I wait behind lorries, then follow them around the
>> turn, and ensure I can see the driver's face via his external
>> mirror. That way he can see me. If the lights are red, it might be
>> justifiable to carefully filter through, but be prepared to
>> immediately jump onto the footpath if it starts moving!
>> Incidentally, did the lorry have side guards? The report did not say.
>> They may have reduced death to serious injury or less.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> 67.4% of statistics are made up.
>
> "skip loader wagon." - Killer type goods vehicle number 1
>
> With the wagon unloaded, these are nimble beasts, not for the unwary
> to go near. These machines are usually operated to no standard at
> all, your suggestion of a guard rail is met with muted laughter.

Why should the operators of skip lorries be burdened with the expense of
fitting side guard rails?

Much cheaper to place a sign on the back saying "Cyclists - don't be ****ing
stupid".

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Peter Keller

November 11th 10, 12:43 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:02:03 -0800, thirty-six wrote:

>
> "skip loader wagon." - Killer type goods vehicle number 1
>
> With the wagon unloaded, these are nimble beasts, not for the unwary to
> go near. These machines are usually operated to no standard at all,
> your suggestion of a guard rail is met with muted laughter.

Ok point taken :)
All the more reason for bicyclists to stay behind them and follow them
around corners.

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 06:36 AM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the
>>> very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>> vehicles slower than them.
>
>Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
>The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they are
>obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at much faster
>rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt to make up for the
>pathic speed they maintain overall.

That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
even more pathetic speed of motorists.

Tony Raven[_3_]

November 11th 10, 07:00 AM

Tom Crispin > wrote:

> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> even more pathetic speed of motorists.

In London colleagues taking a cab to the next meeting or back to the
station have never yet got there before me on my Brompton - and with a
cab they don't even need to spend time finding parking and walking
to/from it.

--
Tony

Derek C

November 11th 10, 07:34 AM

On Nov 11, 6:36*am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Simon Mason wrote:
> >> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the
> >>> very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> >> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
> >> vehicles slower than them.
>
> >Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
> >The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they are
> >obeying traffic lights. *Once the lights change they proceed at much faster
> >rates than push bikes. *Cyclist queue jump in an atempt to make up for the
> >pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As far as I can see, cyclists in London seem to have a motto of 'I
will not stop for anything'. This includes red traffic lights,
pedestrian crossings, no entry signs, etc, etc!

Derek C

Doug[_3_]

November 11th 10, 08:02 AM

On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>
How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?

BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 11th 10, 09:15 AM

Doug wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead
>> vehicle waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>
> How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.

cyclists are the ones that put themselves into these stupid places, why does
it become everyone else's responsibility what happens to them when they are
there? If people did not take chances and put themselves into dangerous
situations then the road death figures would plummet.

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 11:56 AM

On Nov 11, 6:36*am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Simon Mason wrote:
> >> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for the
> >>> very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> >> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
> >> vehicles slower than them.
>
> >Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
> >The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they are
> >obeying traffic lights. *Once the lights change they proceed at much faster
> >rates than push bikes. *Cyclist queue jump in an atempt to make up for the
> >pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's why cyclists regulary win cross city commute challenges.
--
Simon Mason

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 11:58 AM

On Nov 10, 11:06*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 9:02*pm, Simon Mason > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
> > > >Why not?
> > > >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> > > >no bother with them at all.
> > > >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> > > >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> > > >at their stop line.
>
> > > So another case where you routinely break the law?
>
> > I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
> > line.
> > I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
> > and then remount.
>
> Get away, go on pull the other pne, it's got bells on it.
>
> > All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.
>
> Abandoning the controls of a vehicle on the public highway, are you
> sure that is legal?
>

Perfectly.
On the rare occasions I have to use a zebra crossing, I will dismount
and carry my cycle across as a pedestrian.
Not a particularly difficult task.
--
Simon Mason

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 11th 10, 12:35 PM

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
>>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>>>> vehicles slower than them.
>>
>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
>>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
>>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
>>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>>
>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
>> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That's why cyclists regulary win cross city commute challenges.

and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 02:41 PM

On Nov 11, 12:35*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> Simon Mason wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> >>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
> >>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> >>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
> >>>> vehicles slower than them.
>
> >>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
> >>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
> >>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
> >>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
> >>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> >> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> >> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>
> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No.
These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
law.
That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
the speed limit.
In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
way.

--
Simon Mason

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 11th 10, 03:32 PM

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
>>>>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>>>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are
>>>>>> passing vehicles slower than them.
>>
>>>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>>>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
>>>>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
>>>>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
>>>>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>>
>>>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that
>>>> the even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>
>> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No.
> These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
> law.
> That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
> the speed limit.
> In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
> had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
> calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
> way.

How did the film crew keep up? or was it just a made up TV show challenge
that did not actually happen the way it was portrayed?

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 05:14 PM

On Nov 11, 3:32*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Simon Mason wrote:
> >>> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> >>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
> >>>>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> >>>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are
> >>>>>> passing vehicles slower than them.
>
> >>>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
> >>>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
> >>>>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
> >>>>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
> >>>>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> >>>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that
> >>>> the even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>
> >> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > No.
> > *These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
> > law.
> > That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
> > the speed limit.
> > In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
> > had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had *a field day in
> > calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
> > way.
>
> How did the film crew keep up? *or was it just a made up TV show challenge
> that did not actually happen the way it was portrayed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bicycle wins Top Gear race
By Rosee Woodland, Commuting editor
Richard Hammond was determined to beat Jeremy Clarkson and co. on his
Specialized (© Top Gear)
UK motoring show Top Gear has dented its anti-bike image after a
cyclist won a commuter race filmed for the programme.

Popular presenter Richard Hammond, who narrowly escaped death after a
288mph crash last year, took his life in his hands again to bike
across London.

The contest saw Hammond race fellow show hosts Jeremy Clarkson and
James May, along with programme driver The Stig to get to City Airport
first. And the 37-year old beat his fellow competitors by some 15
minutes.

Clarkson, who travelled by speedboat came second, The Stig arrived
third after taking the Tube, and May came in last, after paying the
congestion charge to crawl across the capital in a 5.5litre Mercedes
ML500 SUV.

As he pelted through the Blackwall Tunnel Hammond, told viewers, "I've
got 19mph showing on my little speedo here. I've got to keep that up.
I feel sick."

Meanwhile, zooming under Wandsworth Bridge in a Cougar speedboat a
confident Clarkson yelled, "Okay Hammond and May, live with this!"

But he didn't know that "The Hamster" was a mere eight miles from the
airport, while Clarkson still had 17 to go. And his faster speed
didn't help him in the end.

Hammond was simply determined to come first. "I've got to beat Jeremy
and I cannot be beaten by James," he muttered to himself as he
undertook a row of lorries in a narrow cycle lane.

And Clarkson was forced to eat his words when he arrived at the
airport to find Hammond already checked in and relaxing in the first
class lounge.

"You've killed Top Gear", he lamented.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-wins-top-gear-race-13142

--
Simon Mason

JNugent[_7_]

November 11th 10, 05:53 PM

On 11/11/2010 14:41, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman"<davidno-spam-
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump& break traffic laws to make up for
>>>>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>>>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>>>>>> vehicles slower than them.
>>
>>>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>>>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
>>>>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
>>>>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
>>>>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>>
>>>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
>>>> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>
>> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?

> No.

> These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
> law.
> That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
> the speed limit.
> In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
> had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
> calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
> way.

So bloomin' what?

What percentage of real world journeys fits into such contrived circumstances
and restrictions?

Traffic in Inner London in particular is deliberately hobbled by the
authorities so low average speeds (always notice weasel words and phrases -
"average" being one here) are experienced there.

It's like arging that a bike can get to Covent Garden from Waterloo quicker
than a car. Of course it can - the cyclist is allowed to cross straight off
the bridge into Drury Lane for a start.

The real test would be something like Acton to Beaconsfield, Romford to
Colchester or Enfield to Royston. Or even Liverpool to Manchester.

Do you think a push-bike would win any of those (except on odd occasuions
when the M40, A12, A1/A10 or A580/M62 were closed)?

Alright, let's make the journey shorter...

Warrington to St Helens. Brentwood to Romford. Croydon to Coulsdon.

What would win those, do you think?

JMS

November 11th 10, 05:57 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:02:56 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
>>
>> >Why not?
>> >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
>> >no bother with them at all.
>> >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
>> >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
>> >at their stop line.
>>
>> So another case where you routinely break the law?
>
>I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
>line.
>I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
>and then remount.
>All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.
>
>Out of interest, where do I otherwise break the law?

You do not know that the cars who missed the first line broke the law;
if you think that you do - then please explain how you *know*.

If you genuinely only go beyond your stop line by carrying the bike -
which I doubt - otherwise you would have said that originally - I have
no reason to believe that you break the law.

I know that you are quite inconsiderate to other road users as you
insist on riding at speeds greater than the speed limit -and even brag
about it.

If you always get off and carry your bike over the ASL - then you
confirm that you really are a sad *******.

I bet we are not inundated by other ****wits admitting that they do
the same.

--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

JMS

November 11th 10, 05:58 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:58:58 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 11:06*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 9:02*pm, Simon Mason > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:
>>
>> > > >Why not?
>> > > >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
>> > > >no bother with them at all.
>> > > >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
>> > > >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
>> > > >at their stop line.
>>
>> > > So another case where you routinely break the law?
>>
>> > I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
>> > line.
>> > I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
>> > and then remount.
>>
>> Get away, go on pull the other pne, it's got bells on it.
>>
>> > All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.
>>
>> Abandoning the controls of a vehicle on the public highway, are you
>> sure that is legal?
>>
>
>Perfectly.
>On the rare occasions I have to use a zebra crossing, I will dismount
>and carry my cycle across as a pedestrian.
>Not a particularly difficult task.

What a tosser - why not walk with the bike at the your side?

--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 06:09 PM

On Nov 11, 5:57*pm, JMS > wrote:

>
> You do not know that the cars who missed the first line broke the law;
> if you think that you do - then please explain how you *know*.

Because I am in the ASL with my front wheel resting on the stop line
and a car draws alongside.
The red light has been on for some time and they have therefore jumped
the red light.
In order to maintain the gap I should have had, I have to carry my
bike over the stop line to get the 4 metres head start that the box
had been designed to give me.

> If you genuinely only go beyond your stop line by carrying the bike -
> which I doubt - otherwise you would have said that originally - I have
> no reason to believe that you break the law.
>
> I know that you are quite inconsiderate to other road users as you
> insist on riding at speeds greater than the speed limit -and even brag
> about it.

So not actually breaking the law then.

>
> If you always get off and carry your bike over the ASL - then you
> confirm that you really are a sad *******.

Sad, but law abiding.

--
Simon Mason

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 06:17 PM

On Nov 11, 5:53*pm, JNugent > wrote:

> Alright, let's make the journey shorter...
>
> Warrington to St Helens. Brentwood to Romford. Croydon to Coulsdon.
>
> What would win those, do you think?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cyclists will usually be at an advantage in rush hour intra city
traffic whereas cars will usually be quicker on inter city journeys.

--
Simon Mason

Tony Dragon

November 11th 10, 06:18 PM

On 11/11/2010 08:02, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
>> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>
> How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

So nothing to do with the cyclist then, always somebody else.

If you jumped into a pool of sharks, it would be the sharks fault.

--
Tony Dragon

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 06:49 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:41:20 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 12:35*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>> > On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> Simon Mason wrote:
>> >>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>> >>>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
>> >>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>> >>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>> >>>> vehicles slower than them.
>>
>> >>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>> >>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
>> >>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
>> >>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
>> >>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>>
>> >> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
>> >> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>
>> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>No.
> These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
>law.
>That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
>the speed limit.
>In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
>had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
>calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
>way.

The River Thames has, I think, a 12 knot speed limit upstream of
Greenwich, this is further reduced to 8 knots upsteam of Wandsworth
Bridge and 4 knots upsteam of Teddington Lock.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 06:53 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:14:17 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>As he pelted through the Blackwall Tunnel Hammond, told viewers, "I've
>got 19mph showing on my little speedo here. I've got to keep that up.
>I feel sick."

So he did break the law. Though someone may have confused the
Blackwall and Rotherhithe Tunnels.

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 11th 10, 06:57 PM

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up
>>>>>>>>> for the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>>>>>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are
>>>>>>>> passing vehicles slower than them.
>>
>>>>>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>>>>>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because
>>>>>>> they are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they
>>>>>>> proceed at much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue
>>>>>>> jump in an atempt to make up for the pathic speed they maintain
>>>>>>> overall.
>>
>>>>>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that
>>>>>> the even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>
>>>> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> No.
>>> These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
>>> law.
>>> That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
>>> the speed limit.
>>> In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
>>> had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
>>> calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a
>>> long way.
>>
>> How did the film crew keep up? or was it just a made up TV show
>> challenge that did not actually happen the way it was portrayed?-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bicycle wins Top Gear race
> By Rosee Woodland, Commuting editor
> Richard Hammond was determined to beat Jeremy Clarkson and co. on his
> Specialized (© Top Gear)
> UK motoring show Top Gear has dented its anti-bike image after a
> cyclist won a commuter race filmed for the programme.
>
> Popular presenter Richard Hammond, who narrowly escaped death after a
> 288mph crash last year, took his life in his hands again to bike
> across London.
>
> The contest saw Hammond race fellow show hosts Jeremy Clarkson and
> James May, along with programme driver The Stig to get to City Airport
> first. And the 37-year old beat his fellow competitors by some 15
> minutes.
>
> Clarkson, who travelled by speedboat came second, The Stig arrived
> third after taking the Tube, and May came in last, after paying the
> congestion charge to crawl across the capital in a 5.5litre Mercedes
> ML500 SUV.
>
> As he pelted through the Blackwall Tunnel Hammond, told viewers, "I've
> got 19mph showing on my little speedo here. I've got to keep that up.
> I feel sick."
>
> Meanwhile, zooming under Wandsworth Bridge in a Cougar speedboat a
> confident Clarkson yelled, "Okay Hammond and May, live with this!"
>
> But he didn't know that "The Hamster" was a mere eight miles from the
> airport, while Clarkson still had 17 to go. And his faster speed
> didn't help him in the end.
>
> Hammond was simply determined to come first. "I've got to beat Jeremy
> and I cannot be beaten by James," he muttered to himself as he
> undertook a row of lorries in a narrow cycle lane.
>
> And Clarkson was forced to eat his words when he arrived at the
> airport to find Hammond already checked in and relaxing in the first
> class lounge.
>
> "You've killed Top Gear", he lamented.
>
> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-wins-top-gear-race-13142

very odd, I understood there was no cycling allowed in the Blackwall tunnel

Marc[_5_]

November 11th 10, 07:11 PM

On 11/11/2010 06:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman"<davidno-spam-
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump& break traffic laws to make up for the
>>>> very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>>
>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>>> vehicles slower than them.
>>
>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they are
>> obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at much faster
>> rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt to make up for the
>> pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> even more pathetic speed of motorists.
Or Cardiff.

A week last Wednesday from Gabalfa to the castle my Average speed was
the same as the car that first passed me.
On Monday after 3 miles of Newport road I was within 25yrds of the car I
was alongside at thelights at the bottom of Rumney Hill
Last night a bus and I swapped places on the road all along Newport
road, until he decided to ignore the red light , ironically the junction
outside the "Blind Institute"

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 11th 10, 07:35 PM

On Nov 11, 6:49*pm, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:41:20 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Simon Mason wrote:
> >> > On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> Simon Mason wrote:
> >> >>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> >> >>>> > wrote:
>
> >> >>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
> >> >>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>
> >> >>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
> >> >>>> vehicles slower than them.
>
> >> >>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>
> >> >>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
> >> >>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
> >> >>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
> >> >>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>
> >> >> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
> >> >> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>
> >> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >No.
> > These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
> >law.
> >That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
> >the speed limit.
> >In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
> >had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had *a field day in
> >calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
> >way.
>
> The River Thames has, I think, a 12 knot speed limit upstream of
> Greenwich, this is further reduced to 8 knots upsteam of Wandsworth
> Bridge and 4 knots upsteam of Teddington Lock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Clarkson broke the law then. His speedboat was doing 20mph.

--
Simon Mason

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 07:40 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:57:42 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up
>>>>>>>>>> for the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are
>>>>>>>>> passing vehicles slower than them.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because
>>>>>>>> they are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they
>>>>>>>> proceed at much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue
>>>>>>>> jump in an atempt to make up for the pathic speed they maintain
>>>>>>>> overall.
>>>
>>>>>>> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that
>>>>>>> the even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>> That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>>
>>>>> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted
>>>>> text -
>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
>>>> law.
>>>> That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
>>>> the speed limit.
>>>> In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
>>>> had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had a field day in
>>>> calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a
>>>> long way.
>>>
>>> How did the film crew keep up? or was it just a made up TV show
>>> challenge that did not actually happen the way it was portrayed?-
>>> Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Bicycle wins Top Gear race
>> By Rosee Woodland, Commuting editor
>> Richard Hammond was determined to beat Jeremy Clarkson and co. on his
>> Specialized (© Top Gear)
>> UK motoring show Top Gear has dented its anti-bike image after a
>> cyclist won a commuter race filmed for the programme.
>>
>> Popular presenter Richard Hammond, who narrowly escaped death after a
>> 288mph crash last year, took his life in his hands again to bike
>> across London.
>>
>> The contest saw Hammond race fellow show hosts Jeremy Clarkson and
>> James May, along with programme driver The Stig to get to City Airport
>> first. And the 37-year old beat his fellow competitors by some 15
>> minutes.
>>
>> Clarkson, who travelled by speedboat came second, The Stig arrived
>> third after taking the Tube, and May came in last, after paying the
>> congestion charge to crawl across the capital in a 5.5litre Mercedes
>> ML500 SUV.
>>
>> As he pelted through the Blackwall Tunnel Hammond, told viewers, "I've
>> got 19mph showing on my little speedo here. I've got to keep that up.
>> I feel sick."
>>
>> Meanwhile, zooming under Wandsworth Bridge in a Cougar speedboat a
>> confident Clarkson yelled, "Okay Hammond and May, live with this!"
>>
>> But he didn't know that "The Hamster" was a mere eight miles from the
>> airport, while Clarkson still had 17 to go. And his faster speed
>> didn't help him in the end.
>>
>> Hammond was simply determined to come first. "I've got to beat Jeremy
>> and I cannot be beaten by James," he muttered to himself as he
>> undertook a row of lorries in a narrow cycle lane.
>>
>> And Clarkson was forced to eat his words when he arrived at the
>> airport to find Hammond already checked in and relaxing in the first
>> class lounge.
>>
>> "You've killed Top Gear", he lamented.
>>
>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-wins-top-gear-race-13142
>
>very odd, I understood there was no cycling allowed in the Blackwall tunnel

It would seem that Bikeradar was lying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkOzNK4l8KY

JNugent[_7_]

November 11th 10, 08:06 PM

On 11/11/2010 18:17, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:53 pm, > wrote:
>
>> Alright, let's make the journey shorter...
>>
>> Warrington to St Helens. Brentwood to Romford. Croydon to Coulsdon.
>>
>> What would win those, do you think?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Cyclists will usually be at an advantage in rush hour intra city
> traffic whereas cars will usually be quicker on inter city journeys.

On *some* rush hour intra-city journeys. Certainly not on all. The use of the
word "usually" suggests you think that it would be the majority. I don't
think that's true.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 08:10 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:35:33 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 6:49*pm, Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:41:20 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Nov 11, 12:35 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> >> Simon Mason wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 11, 6:36 am, Tom Crispin > wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:56:15 -0000, "The Medway Handyman"
>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>> Simon Mason wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Nov 10, 9:23 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
>> >> >>>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>> Cyclists have to queue jump & break traffic laws to make up for
>> >> >>>>> the very low speed of their non viable form of transport.
>>
>> >> >>>> If they are queue jumping then it stands to reason they are passing
>> >> >>>> vehicles slower than them.
>>
>> >> >>> Which doesn't explain breaking traffic laws of course.
>>
>> >> >>> The vehicles they are passing are temporarily delayed because they
>> >> >>> are obeying traffic lights. Once the lights change they proceed at
>> >> >>> much faster rates than push bikes. Cyclist queue jump in an atempt
>> >> >>> to make up for the pathic speed they maintain overall.
>>
>> >> >> That pathetic speed is, in Inner and Central London, faster that the
>> >> >> even more pathetic speed of motorists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > That's why cyclists regularly win cross city commute challenges.
>>
>> >> and nothing to do with them ignoring all traffic laws?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >No.
>> > These challenges stipulate that all participants must stick to the
>> >law.
>> >That means cyclists cannot run red lights and drivers cannot exceed
>> >the speed limit.
>> >In the Top Gear case, had the cyclist jumped a light, he would have
>> >had a film crew with him and Clarkson would have had *a field day in
>> >calling Hammond a cheat, but the cyclist won fair and square by a long
>> >way.
>>
>> The River Thames has, I think, a 12 knot speed limit upstream of
>> Greenwich, this is further reduced to 8 knots upsteam of Wandsworth
>> Bridge and 4 knots upsteam of Teddington Lock.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Clarkson broke the law then. His speedboat was doing 20mph.

There is contradictory online evidence.
====================
http://www.the-river-thames.co.uk/tidalnav.htm
SPEED LIMIT

Between Teddington and Wandsworth Bridge there is a speed limit of 8
knots through the water. However, even at 8 knots considerable wash
can be created and therefore in the vicinity of smallcraft,
particularly rowing boats, speed should be reduced even further.

Below Wandsworth Bridge there is no limit but speeds should be
relevent to local conditions and adjusted to ensure there is no damage
to persons or property from excessive wash. It is unlikely that speeds
in excess of 10 knots will be appropriate until in Sea Reach. Causing
damage through excessive wash is an offence with a fine up to £2500.
All PLA and Police boats are equipped with Radar Guns.
====================
http://rib.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-8971.html
Q What's the speed limit on the Thames and where can I launch?

A It depends where you are:

The non-tidal river, above Teddington Lock, has a speed limit of 8
kilometres per hour (that's about 5 mph or a bit over 4 knots). This
part of the river is managed by the Evironment Agency, and a licence
is required. See their web site or call 0118 953 5650 for more
information.

On the tidal Thames between Teddington Lock and Wandsworth Bridge
there is a speed limit of 8 knots.

Below Wandsworth Bridge there is no speed limit however the Port of
London Authority like to make it clear that "safe speed depends upon
the local area conditions and should be determined so that there is no
risk of damage to persons or property. Causing damage is an offence,
making the master of a craft liable to prosecution."
====================
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430370-commuters-angry-as-river-speed-limit-is-halved.do
Commuters angry as river speed limit is halved
David Williams, Motoring Editor
02.01.08

The speed limit for boats on the Thames has been halved amid fears of
collisions between the increasing number of fast passenger craft.

All vessels have been ordered by the Port of London Authority to keep
to just 12 knots, down from 24 knots, between Greenwich and central
London.
====================
However, this makes the confusion a little clearer. The 12 knot speed
limit on the lower reaches of the Thames may only apply to passenger
vessels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7169479.stm
New speed limit for River Thames

New regulations have been introduced to restrict the speed of commuter
and tourist boats on the River Thames. A recent increase in the number
of fast vessels on the river prompted the move by the Port of London
Authority (PLA).

Passenger vessels operating in the vicinity of Greenwich and in
central London are now restricted to a maximum speed of 12 knots.
====================
I just happen to have a recent GPS speed reading for the Thames
Clipper service between Canary Wharf and Greenwich.
Midstream Canary Wharf to Greenland Dock - 50.5kph
Midstream Greenland Dock to Masthouse Terrace - 49.5kph
Midstream Masthouse Terrace to Greenwich - 49.7kph

50kph is almost exactly 26 knots.

Squashme

November 11th 10, 08:38 PM

On Nov 11, 6:18*pm, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 08:02, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > *wrote:
> >> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> >> waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> >>http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo....
>
> > How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> > up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> > barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> > BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> > them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> > always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> So nothing to do with the cyclist then, always somebody else.
>
> If you jumped into a pool of sharks, it would be the sharks fault.
>
> --
> Tony Dragon

What would be the shark's fault?

Mrcheerful[_2_]

November 11th 10, 09:18 PM

Squashme wrote:
> On Nov 11, 6:18 pm, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> On 11/11/2010 08:02, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead
>>>> vehicle waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>
>>>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>
>>> How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't
>>> cut- up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are
>>> pedestrian barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>>
>>> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
>>> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they
>>> can always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>> So nothing to do with the cyclist then, always somebody else.
>>
>> If you jumped into a pool of sharks, it would be the sharks fault.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Dragon
>
> What would be the shark's fault?

Cyclists are not bright enough to understand analogies.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 11th 10, 09:22 PM

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:10:35 +0000, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>I just happen to have a recent GPS speed reading for the Thames
>Clipper service between Canary Wharf and Greenwich.
>Midstream Canary Wharf to Greenland Dock - 50.5kph
>Midstream Greenland Dock to Masthouse Terrace - 49.5kph
>Midstream Masthouse Terrace to Greenwich - 49.7kph

http://tinyurl.com/354mm7e from:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?start=170&msa=0&msid=101487817002362502772.000494cd6c09d68e10b25&ll=51.492473,-0.028335

>50kph is almost exactly 26 knots.

Tony Dragon

November 11th 10, 10:23 PM

On 11/11/2010 21:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 6:18 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2010 08:02, Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 10, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>>>>> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead
>>>>> vehicle waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>>>
>>>>> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>>>
>>>> How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't
>>>> cut- up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are
>>>> pedestrian barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>>>
>>>> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
>>>> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they
>>>> can always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>>>
>>>> -- .
>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>>
>>> So nothing to do with the cyclist then, always somebody else.
>>>
>>> If you jumped into a pool of sharks, it would be the sharks fault.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Dragon
>>
>> What would be the shark's fault?
>
> Cyclists are not bright enough to understand analogies.
>
>

As Squasme wants to appear stupid or pedantic (or both?), I will repeat.

If you jumped into a pool of sharks, and were attacked by the sharks, it
would be the sharks fault.

Please do not bother with the smart reply, it will be ignored.

--
Tony Dragon

thirty-six

November 12th 10, 08:47 AM

On Nov 11, 11:58*am, Simon Mason > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:06*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 9:02*pm, Simon Mason > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 8:51*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
> > > > >Why not?
> > > > >On my commute there are no fewer than 14 of these ASLs and I have had
> > > > >no bother with them at all.
> > > > >Apart from when cars are blocking them and I have to go beyond my stop
> > > > >line to get the same start that I would have had if they had stopped
> > > > >at their stop line.
>
> > > > So another case where you routinely break the law?
>
> > > I don't break the law - unlike the cars who have overshot their stop
> > > line.
> > > I get off my bike and carry it the 4 metres forward as a pedestrian
> > > and then remount.
>
> > Get away, go on pull the other pne, it's got bells on it.
>
> > > All perfectly legal as stop lines do not apply to pedestrians.
>
> > Abandoning the controls of a vehicle on the public highway, are you
> > sure that is legal?
>
> Perfectly.
> On the rare occasions I have to use a zebra crossing, I will dismount
> and carry my cycle across as a pedestrian.
> Not a particularly difficult task

That is not what I was questioning. If you 'legally' walk across the
stop line , Ah faggedit
> --
> Simon Mason

thirty-six

November 12th 10, 08:54 AM

On Nov 11, 12:43*am, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:02:03 -0800, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > "skip loader wagon." *- Killer type goods vehicle number 1
>
> > With the wagon unloaded, these are nimble beasts, not for the unwary to
> > go near. * These machines are usually operated to no standard at all,
> > your suggestion of a guard rail is met with muted laughter.
>
> Ok point taken :)
> All the more reason for bicyclists to stay behind them and follow them
> around corners.

Yes, as far as cyclists are concerned those skip wagons should be
considered the work of the devil. Next on the list is probably the
premix lorry, they being confined to a really tight schedule.

>
> --
> 67.4% of statistics are made up.

thirty-six

November 12th 10, 08:57 AM

On Nov 11, 8:02*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>
> How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug, you're an idiot. Get the railings removed if you can, but stoip
making excuses for cyclists attempting to share a 12' lane with an 11'
wide lorry, at a junction. There is nothing in the HC which
recommends this very dangerous practice.

Marc[_5_]

November 12th 10, 09:04 AM

On 12/11/2010 08:57, thirty-six wrote:

>>
>> BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
>> them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
>> always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>>
>> -- .
>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> Doug, you're an idiot.

Yep

thirty-six

November 12th 10, 09:08 AM

On Nov 11, 5:53*pm, JNugent > wrote:

>
> The real test would be something like Acton to Beaconsfield, Romford to
> Colchester or Enfield to Royston. Or even Liverpool to Manchester.

Liv to Man - That would be the fastest rail link in Britain, no
contest. No investigation required.

>
> Do you think a push-bike would win any of those (except on odd occasuions
> when the M40, A12, A1/A10 or A580/M62 were closed)?
>
> Alright, let's make the journey shorter...
>
> Warrington to St Helens. Brentwood to Romford. Croydon to Coulsdon.
>
> What would win those, do you think?

The gyrocopter.

Doug[_3_]

November 12th 10, 10:10 AM

On Nov 12, 8:57*am, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 8:02*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> > >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo....
>
> > How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> > up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> > barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> > BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> > them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> > always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
> >
> Doug, you're an idiot. *Get the railings removed if you can, but stoip
> making excuses for cyclists attempting to share a 12' lane with an 11'
> wide lorry, at a junction. *There is nothing in the HC which
> recommends this very dangerous practice.
>
You mean you don't believe HGV drivers ever cut-up cyclists, kill them
and then are allowed to get away with it? Go read some sources and
learn.

This is yet just another example of victim blaming, when HGVs have
defective mirrors, no side guards fitted and no driver cycle awareness
training.

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

thirty-six

November 12th 10, 07:57 PM

On Nov 12, 10:10*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:57*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:02*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > > > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> > > >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>
> > > How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> > > up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> > > barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> > > BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> > > them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> > > always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> > Doug, you're an idiot. *Get the railings removed if you can, but stoip
> > making excuses for cyclists attempting to share a 12' lane with an 11'
> > wide lorry, at a junction. *There is nothing in the HC which
> > recommends this very dangerous practice.
>
> You mean you don't believe HGV drivers ever cut-up cyclists,

Yes they do, but this is not unique to HGV drivers. I think most
injuries and deaths are totally acidental on behalf of the driver.
There are major visibility and manouvering difficulties when driving
HGVs or even small trucks to which the driver cannot totally overcome
without the co-operation of other road users. The driver really has
not got the time to be looking out for pricks on bicycles (even if he
could see by being fitted with eight mirrors) playing kamikaze down
the inside.

> kill them
> and then are allowed to get away with it?

So shoot the *******s.

> Go read some sources and
> learn.
>
> This is yet just another example of victim blaming, when HGVs have
> defective mirrors, no side guards fitted and no driver cycle awareness
> training.

How about 'victim awareness'? Are you going to blame the met office
because they didn't tell you to put a hat on and your bonce got wet
when it rained?
>
> > > -- .
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug[_3_]

November 14th 10, 09:06 AM

On Nov 12, 7:57*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:10*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:57*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 8:02*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > > > > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> > > > >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>
> > > > How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> > > > up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> > > > barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> > > > BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> > > > them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> > > > always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> > > Doug, you're an idiot. *Get the railings removed if you can, but stoip
> > > making excuses for cyclists attempting to share a 12' lane with an 11'
> > > wide lorry, at a junction. *There is nothing in the HC which
> > > recommends this very dangerous practice.
>
> > You mean you don't believe HGV drivers ever cut-up cyclists,
>
> Yes they do, but this is not unique to HGV drivers. *I think most
> injuries and deaths are totally acidental on behalf of the driver.
>
Trying to call it 'accidental' euphemistically is no excuse. Every
driver knows they are fully capable of killing someone if they don't
take enough care.
>
> There are major visibility and manouvering difficulties when driving
> HGVs or even small trucks to which the driver cannot totally overcome
> without the co-operation of other road users.
>
So you agree they are inherently dangerous?
>
> The driver really has
> not got the time to be looking out for pricks on bicycles (even if he
> could see by being fitted with eight mirrors) playing kamikaze down
> the inside.
>
Ah I see, so its all down to a question of haste then. The driver is
too busy trying to get from A to B regardless to have any concern
about human lives.
>
> > kill them
> > and then are allowed to get away with it?
>
> So shoot the *******s.
>
Give them a proper punishment, like manslaughter, for taking a human
life. Not the watered down equivalents used for drivers, which can
sometimes be avoided completely by victim blaming and claiming, "It
was merely an accident, Sir".
>
> > Go read some sources and
> > learn.
>
> > This is yet just another example of victim blaming, when HGVs have
> > defective mirrors, no side guards fitted and no driver cycle awareness
> > training.
>
> How about 'victim awareness'? *Are you going to blame the met office
> because they didn't tell you to put a hat on and your bonce got wet
> when it rained?
>
If victim awareness was involved the vulnerable would never go near a
pavement or road in the first place. Merely minimising the risk a
little is no insurance against sudden death. Everything lies in the
least vulnerable, aka drivers, taking the most precautions, which they
do not.
>
>
> > > > -- .
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

PeterG

November 14th 10, 09:25 AM

On Nov 14, 9:06*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:57*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:10*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 8:57*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 11, 8:02*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 10, 8:02*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> How many lives could be saved each year if cycling past the lead vehicle
> > > > > > waiting at junctions was made illegal and enforced?
>
> > > > > >http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-cyclist-killed-by-lo...
>
> > > > > How many lives could be saved each year if motor vehicles didn't cut-
> > > > > up cyclists while turning left, especially where there are pedestrian
> > > > > barriers which allow no escape for the cyclist?
>
> > > > > BTW, cyclists don't kill lorry drivers, instead lorry drivers kill
> > > > > them. Still, killers are allowed on our roads aren't they and they can
> > > > > always blame the vulnerable victim to avoid blame themselves.
>
> > > > Doug, you're an idiot. *Get the railings removed if you can, but stoip
> > > > making excuses for cyclists attempting to share a 12' lane with an 11'
> > > > wide lorry, at a junction. *There is nothing in the HC which
> > > > recommends this very dangerous practice.
>
> > > You mean you don't believe HGV drivers ever cut-up cyclists,
>
> > Yes they do, but this is not unique to HGV drivers. *I think most
> > injuries and deaths are totally acidental on behalf of the driver.
>
> Trying to call it *'accidental' euphemistically is no excuse. Every
> driver knows they are fully capable of killing someone if they don't
> take enough care.
>
> > There are major visibility and manouvering difficulties when driving
> > HGVs or even small trucks to which the driver cannot totally overcome
> > without the co-operation of other road users.
>
> So you agree they are inherently dangerous?
>
> > The driver really has
> > not got the time to be looking out for pricks on bicycles (even if he
> > could see by being fitted with eight mirrors) playing kamikaze down
> > the inside.
>
> Ah I see, so its all down to a question of haste then. The driver is
> too busy trying to get from A to B regardless to have any concern
> about human lives.
>
> > > kill them
> > > and then are allowed to get away with it?
>
> > So shoot the *******s.
>
> Give them a proper punishment, like manslaughter, for taking a human
> life. Not the watered down equivalents used for drivers, which can
> sometimes be avoided completely by victim blaming and claiming, "It
> was merely an accident, Sir".
>
> > > Go read some sources and
> > > learn.
>
> > > This is yet just another example of victim blaming, when HGVs have
> > > defective mirrors, no side guards fitted and no driver cycle awareness
> > > training.
>
> > How about 'victim awareness'? *Are you going to blame the met office
> > because they didn't tell you to put a hat on and your bonce got wet
> > when it rained?
>
> If victim awareness was involved the vulnerable would never go near a
> pavement or road in the first place. Merely minimising the risk a
> little is no insurance against sudden death. Everything lies in the
> least vulnerable, aka drivers, taking the most precautions, which they
> do not.
>
>
>
> > > > > -- .
> > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug yet again shows that he does not care for road safety (where
everybody has a part) but only cares about his rights.
He thinks that safety does not include making yourself safe.

thirty-six

November 15th 10, 01:27 AM

On Nov 14, 9:06*am, Doug > wrote:

>
> > Yes they do, but this is not unique to HGV drivers. *I think most
> > injuries and deaths are totally acidental on behalf of the driver.
>
> Trying to call it *'accidental' euphemistically is no excuse. Every
> driver knows they are fully capable of killing someone if they don't
> take enough care.

That does not alter the fact that sometimes drivers cannot be fully
aware of what is happening 360degrees and putting yourself, as a
cyclist, in a stupid position is...

>
> > There are major visibility and manouvering difficulties when driving
> > HGVs or even small trucks to which the driver cannot totally overcome
> > without the co-operation of other road users.
>
> So you agree they are inherently dangerous?

Not as such. The visibilty orf almost any motor carriage is deficient
to that permitted on a bicycle. This, I believe shifts the onus on to
the cyclist to take more care and compensate, by appropriate road
position, for the difficulties that other road users find. If you
want to get killed, put yourself between the wheels of a skip wagon,
it's almost a certainty.
>
> > The driver really has
> > not got the time to be looking out for pricks on bicycles (even if he
> > could see by being fitted with eight mirrors) playing kamikaze down
> > the inside.
>
> Ah I see, so its all down to a question of haste then. The driver is
> too busy trying to get from A to B regardless to have any concern
> about human lives.

Bull****, the operation of the vehicle controls while manouvering
around a tight corner whil e remaining in lane, not mounting the
0pavement, striking road furniture or waiting vehicles along the
intended route mean that concentration cannot be placed on a cyclist
who is not to be there, and should not be anyway. If you pass up the
nearside of a skip truck you must have a deathwish ro be completely
idiotic. (tht fits doesn't it Doug).
>
> > > kill them
> > > and then are allowed to get away with it?
>
> > So shoot the *******s.
>
> Give them a proper punishment, like manslaughter, for taking a human
> life. Not the watered down equivalents used for drivers, which can
> sometimes be avoided completely by victim blaming and claiming, "It
> was merely an accident, Sir".

Camera evidence is increasingly showing intimidation and I hope that
the judicery will punish where this is shown to be true with resulting
injury.
>
> > > Go read some sources and
> > > learn.
>
> > > This is yet just another example of victim blaming, when HGVs have
> > > defective mirrors, no side guards fitted and no driver cycle awareness
> > > training.
>
> > How about 'victim awareness'? *Are you going to blame the met office
> > because they didn't tell you to put a hat on and your bonce got wet
> > when it rained?
>
> If victim awareness was involved the vulnerable would never go near a
> pavement or road in the first place. Merely minimising the risk a
> little is no insurance against sudden death. Everything lies in the
> least vulnerable, aka drivers, taking the most precautions, which they
> do not.

Minimising the risk is minimising the risk and plenty of road users do
little to ensure the safety of themselves or others. It is in the
intrest of self-preservation that I have learnt many techniques in
driving and cycling to avoid conflict on the road.

You on the other hand...
>